He was 19 when he got his then 14 yr old girlfriend pregnant. If that was the only thing he did I would think he was a bit sceazy, but I can see the pardon.
Don't count on it sinking him, though. If one of his Republican challengers jumps on it hard, maybe. I presume that the information known at the time of the pardon was not that contrary to "family values" as understood by Republicans.
For a governor, the presidential primary is kind of like going to the Cobra Kai dojo.
Seems wrong, but not that weird to me. At the time of the pardon, what Pawlenty knew is that the guy was convicted of statutory rape of a fourteen-year-old, but that to the extent the concept is meaningful with a fourteen-year-old the sex was consensual, and they got married later.
I can imagine someone who I'd talk with respectfully here arguing that while an adult man having 'consensual' sex with a fourteen-year-old girl is probably the sort of thing that should be prohibited, it's not diagnostic of any sort of psychological disorder in the man, and it's the sort of relationship that's not necessarily harmful to anyone involved, with a lot of gesturing vaguely at other times and places where there wouldn't have been anything weird about it at all.
Start from that premise (which I'd mostly but not entirely disagree with), and you have Pawlenty thinking that the guy made a mistake, but there's no reason that he's a literal child molester or that he should be kept away from little kids. This looks like a moronic thing to have done now that he's also molested his nine-year-old daughter, but without the benefit of hindsight I don't think it would have looked like a crazy decision.
I have given up trying to predict what will disqualify a Republican.
2: Oh, and I hadn't realized that he was only 19 at the time of the statutory rape. Yeah, it strikes me as a bad decision still, but not even a little weird without later knowledge.
Oh, and I hadn't realized that he was only 19 at the time of the statutory rape
Yeah, Kos kind of left that fact out.
But why do it all though? As a governor of a state, is this really the first stop when righting putative injustices?
As with Huckabee, I'm a little uncomfortable with attacking Republicans for granting clemency.
9. If you're in that sort of head space, you think it's a heart warming act of openness, welcoming the guy back into the community while giving his wife's business plans a break. Could be spun incredibly positively, unless you knew about the daughter, and because it's very much a one-off situation, you don't compromise your lawn order credentials by doing it.
In fact, LB gets it exactly right.
I could tweak the facts to make it sound really sympathetic -- there are states where the age of consent is 18 (although I don't know that there are any states where it's 18 and there's no R&J exemption). Eighteen-year-old boy born in August gets his September-born seventeen-year-old girlfriend pregnant during the three weeks they're not the same age, and an unreasonable prosecutor puts him on a lifelong sex offender registry for it, making it impossible, ten years later, for his wife to earn a living in her chosen profession? That'd be a solid candidate for a pardon, I'd think.
Nineteen and fourteen makes it sound skeezy enough that I don't find the prosecution unreasonable at all, and it wouldn't be on my personal list for a pardon, but it's not really a bright-line difference from a case I would find sympathetic.
9: Obviously this case wasn't, but the general idea that a governor cannot show anything less than uncompromising vigilance against criminals has probably caused worse problems (e.g., I'm running for president so I'd better have an execution.) As long as nobody gets a picture of him riding a tank, he may be O.K.
(On preview, 10 says what I was trying to say better, but I'm going to say it anyway.)
9, 11: And if you look at the article linked via Kos, there is a list of some twenty-odd pardons that he apparently granted on two different days in 2008. I suspect they are all at some level political favors compiled by aides from around the state and presented in a quick session with the tacit understanding that the aides have done due diligence.
Generally, anyone have any idea who's going to come out of the Republican primaries? My guess has been either Pawlenty or Huntsman, solely because I don't know anything about either of them, and everyone I do know something about seems absolutely impossible.
Yeah, ok, no arguments on the general principles here: our justice system is needlessly brutal and guided by hysteria, etc, etc. Boy is 19 and girl is 17, fine. But try and remember what it was like for a moment to be 19. Now imagine one of your peers is fucking a 14 year old. That goes just a bit beyond skeezy, I think. It doesn't seem an unreasonable request for such people not to run daycares in their homes. We don't all get to fulfill our career dreams, after all.
Hermain Cain? I have fond memories of eating at Godfather's Pizza.
I'll go out on a limb and say that a 19 year old sleeping with a 14 year old girlfriend is not just bad judgement, but a warning sign that the person is a sexual predator of the exact sort he turned out to be. You'd think that when considering clemency, the governor and the parole board would have been able to identify other warning signs that could have prevented this from happening.
Instead, they were fooled by religiously-backed belief that marriage can magically turn sexual predation and sexual predators into perfectly acceptable behavior and people.
I guess I should click through and see if it says anywhere, but on the face of it I'm just curious why this guy in particular got a pardon. People come through here all the time getting charged with statutory rape for consensual stuff across a less skeezy age difference, and I'm guessing none of them get pardoned.
16, 18: I think you're both right. But a 19/14 age gap is something where I think someone who disagreed with me, and both of you, and the relevant state legislature, and the prosecution in the individual case was wrong, but not batshit crazy or particularly far outside the mainstream in his opinions.
a 19 year old sleeping with a 14 year old girlfriend is not just bad judgement, but a warning sign that the person is a sexual predator
Well now, come on. Here's what was presented to Pawlenty: a 19-year-old had a 14-year-old girlfriend and got her pregnant in 1993, serving 45 days in jail for statutory rape and getting put on the sex offenders registry. *Fifteen years later*, he's still married to the woman, they're raising kids together, and he's had no other legal problems since. His request for a pardon includes letters of support from a local judge and a local criminal investigator.
20: What Rob said. They got married and stayed together, which probably meant to the decisionmaker on the pardon that it was family-values-approved decent behavior in retrospect, even if it looked skeevy at the outset.
Two of my best friends got together at 18 and 15. They are happily married and have three great kids. I'm not saying that 19/14 is quite the same thing, but still.
12: However, given the later developments, I wouldn't be surprised if there were not some facts from the earlier conviction that were not all that innocent. A quick search returns, "Jeremy Giefer was sexually assaulting mother of out-of-wedlock child during pardon application". This was a next-door neighbor with whom he had an affair but, Although they had broken up, Giefer wouldn't leave Kruse alone. Starting in September 2008, Kruse alleges in court documents, Giefer regularly invaded her home to make lewd advances. Once again, facts "not known" at the time of the pardon.
Well, given what we know now, 25 seems likely. But apo's 22 gets it right w/r/t a pardon.
Which is not to say that 19/14 relationships are in any way a good idea, and clearly this turned out very badly. And we all know that any Democratic governor would be getting crucified for this. But still.
I'm not saying that 19/14 is quite the same thing, but still.
19/14 is college sophomore/middle school student.
28: Or a high school senior/freshman.
After 25, I wonder if it might be plausible to blame Pawlenty (or really, his administration) for lack of due diligence. 22's basically what I've been arguing, but the argument there is really "So there's no reason to think that this old conviction means there's anything sexually inappropriate about the guy at all." I don't know what standard practices are for a pardon, but there's an argument that they shouldn't have relied on his ability to stay out of the court system and to get a couple of people to write him letters, and should instead have had someone affirmatively investigate him, which sounds as if it would have turned some stuff up.
My views on this are probably skewed by the fact that I knew a lot of people at 14 who were having sex. I agree that a 19/14 relationship is generally a very bad idea, but there are scenarios in which I can imagine it being genuinely consensual and non-horrible. Maybe I'm wrong.
18. There's 14 year olds and 14 year olds. Did the guy know she was 14? Not necessarily obvious. When I was 18/19 there was a 14 year old who threw herself at me quite hard. I knew her only as a peripheral member of the group I hung with, who smoked our hash and liked our music. There was no label on her which said, "I am a precocious 14 year old, keep off".
Nothing happened, because fortunately someone tipped me off, but if it had I wouldn't have been aware there was a problem till after the event.
In this case the guy may well have known, given his subsequent behaviour, but this assumes facts not in evidence.
I knew a lot of people at 14 who were having sex
Californians.
Seriously, I can imagine there being nothing terribly wrong with such a relationship, but I think the odds are extremely low.
There are conceivable scenarios where it's not horrible, but the question is why does the governor of Minnesota personally intervene in the situation, to allow the couple to open a daycare of all things? Presumably there are several tens of thousands of misdemeanour pot possession cases to pardon first...?
Seriously, I can imagine there being nothing terribly wrong with such a relationship, but I think the odds are extremely low.
Yes, but I can also imagine plenty going much more terribly wrong by routinely extending punishments for it into middle age.
why does the governor of Minnesota personally intervene
Pardon requests go to the governor. He didn't initiate it.
35: Exactly because they wanted to open a daycare. If you bought the "Fifteen years later, we can tell this guy isn't a child molester" argument, his wife is now shut out of a method of earning a living in a way that wouldn't apply to a misdemeanor pot possession case -- the pardon is practically useful in this case in a way it wouldn't have been otherwise.
Looking at the timeline, I'm kind of shocked that the incident where the police had to tell him not to beat his son didn't foreclose the pardon, admittedly.
This article/blog post quotes a news story from the early '90s case. Nothing really in it that cannot be gleaned from the timeline apo posted. Apparently his wife is in some hot water for helping him subsequently get in touch with the daughter.
39.last. Whether or not, it should certainly have precluded the day care on its own.
Those family values conservatives are big into corporal punishment. They probably read the son-clocking as a positive.
Whether or not, it should certainly have precluded the day care on its own.
The original offense should have precluded it!
"We may beat the kids, but we don't sleep with them" would be a good mission statement for a day care.
it should certainly have precluded the day care on its own
Mmm, maybe. He wasn't going to be working in the daycare center. He was operating a towing company. If I'm understanding it all, she was already operating a daycare center in a neighboring building and just wanted to move it into their house.
...and just wanted to move it into their house.
Where, presumably, the man in question lives.
35, 39: the question is why does the governor of Minnesota personally intervene in the situation
I am 99% sure there is some kind of political angle as well. Probably nothing dramatic, just some local level party stuff--I'd guess via his wife's family. One of the commissioners who sent a letter on his behalf (and knew about the incident with his son) now says he was "duped". Giefer has also been able to make some pretty hefty bail ($350,000).
I hope it's clear that I'm not trying to defend this guy. I'm just saying that the case looks very different in retrospect than it did when it hit the Parole Board and Pawlenty's desks.
46: Yeah, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to say that a day-care center shouldn't be in the domicile of a person who's been involved in the legal system for hitting children, even if he only lives there and isn't paid by the day-care center.
Just look at the guy: a skeezy redhead. That should have been enough of a clue.
49: I do think there is a good case to be made for lack of due diligence.
49: Absolutely, that's clear. I am surprised that they either missed the child-hitting incident or didn't think it made the situation too complicated for a pardon, but in the absence of that I wouldn't be surprised by the pardon at all.
Yeah, I mean, if all you knew about was the original offense (which sounds like it came fairly close to being the least-punishable category of statutory rape in minnesota) and you were a family values conservative who took a positive view of corporal punishment, I could easily see reading this file and thinking "well, this woman is being punished for the long-ago sins of her husband when she was supposed to be the victim in the first place."
In general, I think a great deal more pardoning should be happening.
Also, more Tasering, but I'm not very proud of that impulse.
Personally I would argue having appeared on Sally Jessy Raphael should disqualify them from having any kind of daycare service, but I realize that's probably a bridge too far.
And don't forget the acid-throwing, Moby.
Yeesh, don't go to Pumpkinland, ladies.
If you're Pawlenty, you're glad to get this story out there now. By the time the first voters go to the polls, it will be "old news", and he will be able to get by with refusing to comment further.
I would be mildly surprised if this becomes a major issue in the campaign. Not that I think that GOP candidates would scruple to run ads about it. Just that I don't expect T-Paw to be in the front-runner position that would attract that kind of doomsday attack. Or, if he ever does take the lead after winning a few early primaries, the party elite will have his back and bat the story down -- lest the attacks fatally wound the eventual nominee.
[All this should be read in the context of my miserable record as a political prognosticator.]
We may beat the kids, but we don't sleep with them" would be a good mission statement for a day care.
Don't spare the rod, but spare the rod.
Anyone have a good idea of who's going to win the Republican primary? I've been betting on either Pawlenty or Huntsman, but that's only because I don't know anything about either of them, and all the candidates I think I do know something about seem as if they couldn't possibly win.
A Republican friend suggested that Ryan might jump in, but I haven't heard that elsewhere.
Anyone have a good idea of who's going to win the Republican primary?
Some asshole.
Either Romney or somebody who isn't yet in the field. I've been expecting the party elders to find some retired general to run.
On Intrade, Herman Cain is just a nose higher than Michele Bachman.
At some point I convinced myself that Romney might actually pull it out, but after the spectacle of Gingrich having to run around and suck Ryan's and Limbaugh's dick after actually saying something sane about the Ryan budget, I don't think Mitt can survive the primaries.
My money is on Pawlenty, as he is probably the most milquetoast of the candidates, and thus the most acceptable to all factions of the Republican party.
I keep on thinking that total responsibility for the Mass. law that's the model for Obamacare locks Romney out. Maybe he can get past that, but I don't see how.
Or what about that guy from 9/11, Rudy Giuliani? He might have a better shot if he does not ignore New Hampshire like he did last time.
69: I think that he could handle that by shouting "Federalism" loudly and hoping that a bunch of the primary voters would be thinking about viability for the general election and his hair.
69: Yes, and I don't think the big money guys/pundits will really jump on his bandwagon--the Massachusetts/Obamacare guy probably wouldn't do wonders for down race turnout. The Rove wing knows the Presidency is only in play if something really unexpectedly bad for Obama happens.
Is Santorum really running? He seems like he could the primary. He has a conservative record, is more telegenic than Pawlenty, doesn't have the baggage of Romney, and I doubt the ways he's a national joke have penetrated the consciousness of Republican primary voters. Though I do like the idea of people saying "I like the sound of this Santorum fellow. Let me Google him and learn more."
I've been expecting the party elders to find some retired general to run.
Oh, please, let them field Tommy Franks. Or Ricardo Sanchez, the genius who brought you Abu Ghraib.
Bleah. He seems like he could win the primary.
70: I've been saying this since 2004, but he's just too loathsome, and not in the right way to appeal to Republicans outside NYC. No one left of [Godwin violation omitted] likes his politics, and anyone outside of an East Coast megalopolis who's even a little susceptible to disliking liberal coastal elites is going to hate him for his New Yorkiness. What's left when you eliminate those two classes of people you could get in a high school gymnasium.
Or Ricardo Sanchez, the genius who brought you Abu Ghraib.
Abu Ghraib they could probably persuade the base to ignore; the hispanic name, not so much.
the hispanic name, not so much.
That reminds me of Jon' Stewart's joke about Bill Richardson.
Giuliani can only extend his records for $s and media attention per actual vote cast. I think Santorum is out as well. Jeez, Nikki Haley would probably be their best candidate, and at a minimum will get attention for VP.
Romney, like John McCain and Bob Dole, is the establishment candidate who has waited his turn. Those candidates have traditionally done very well in Republican primaries*. Huntsman and Pawlenty are running to establish name recognition for their 2016 campaigns, when either might conceivably have a chance.
*The wild card in all this is that all of the early GOP primaries will assign delegates proportionally this cycle, so it's going to be harder for a plurality candidate like McCain to cement frontrunner status and knock out candidates with weak funding. Under 2008 rules, it would be Romney in a walk.
81.1: Yeah, I know this is true, I'm just stuck on the health care thing. I suppose I'll know by this time next year.
81: Speaking of which, I think Bob Dole is still alive.
And thanks to Viagra, still virile.
Does the road to the Republican nomination run through Roger Ailes? Relevant Steve Benen post.
80: I don't know about the rest, but I also don't see how Santorum can win. He isn't getting any local attention.
I think it'll come down to Romney or Pawlenty.
For all his health care plan problems, Romney is still the strongest candidate in terms of existing poll numbers, campaign infrastructure and money. With all that, conservative elites either can't stand him or think he's acceptable but are actively looking for a more orthodox choice.
Someone upthread mentioned it, and I agree -- Pawlenty's most powerful asset is his inoffensiveness. Yes, he's a conservative who was elected in a blue state (like Romney), but he actually governed as a (more or less) conservative (contra Romney). Pawlenty's got a cap and trade problem (he once supported the idea), but he's recanted in full, claims to have been snookered by bad data, and seems in the clear for now.
Huntsman has taken too many non-doctrinaire positions in the past: for cap and trade (now against), for civil unions for gays and lesbians (still for), for a larger stimulus package (wanted more tax cuts & other goodies). In a field of rigid conservatives, even the media fluffing currently underway can only take Huntsman so far. Plus he has called President Obama "a remarkable leader" (and he underlined remarkable).
Romney's money and infrastructure vs. Pawlenty's doctrinaire conservatism and plain-spoken manner. My money's on Pawlenty.
[NOTE: Sarah Palin's entry into the race takes all bets off the board.]
President Pawlenty sounds like a cartoon character.
I think Mormon + Romneycare is going to bury Romney ("Mormon" + "transparent hack" alone might have been survivable). My guess would be Pawlenty or a late entry from someone like Rick Perry.
Way back in 10: As with Huckabee, I'm a little uncomfortable with attacking Republicans for granting clemency.
Normally I'd agree with you, but the Wayne DuMond case is explicable to me only as Huckabee pardoning a murderous rapist because the right-wing media was convinced that Bill Clinton was up to shenanigans and that DuMond has been saved. It's really appalling, and the facts at the time were just as appalling.
AMENDMENT TO 88:
The last bit can be interpreted to mean that Sarah Palin had actually entered the race, which has obviously not happened.
Yet.
84: A genuinely funny guy when he wasn't following some political script. His longest legacy might be, "History buffs probably noted the reunion at a Washington party a few weeks ago of three ex-presidents: Carter, Ford and Nixon - See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Evil."
What do people think of Huntsman? From the little I have heard about him he seems like the least crazy possible nominee, but what I have heard isn't that much.
94: I still always picture him as the prof from "The Paper Chase."
94 - He would be the least bad Republican president, but I can't imagine how being rich and super anti-abortion overcomes the "Mormon" + "directly worked for Obama and said nice things about him" factors in the primary. My guess is that he's positioning himself for 2016. (What he really should be doing is running for Senate in Utah.)
Huntsman worries Democrats because he's the sort of Republican that appeals to moderate Democrats. My guess is that his appeal to the 2012 GOP nominating base is very limited.
94: What do people think of Huntsman?
People? Or Republicans?
I don't think this sinks Pawlenty's candidacy since it isn't exactly floating right now. He only seems plausible because of all the others. But he's been running for a year and most people haven't heard of him.
The interest in this story is Kiefer. The DSK of redneck Minnesota. And constantly being excused, too.
People? Or Republicans?
I actually meant people here. He seemed not horrible which surprised me for a Republican nominee this cycle. I also assumed that meant he couldn't win.
100: I think that assumption is a safe one.
Or Ricardo Sanchez, the genius who brought you Abu Ghraib.
Running for Senate in Texas. As a Democrat. Recruited by the national party.
Palin has no interest in holding public office.
A genuinely funny guy when he wasn't following some political script.
Oh Lord, yes. For instance, his answer when asked (in 1976) why he wanted to be Vice President: "Well, the work's indoors, and there's no heavy lifting."
103: That may very well be, but that won't stop her from *running* for public office if it helps keep the money train running.
102: good grief. I am dumbfounded by that. Are they hoping that the Hispanic name will pull in their base? That voters will overlook the fact that he was the most incompetent US general since Westmoreland?
I think her distaste for office is enough to keep her from running, but you're right that it's a separate point.
Are they hoping that the Hispanic name will pull in their base?
Yes.
That voters will overlook the fact that he was the most incompetent US general since Westmoreland?
How dare you suggest that someone who's risen to the rank of GENERAL is incompetent. I'd like to see you tell him that to his face, you pansy.
Every candidate has at least one reason they can't win the nomination. My guess is that money and name recognition will break that tie, and that puts wind at the backs of Romney and Palin. But I still don't believe that Palin has any interest in running, as opposed to interest in looking interested in running so as to keep her Sarah! cottage industry afloat. She already has the job she wants.
Are they hoping that the Hispanic name will pull in their base?
With that name, they could get two completely different bases.
But who's going to vote for Romney? Either he somehow gets lots of swing voters to go out of their way to register Republican and vote for him, or he gets no votes. He has zero appeal to the Republican base, which is why he got his ass kicked so thoroughly in 2008. Anyone who would vote for Romney would vote for Obama, so why would they bother to get out and vote for Romney?
Well now, come on. Here's what was presented to Pawlenty: a 19-year-old had a 14-year-old girlfriend and got her pregnant in 1993, serving 45 days in jail for statutory rape and getting put on the sex offenders registry. *Fifteen years later*, he's still married to the woman, they're raising kids together, and he's had no other legal problems since. His request for a pardon includes letters of support from a local judge and a local criminal investigator.
I want people like this getting pardons so I have a difficult time being harsh on him.
Of course, if a Dem had done this pardon, their campaign would be over.
My sense is that name recognition is way overrated. If you hang out in Iowa enough everyone in Iowa will know your name. If you do well in Iowa, then in a couple of days you'll be as famous as a finalist in American Idol.
If you hang out in Iowa enough everyone in Iowa will know your name.
Which worked so well for Howard Dean. Romney is the John Kerry of the 2012 Republicans.
94: Huntsman looks good on paper but he comes off as a pathological liar when he speaks. I saw him on George Stephanopoulos and I went from being open minded to massively disappointed. George asks him about sending a thank you letter to Obama where he called Obama a "remarkable leader." George asks him if he still thinks Obama is a remarkable leader. Instead of saying yes, he says he wrote that as a kindness to Obama.
Also, he's completely evasive about being Mormon. He should either say he's no longer a Mormon or he is a Mormon. Instead he said "Today, there are 13 million Mormons. It's a very diverse and heterogeneous cross-section of people. And you're going to find a lot of different attitudes and a lot of different opinions in that 13 million. And I probably add to that diversity somewhat."
good grief. I am dumbfounded by that. Are they hoping that the Hispanic name will pull in their base?
I still put this in the "I'll believe it when I see it" file, but the theory of the case is that if Obama is a sure shot for re-election, why not invest $20M into contesting Texas, hoping for a close second or an upset win, maybe pulling Sanchez across the finish line for a Senate upset, and building up the Dem organization to be competitive as the state's electorate becomes majority-minority (which is IIRC already true of the population as a whole).
114: It worked fine for Dean. He didn't end up losing because voters didn't know who he was. He lost because the Democratic voters judged that a war veteran with an unimpeachable record of service would be a better candidate during wartime.
he got his ass kicked so thoroughly in 2008
Sort of. In chronological order:
Iowa - 2nd place (Huckabee 35-24)
Wyoming - 1st
New Hampshire - 2nd (McCain 37-32)
Michigan - 1st
Nevada - 1st
South Carolina - 4th
Florida - 2nd (McCain 36-31)
Maine - 1st
Then came Super Tuesday. Romney won AK, CO, MA, MN, MT, ND, and UT; McCain won AZ, CA, CT, DE, IL, MO, NJ, NY, and OK. And Romney suspended his campaign two days later.
118: In other words, Iowa voters very self-consciously decided to vote for somebody can win the national election. If the Republicans think the same (and I have no idea if they will), that would seem to bode well for Romney.
If the kiddy fiddler don't get you, the church-robbing Ponzi artist will. Nice friends Pawlenty's got. Fork time?
Cokie Roberts announced on NPR today that the candidate would be either Romney, Pawlenty or Huntsman. No one else is entering the race and no one of the other current candidates can win.
I take Cokie's pronouncements to be the official Decree of the Washington Establishment. So that's that.
Huh, he did better than I expected. He can be expected to win Nevada again, but other than that I don't see how he does as well. His problem is that he's a moderate Republican, but Obama is also a moderate Republican who's been presented as a socialist. If you think Obama is a socialist, you're not going to vote for Romney, and if you don't think Obama is a socialist, then what do you need Romney for? Who out there is going to think that Obama is too far left, but Romney is just right?
123: But Obama is a Democrat born in Keyna.
123: As a political prognosticator you're supposed to be able to at least correctly predict elections in the past.
Romney is not a moderate Republican. He may have governed as a moderate in Massachusetts, but that was when he was young and foolish.
Anyway, I'm not saying Romney is a lock, but I think the nomination is his to lose. I think that if the tea party wing was going to find a charismatic leader to purify the party with a whip of fire, it would have happened by now.
I spelled Kenya wrong, but it does seem appropriate given the context.
Maybe Cheney could run, so we could potentially follow up the first black president with the first bionic president.
Dear God, let it be Romney in '12. That would be beautiful.
The story of the Geifers is just horrific. There's a picture of them as a married couple on one of the stories linked from Daily Kos, and like so many horror stories they look utterly ordinary on the surface. I cannot believe how messed up that guy's kids, especially his daughter, must be by now. And probably his wife, for that matter; with the benefit of hindsight, one has to wonder how much of their relationship must have consisted, from the beginning, simply of his dominance of her.
There seems to be no "but for" consequences of the pardon. He did not molest the day care kids and he could have still molested his own kid without the pardon.
Romney, like John McCain and Bob Dole and GWB and Bush I and Reagan and Nixon etc. etc., is the establishment candidate who has waited his turn. Those candidates have traditionally done very well in Republican primaries*.
Fixed. Although to me, the establishment doesn't seems as firmly behind Romney as you seem to be suggesting. I think they'd be happy to find someone else. But, if they don't, then I expect Romney will win. But, who knows, maybe the crazies will storm the polls and Bachman will win.
Count me with the Romney bettors, unless someone like Perry jumps in, and even then Romney would be tough to beat.
Romney's candidacy looks horrible until you look at everybody else in the field. Huckabee could have made it a race, and Palin could win, too, but that's about it.
Republicans don't nominate dark horses. There are three groups that tend to have a veto in the primaries: The MoneyCons, the GodCons and the WarCons, and Money tends to have the strongest voice.
Romney's got Money, and he's sufficiently deferential to War. (The reverse of McCain.) Romney, like McCain, is going to have trouble with Old Testament Yahweh, and OTY is ascendant in the Party, but with Huckabee out, there's no obvious place for those votes to go.
Palin is pretty well-positioned, but Money hates her, and she's just not competent enough at managing anything to run a successful campaign. Pawlenty and Huntsman are jokes, invented by the media to try to make a story of the primary season. They'll fold as soon as they face any serious scrutiny.
Giuliani doesn't hate gay people. Kerik would be a problem for him. Plus what LB said above. He's out.
As Sherlock Holmes tells us: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
As Sherlock Holmes tells us:
Given the plot of A Study in Scarlet, Holmes would probably be backing somebody else.
131: True, though we don't really know what happened with the day care kids yet. Although molesting other people's kids would be substantially higher-risk than intimidating his own family... who knows?
I'm with Will. While I think a 19-14 relationship should be illegal, if after fifteen years there is no evidence of him doing anything similar, the guy should be pardoned. If we didn't have the sex offenders registry system where people keep on having to suffer consequences indefinitely I'd feel differently.
LB's 18-17 one should absolutely not be a crime. I remember a case like that where the guy was an immigrant. A legal one, who'd been in the country since early childhood. Got sent to prison when she was getting some film developed and there were nude pics of both of them. They later married, and many years later when the immigration laws changed he got deported. A bunch of local reps begged the feds for an exception but got nowhere.
133: Per above, my hesitancy is that the Money & War Cons:
1) Are not expecting to win the Presidency, instead they want to stay as well-positioned as possible in Congress and let Obama and the BlueDogs do the rest (even if they nibble around the edges a bit at ConWorld initiatives).
2) Realize that between the healthcare and the Mormon stuff Romney is not a bring out the base type guy.
His problem is that he's a moderate Republican, but Obama is also a moderate Republican who's been presented as a socialist.
Really? I think it is pretty clear that Obama is well to the left of Romney. Yeah, Romney governed in a fairly moderate fashion in MA, but that was a political necessity. In Obama's case some, though not all of the 'centrist' stuff is equally a political necessity. In other news PM 'I love the NHS' Cameron is to the right of Obama.
137: bring out the base type guy.
?? I think I meant base voters.
I think you meant "bring-out-the-base type guy". Like he's not the type of guy who will bring out the base.
if after fifteen years there is no evidence of him doing anything similar, the guy should be pardoned. If we didn't have the sex offenders registry system where people keep on having to suffer consequences indefinitely I'd feel differently.
I'm on board thinking the sex offender registry has terrible consequences. They just should have vetted this guy more thoroughly before pardoning him (assuming the stuff about raping his daughter is true.)
2) Realize that between the healthcare and the Mormon stuff Romney is not a bring out the base type guy.
Obama is their bring-out-the-base guy.
Remember that hideous story about the Kansas "couple" in which the guy was 24 and the girl was 13, and her mom was glad he was gonna do right by her by marrying her, so they didn't press charges? I think there are far more egregious examples of this kind of stuff than a 19-14 relationship in itself, but that doesn't make this kind of thinking OK. Exactly how far apart in age are we willing to say is just the way puppy love works? 19-14 yes, 24-13 gross?
A girl in my 5th-grade class (age 10 or 11) was impregnated by an 8th-grader. She raised that baby and took responsibility for it, because in Kansas, when someone rapes your 10-year-old, it's probably because your 10-year-old is a slut who needs to learn her lesson by raising a child.
143: It's funny, 19/14 is right about the limits of my uncertainty -- a year more in either direction and I wouldn't be saying reasonable people could disagree.
140: Yes. Kids, don't try to comment when you are on a conference call where it suddenly turns out that you're the speaker.
142: Obama is their bring-out-the-base guy.
And to that end, they really just need a candidate to keep yelling nigger, nigger, nigger socialist, Obamacare, pals around with ex-Marine Protestant ministers who occasionally use incendiary rhetoric (did we mention that he's black), "oh, the debt", and exploit whatever other random, crazy shit that pops up during the campaign. And Romney is probably not the best for doing that.
19/14 is about as big a split as you'd get in high school, a senior and a freshman dating. I have an odd memory of the first of my kinda-dorky-but-blossoming high school friends starting to date, and she went out with a senior who somehow got so excited during dinner that he came in his pants. She came back to us, asking if that was a thing that happened, and we had no idea. How horrifying! But now looking back, it seems really gross, this 18 or 19 year-old having an orgasm during dinner with a first-semester freshgirl. Is that an accidental thing? Was he perving? Still a total mystery to me.
I'd have to go with Romney as well. Pawlenty actually has a real problem not just with his lack of name recognition, but the lurking possibility of Michelle Bachmann entering the race: general word is that her hard-core social conservatism would take Iowa (over Pawlenty in Iowa), whether or not she'd have any chance nationally. Possibly anyone who wants Pawlenty to stay in the race is scrambling behind the scenes to convince Bachmann that it's really, really not a good idea for her to run; maybe she'll be offered some powerful-in-name-only position to buy her off.
From another perspective, I tend to think that the Republicans don't expect to win in 2012, regardless of who their candidate is. (That would be why various high-profile contenders have decided not to run.) Then it's a question of who should be the sacrificial candidate this go-round: it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to believe that the Republican establishment is happy to let Romney be that person. On this line of thinking, the Republicans are after control of the Senate in 2012, in order to hobble Obama's likely-inevitable second term. The Presidential race becomes about optics, the swaying of public opinion, not about actually winning.
because in Kansas, when someone rapes your 10-year-old, it's probably because your 10-year-old is a slut who needs to learn her lesson by raising a child.
What should be done with the thirteen year old? I'm leery of doing much for any crime committed at that age, and thirteen year olds prosecuted for statutory rape of a girl a couple years younger seems like really pushing it. And yes, it is insane that she carried the child to term. If nothing else it's likely not to be medically safe.
And Romney is probably not the best for doing that.
He sure isn't too proud or principled to try.
148: I have no idea what ought to be done. Something. Not jail. But something. The thing that really freaks me out is the idea that, now that you're pregnant, you have entered the pipeline of no-more-decision-making because you are definitely going to have and raise this baby so you can look at what you did. Your punishment is the baby, and, if we can get our hands on him, his punishment will be marriage. Sounds like a happy future to me!
147 cont'd: Going with that train of thought, Republicans are playing a long game: sway public opinion (chiefly by confusing and scaring the hell out of people), gain control of the Senate as well as the House, and meanwhile gain increasing control at the state level, in order to pass the rafts of very nasty state legislation we're seeing the last year or so. Also disenfranchise Dem-leaning voters, setting the stage for 2016.
146: Does Meg Ryan have a brother?
He sure isn't too proud or principled to try.
He's too smart to try. The Republicans have millions of winged monkeys both in the media and in office who will do all the red-meat yelling for him. Romney's job is to look too dignified and adult to engage in that while allowing others do it for him.
153: You are right on that I guess. He can just stand "above it all". And even knock back a couple of the "excessive" ones.
Can you see that I have no clear idea.
153: And McCain somewhat played it that way. Or tried to, but I think his cranky, old white entitlement rage overcame him from time to time. Also asshole.
I remember wondering what the Germans do with under-fourteen year olds who have committed serious violent crimes when I found out the other month that they can't be prosecuted, even as juveniles.
Y'all have nearly convinced me to sign up for Intrade, where Romney is at 27.4% (somewhat too low, by my reckoning) and Pawlenty is at 24.5% (way too high) and Huntsman is 15.3% (even worse than Pawlenty).
I've long been convinced that Intrade is biased in favor of the views of a certain kind of Establishment Republican. I think there's some easy money here with the Huntsman bet, since his chances of getting the Republican nomination are approximately zero.
156: Involuntary inpatient psychiatric treatment?
157: Wait, we should try to make money off our political acumen? That's ... weird. I would feel odd about doing that.
I think you can overestimate the importance of the Money Cons. In '96, Phil Gramm immediately raised a gazillion dollars, but still lost. I just can't imagine who it is that's going to vote for Romney. What's the affirmative case for him? He pretended to be a moderate? Let's vote for the guy with the moderate record because he swears up and down he was pretending?
And 153 is unfair. The winged monkeys in the Wizard of Oz book were very polite.
You know the Simpsons episode where the Republicans are about to be introduced to a new potential candidate and the door opens and there's just a water cooler - and then the candidate walks in? They would do well to start looking for a water cooler for 2012.
No one has ever liked Mitt Romney. Evangelicals won't vote for a Mormon. And Massachusetts? He might as well be John Kerry. All the other potential candidates are filthy under one or five coats of paint. It's going to be a weird election cycle.
If a Republican starts campaigning on the message of "You need me to cut taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king," then I'd have to consider given them my vote.
I'm surprised that Christie appears to have decided against running.
I'm surprised that Christie appears to have decided against running.
Christie seems to me like a man who seriously wants to be President. If I were a not-too-wingnutty Republican who seriously wanted to be President I'd duck out on 2012 too.
||
Forgive my irrelevancy, but this is hilarious.
|>
Late, I know. But. Guys. BEING ON THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY DIDN'T PREVENT HIM FROM MOLESTING HIS DAUGHTER.
So why are we now blaming the pardon for the fact that he committed a horrible crime?
The only effect of the pardon was to remove the lifetime-reporting requirement. I am surprised more people don't think that's a good thing, because having a lifetime reporting requirement for a statutory rape is fucking stupid.
But I guess I won't be surprised when more people don't agree with me. I don't think it's even clear that sex offender registries work in keeping communities safe. See, e.g., this:
If liberals go after Pawlenty on this, you can forget about governors pardoning anyone (except maybe on a claim of actual innocence) until their political careers are already dead.
This is stupid.
It's going to be a weird election cycle.
Has there ever been a non-weird one? My sense is that they just get weirder and weirder.
So why are we now blaming the pardon for the fact that he committed a horrible crime?
I don't think anyone actually did that in this thread.
It is the natural implication of calling the pardon a mistake, if mistake means anything more than bad publicity.
This situation is perfectly designed to make me waffle. I'm really not crazy about sex offender registries as they seem to be used in practice. OTOH, it does make sense to me that people who've committed some classes of sex crimes should be restricted from work situations where they're likely to be around children. On the third hand, statutory rape of a teenager doesn't seem to me to fit comfortably into that class of sex crimes.
I guess... I'm not happy with the laws that put the guy on a lifelong sex offender registry for statutory rape. Once those laws exist, though, I'm not happy about the pardon having been done without the sort of due diligence that would have turned up the arrest for beating his kid, and considered that a disqualification for having a day care in his house.
But I generally agree that this is a bad issue to emphasize -- any wrongdoing by Pawlenty wasn't egregious, and coming down on him for pardoning someone under these circumstances is likely to have a bad global effect.
It is the natural implication of calling the pardon a mistake, if mistake means anything more than bad publicity.
My impression of the thread was that it's a mistake because it let's him have a daycare in his residence, not that it would have somehow saved the daughter.
What's unknown (from what I've read) is to what extent his inclinations would be evident from the original case. I also don't know if due diligence in the pardon involves reading the original police reports, victim and witness statements, etc.
it's a mistake because it let's him have a daycare in his residence
I think that's right -- it's a two-step argument: the pardon's bad because he shouldn't have a daycare in his residence, and we know he shouldn't have a daycare in his residence because he raped his daughter. The rape isn't relevant because the pardon enabled it, it's relevant because it demonstrates that he was, in fact, the sort of person who does belong on a sex offender registry if anyone does, and so he shouldn't have been taken off it.
what extent his inclinations would be evident from the original case.
Isn't that just the problem? Given the 'consensual' nature of the original case, and the continuing relationship, I doubt there was more useful information to find out from the original police reports.
Original reports and such might give a better idea if the situation was "Wait, she's 14?" vs. "Hell yeah she's 14". I'd say that makes a difference when it comes time to pardon a guy so that a daycare can be run out of his house.
156: Put it on their permanent record?