The internet is abuzz with stories about Maurice Clemmons. At the time of all these stories, Clemmons had not even been caught yet let alone convicted of the horrible crime for which he was sought. The news from just minutes ago is that he's been shot dead.
The point of most of the stories, though, including this one from the CBS Political Hotsheet, is that Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas had allowed the killer to be released. The obvious inference is that Huckabee must share in the responsibility for the crimes committed by Clemmons. So convincing is this argument, I imagine spearheaded by Huckabee's political enemies, that many are suggesting he no longer could possibly run for president in 2012, an election which many felt he had a good shot at winning.
Politics is certainly a fickle business. Or is hypocritical a better word. How many times have we seen these same types who are now attacking Huckabee so viciously insist that there is no such thing as shared responsibility? How many times have they refused to accept mitigating circumstances in defense of violent offenders - nothing matters but their actions, they cry.
Yet, now, when it conveniently suits their purpose, Mike Huckabee shares in the responsibility of those four murders in Seattle, and he shares in it to the point of having actually destroyed his future political career.
What's your opinion? Should Huckabee pay for this? As governor did he do wrong in releasing Clemmons? How could he possibly be held responsible for the man's future crimes?
Here's my take on it. Shared responsibility does not apply to Mike Huckabee in this case. Yet, as I frequently try to illustrate in my writing, the NRA and gun owners at large who oppose gun control laws do indeed share in the responsibility for the gun violence that happens as a result. Does that make me a hypocrite in the opposite direction?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.