Nikki Haley

...now browsing by category

 

Haley wants to drop one thing Sanford did right

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

I’m with Mark Sanford on this one:

Last week, Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley said she would do away with detailed executive budgets, which were typically ignored due to the acrimony between Sanford and lawmakers. Instead, Haley said, she would set a small list of priorities and work with lawmakers during the process.
In a message sent to Sanford’s campaign e-mail list, the outgoing governor argued his successor should also draft a detailed budget.

“These Executive Budgets have been vital in creating a budget blue print that showed how we could fund core services of government without raising taxes,” Sanford wrote, encouraging recipients to read a Post and Courier editorial on the subject. “They were important in showing the savings that might come from restructuring and consolidating government.”

Sanford does not mention Haley, a political ally who shares many of Sanford’s positions, by name in the e-mail.

Even with our weak-governor system, the governor is the one elected official with the closest thing to a governmentwide perspective — and has the broadest responsibility to voters. He (or she) should at the very least propose a budget setting priorities for spending, which lawmakers are then free to ignore the way they have since Carroll Campbell started the practice a couple of decades back. Campbell was right to go ahead and ACT like a governor, at least in advocacy terms, by submitting a budget, rather than waiting around to actually be put in charge of the executive branch.

Nikki Haley is on the right track looking for ways to antagonize lawmakers less. (Although it’s a bit late for that. Unlike Sanford, who started with a honeymoon, she’s already alienated legislative leaders to such an extent that if elected she would start out in a hole with them, and she knows it, and knows we know it, which is why she’s talking about this.) But this is the wrong item to start with. An executive budget, theoretical as it is, is a useful tool.

And while Mark Sanford went out of his way to alienate lawmakers so that they would ignore his budget proposals, along with the rest of his agenda, he put a lot of work into his budgets. And while they had their flaws, they were worth considering.

So would be Nikki Haley’s, were she elected. And so would Vincent Sheheen’s, which is why I hope he would continue to submit them. We need governors to actually take an interest in governing.

It’s great that Nikki wants to signal that she’d be different from Sanford. But this is the wrong way to start.

Posted in 2010 Governor, Elections, Government restructuring, Leadership, Legislature, Marketplace of ideas, Nikki Haley, South Carolina, Spending | 1 Response »

This must be Labor Day

Monday, September 6th, 2010

The way I can tell is that the election-related interview requests have started coming in at a brisk clip.

Last week there were three. I meant to tell you about them because one of them was New Watch on WIS, which aired Sunday morning. So unless you’re some kind of heathen who sits around watching TV on Sunday morning (and I say that without meaning any aspersions upon the heathen community), you missed it, because I forgot to tell you about it.

Ex-Mayor Bob Coble saw it, and sent me a note to say “Good job on Newswatch,” which I appreciate. Not to say Mayor Bob is a heathen. He’s just way into politics; he can’t help it.

I taped that Thursday afternoon. Then I also taped a segment over at ETV on Friday, also about the election. That won’t air until sometime in October. (It was broader, big-picture stuff, not as pegged to the news of the day.) I’ll get the date and try to remember to let you know.

Back on Thursday, I got an e-mail from Chris Haire with Charleston City Paper, to the following effect:

Just wanted to see if you have time to talk. I’m working on a story on the ongoing Nikki Haley rumors. Here’s the angle: With no proof out there, the only way to truly address this is as a smear. And, what’s particularly odd here, is that it’s such an ongoing smear — and truth be told, arguably the most ineffective smear in history. The question here is why it’s still happening.

I found that cryptic. I assumed it was a reference to this. But it wasn’t. It was a reference to something else, something I hadn’t heard about (and wish I still hadn’t), specifically this. (Which led later to this.)

I talked with him, and tried to say something coherent, but what are you supposed to say? Frankly, I’m just like most folks in South Carolina — uncomfortable as hell talking about this stuff. Which is why I sort of doubt it will emerge as visibly as it did back during the primary. At least, I hope it doesn’t.

Anyway, I asked Chris to let me know when that is published. If and when I see it, I’ll give y’all a link. If I forget to look, and y’all see if first, remind me. I want to keep y’all in the loop. I just forget sometimes.

Posted in 2010 Governor, Blogosphere, Character, Elections, Media, Nikki Haley, South Carolina, Television | 7 Responses »

Because, um, because he’s a DEMOCRAT, right?

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

First, let me apologize that I’ve been missing in action all day. Some kind of horrific stomach bug. I’m somewhat better now, but then I haven’t eaten since breakfast.

But just to say I’ve posted something, let me share this…

Back on this earlier post, a reader named Rose wrote:

I don’t know why Republicans think Democrats don’t own guns. Most of my family members are moderate Democrats (although we do unfortunately have a few loony Tea Party cousins) and we own guns. Shotguns, rifles and handguns. We hunt. We shoot targets. And I guarandamntee you that I’m a helluva better shot than Haley.

So I don’t understand why Southerners think only Republicans like guns.

Well, as it happens, Rose, Vincent Sheheen is a regular Southerner, as he noted in a story by Yvonne Wenger:

Sheheen said he also supports gun rights.

“As chairman of the South Carolina Sportsmen’s Caucus and gun owner, I have repeatedly worked with the NRA to protect the gun ownership rights of South Carolinians,” Sheheen said in a statement. “There is no candidate that is a stronger supporter of Second Amendment rights and as governor, I will make sure the rights of citizens to own guns are never infringed.”

So how come this “Gun Owners of America” (of which I had never heard before Nikki touted their endorsement; had you?) didn’t endorse Vincent? Yvonne wondered, too, and asked. Here’s what she didn’t learn:

The group’s director of communications Erich Pratt said Monday that the reason why Sheheen did not receive the endorsement wasn’t immediately available.

Don’t you love it? “Wasn’t immediately available!” Of course, the answer most likely is that the folks making this decision probably didn’t know squat about Vincent Sheheen or his positions on issues, and didn’t care. They just went with the Republican who mouths extremist slogans. So, if she’s one o’ US, he’s gotta be some gun-hatin’ hippie liberal weirdo, right? Stands to reason…

This kind of reminds of the national media’s ecstasy over the idea that South Carolina might elect an “Indian-American woman.” It never occurs to them that as a Lebanese-American Catholic, Vincent would also score two firsts as governor. As if that sort of thing mattered. And like the “Gun Owners of America,” they don’t care, either.

Maybe they’d care if Will Folks claimed to have had an affair with him.

Uh-oh. I shouldn’t have had that thought when my stomach was already queasy…

Posted in 2010 Governor, Democrats, Elections, In case you wondered, Nikki Haley, Out There, Parties, Republicans, South Carolina, Southern Discomfort, Vincent Sheheen | 19 Responses »

Nikki wants us to know: She’s packin’ heat

Monday, August 30th, 2010

Or at least, she’s authorized to pack heat, and wants to make sure we know it. This release was sent out today:

Gun Owners of America endorses Nikki Haley for governor


Grassroots organization praises Republican candidate for protecting 2nd Amendment rights

COLUMBIA, S.C. – State Rep. Nikki Haley, Republican candidate for governor, has earned the endorsement of Gun Owners of America, a grassroots organization with over 300,000 members that supports candidates in South Carolina who are committed to protecting 2nd Amendment rights.

“Gun Owners of America is proud to make this endorsement,” said GOA Vice-Chairman Tim Macy. “Nikki Haley stands 100% behind the rights of South Carolina’s gun owners and sportsmen. In particular, Rep. Haley strongly supports concealed carry of firearms by law-abiding citizens and will work to ease unreasonable restrictions on CWP holders.”

Rep. Haley thanked Gun Owners of America for its endorsement and said, “Few things are as clearly defined as the right of individual Americans to own and use firearms. The right to bear arms was deemed so critical by our Founders that they spelled it out in absolute terms, and it is my belief that any governmental action that undermines that right is in turn undermining the very freedoms that built our great nation. I hold a Concealed Weapons Permit myself, and as governor, I will continue to fight against any government infringement on the 2nd Amendment.”

-###-

The boldfaced emphasis is mine. So now you know. Make of it what you will.

Over the weekend, I went up to visit my relations in Bennettsville, the place of my birth. My uncle told me that my aunt recently finished qualifying for her own concealed-carry permit. When she got home, he asked her how she had done, and she showed him a silhouette target with a cluster of holes in the upper left center of the torso. He then asked, “What would you like for supper, dear?” True story. Or true according to my uncle, who is an accomplished teller of stories.

I wonder how Nikki did when she qualified?

Posted in 2010 Governor, Elections, Nikki Haley, Personal, South Carolina | 20 Responses »

Read Cindi’s latest column about Nikki’s “whoppers”

Thursday, August 26th, 2010

Since I griped about the lede headline in The State today (and I wasn’t picking on John there, it was just the headline that got me), I want to direct you, with my warm approval, to Cindi Scoppe’s latest today.

The subject: Nikki Haley’s habit of misleading, and just generally saying stuff that isn’t true. After taking Vincent Sheheen to task for HIS misleading question, “When will she release her tax returns?,” when she sorta kinda had, Cindi went on to demonstrate how such misstatements are a regular thing with his opponent.

I’ll excerpt here the last few grafs of the column:

The day after her WLTX interview, Ms. Haley appeared on Greta Van Sustern’s cable talk show and stepped up her usual attack on Mr. Sheheen for “making $400,000 as a trial lawyer” by calling him “a trial lawyer that makes $400,000 a year off the state.”

It’s pretty audacious, in a state with a median household income of $42,000, for someone who made $196,282 last year to castigate someone else for making $372,509. But the more serious sin here is the total fabrication about where Mr. Sheheen’s money came from.

Contrary to what you’d think if you listened to the Republicans’ drumbeat for Mr. Sheheen to reveal the sources of his income, legislators already have to report all the money they receive from state and local governments. In addition, attorneys must report the money they receive representing clients before the Workers Compensation Commission and other state boards.

As our news department noted on Sunday, last year Mr. Sheheen reported receiving $29,000 in salary and expenses as a senator, and his law firm received $13,000 from the Kershaw County Medical Center, $4,700 from the Cassatt Water Co. and $2,400 from the S.C. Guardian Ad Litem Program. That’s a total of $49,100 “off the state.” I suppose it’s possible that he made money that he didn’t report on his economic disclosure statement — you know, like that $40,000 in consulting fees that Ms. Haley didn’t report from a state government contractor who hired her for her “good contacts.” But since there’s no gray area in state law about reporting government income, I seriously doubt it.

Mr. Sheheen also reported that his law firm made about $170,000 in workers comp fees last year. Now, I would like more details about where the rest of his income came from, and I think he probably could provide them without violating legal ethics, say by telling us how much he received in contingency-fee awards, in retainers, in hourly fees. But it’s more than a little misleading for Ms. Haley to demand more transparency from the candidate who has been far, far more transparent than she has about his income as well as his communications on the taxpayers’ computers and e-mail accounts. Unfortunately, that sort of thing is becoming commonplace.

Cindi, by the way, is about the last person in the MSM you’ll ever see mistake feeling for thought. Always has been. Here, she has demonstrated that laudable trait once again.

By the way, you may want to read her previous column, which she links from this one, on the disturbing Jekyll and Hyde quality Mrs. Haley has demonstrated over time.

Posted in 2010 Governor, Character, Elections, Media, Nikki Haley, South Carolina, The State, Words | 3 Responses »

THAT’s what she means by transparency (or is it?)

Thursday, August 26th, 2010

On a day when the state’s largest newspaper leads with a second-day story about Vincent Sheheen answering questions that he shouldn’t be asked, about GOP inside-the-Beltway shouting points (the headline, “Sheheen takes on the issues,” was baldly out of sync with the story, since those are NOT “the issues”), it was shockingly refreshing to see another medium report on the gubernatorial candidates talking about an ACTUAL gubernatorial issue — South Carolina’s economy.

Here’s an excerpt from the end of the Columbia Regional Business Report story:

[Nikki Haley] said South Carolina could build upon being a right-to-work state by being a “no corporate income tax” state.

[Vincent] Sheheen said South Carolina has one of the lowest corporate income tax rates in the nation.

“That proposal specifically will help very few businesses in South Carolina because the vast majority of businesses in South Carolina pay no corporate income tax,” he said. “If we are going to keep doing the same things we’ve been doing over the past eight years, we all as citizens of South Carolina better get used to very high unemployment rates.”

Sheheen spoke of a government that doesn’t divide, but unites. South Carolina needs to increase funding to its higher education system, invest in alternative energy initiatives and expand the port system, he said.

“If we are going to brag about our port, we have to be committed to improving our port,” Sheheen said. He supports a designated earmark in the federal budget for dredging at the ports. “That’s how we dredge ports in this country. I’m willing to go to bat for this state to get our port expanded.”

Haley spoke of reforming the property tax system, supporting school choice and enacting term limits for legislators. She also vowed to make government more transparent.

“You’ve got attorneys that turn around and serve on these committees that affect workers’ comp, work the system all the way, but when they get to the floor, they recuse themselves,” Haley said. “It’s not that they recuse themselves on the floor; they shouldn’t be able to serve on those committees. That’s a direct conflict of interest.”

Reading that, the scales fell from my eyes. I now understand — I think. I had been confused that Ms. Transparency was so reluctant to BE transparent when given the chance. But she never meant her. When she says, “Transparency,” she means, “Legislators who are lawyers should be transparent. In fact, they should shut up and not participate, because being a lawyer is a conflict, in ways that being paid $40,000 for nothing but one’s influence is not.”

At least, that’s what I gather from that passage. In Nikki’s defense, it’s highly likely that if I heard that quote in context I’d get a different impression. I’m sure Nikki has a more nuanced explanation of exactly what she means when she touts transparency. And I remain eager to hear it. Perhaps I will, and perhaps I’ll learn more about the candidates’ stances on economic development and education and the state budget and law and order and environmental protection and other relevant issues — if we can stop talking about abortion and immigration and … what was the other one? Oh, yeah , the federal health care bill that was a big national issue last year. (All of which is a long way of saying, “Talking about our feelings about Obama.”)

Maybe.

Posted in 2010 Governor, Barack Obama, EcoDevo, Elections, Leadership, Marketplace of ideas, Media, Nikki Haley, South Carolina, Vincent Sheheen | 13 Responses »

An “ad homo-nem attack” on Sheheen?

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

First, I’ll admit that I got the “ad homo-nem” joke from my elder son, who said that when he saw the same thing I’m reacting to here:

@TreyWalker: Effeminate sounding non-answers by @VincentSheheen on ObamaCare won’t cut it in this cycle. From the Post and Courier: postandcourier.com/news/2010/aug/…

Say what? Effeminate-sounding? And this from one of your more sensible Republicans, Trey Walker, a McMaster and McCain kind of guy…

Here, for the record, is what Yvonne Wenger wrote on that subject:

Sheheen said he has answered questions throughout his campaign about his national policy stances, such as abortion rights.
“My answer is the same: I support life. I have always supported life and my voting reflects that,” he said.
Likewise, Sheheen said he has laid out his position on the new federal health care law, including his concerns about the expense and the burden to small businesses. But the new law has components that will remedy long-standing issues in the country that only a “bitter partisan” would find fault with, such as denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.
“I think it’s the next governor’s job to stand up against things that aren’t helpful to South Carolina within the health care law,” he said, adding that he would do just that if elected.
It is unclear where Sheheen stands on the individual mandate that Americans have health insurance and whether he supports the court challenge on the new law by the state Attorney General Henry McMaster, a Republican. Sheheen’s campaign didn’t immediately respond to questions Tuesday on the matter.

On thing that astounds me is that MSM types will actually go along with the Haley strategy of distraction by asking questions about inside-the-Beltway GOP litmus tests of a candidate running for governor of South Carolina. Abortion? Immigration? Obamacare? (This kind of mindlessness — the phenomenon whereby reporters exercise no judgment whatsoever about what matters, slavishly going along with any idiotic topic that gets brought up by either of the two “sides” you’re falling all over yourself to be fair and impartial to, whether it’s relevant or not — is why I gave up news and switched to editorial in 1994. In editorial, you’re allowed to think, and call B.S. “nonsense.” Unfortunately, we still couldn’t call it “B.S.” Not in a family newspaper. Or on a family blog.)

There is no frickin’ way I would expect a governor of SC to have an overall opinion on Obamacare. Hey, I don’t have an opinion on Obamacare (if I did, you’d have read it here). But maybe that’s because I sort of quit paying attention to Obama on health care way back during the primary campaigns back in the Year Seven, when it became clear that he was too timid even to suggest doing what ought to be done. (Seriously, folks, have you seen any effects from this massive health care “reform” yet? Neither have I.) Since that’s my position, I tend to look at these Republicans who keep wetting their pants about their imagined “government takeover of health care” as though they were recent arrivals from Venus. (Which, in case you missed the implication, is an “effeminate” planet. Your more masculine delusionals come from Mars.)

Another thing that astounds me is that Vincent stays cool and doesn’t get totally ticked off about it. I certainly would.

Maybe that — the fact that Vincent stays cool — is what Trey thinks is “effeminate.” Maybe Vincent should take a swing at reporters when they ask stuff like that. Not at Yvonne; that wouldn’t be manly. How about Tim Smith of The Greenville News? He’s the one who always wears the cowboy hat. It’s always manly to hit a guy in a cowboy hat. In fact, I’m pretty sure there’s a codicil in the unwritten Guy Code that if a guy’s wearing a cowboy hat, you’re allowed (and perhaps required) to hit him, whether he’s done anything to provoke you or not. OK, that should be Vincent’s strategy from now on: Whenever anyone in the MSM asks a particularly stupid, irrelevant or irritating question, Vincent should just take a big swing at Tim Smith. After a few times of doing this, the TV cameras would be ready and watching for it, and reporters would be making up stupid questions just to see Vincent pop Tim a good one. The voters would all see this on their boob tubes, and that would lay this “effeminate answers” non-issue to rest for good.

Anyway, I was standing there during the exchange that Yvonne was writing about, which you can see pictured in this image from a previous post (that’s Tim in his cowboy hat, and Yvonne at the left). You can also see Yvonne with me back on Episode 2 of “Pub Politics,” the one entitled “Wesley Sounds Like Crap.” But that’s sort of a digression, isn’t it? Although not nearly as much of a digression as asking candidates for governor of SC about abortion, immigration and national health care policy.

Vincent can stay cool in such absurd moments, because his staff gets all ticked off for him — the way I would. Below, you can see Campaign Manager Trav Robertson intervening to tell the reporters in no uncertain terms to can the stupid, irrelevant questions — and to arrange a time for an extended interview if they want to talk about irrelevancies. Good for you, Trav. Go get ‘em…

Posted in 2010 Governor, Democrats, Elections, Health, Immigration, Nikki Haley, Out There, Republicans, Social media, South Carolina, Vincent Sheheen | 54 Responses »

A closer look at Nikki’s idea of fiscal responsibility

Monday, August 23rd, 2010

Turning from Nikki Haley’s foot-dragging on transparency regarding her taxpayer-issued computer and e-mails, let’s take another look at her problems with paying her taxes on time.

This is particularly relevant because of her oft-stated wish that government be run like a business, and her touting of her proven skills as an accountant.

Let’s take a look at Cindi Scoppe’s column Sunday. Cindi, a meticulous reporter if ever I’ve met one, didn’t think much one way or the other about Nikki’s failure to pay her taxes on time until she looked into it further herself. Here’s an excerpt from what she found, going well beyond what had been previously reported:

The problem wasn’t that the Haleys sought and received extensions. It is in fact quite common for people to get a six-month extension to file their tax returns. But as the IRS makes clear, the extension applies only to the return, not to the tax payment itself. Taxes are always due by April 15 — at the latest. The Haleys have not paid their taxes by April 15 in any of the past five years…
Even more significantly, the extension gives people only until Oct. 15 to file. The Haleys filed their 2005 tax returns on July 30, 2007 — eight months after the extended deadline. They filed their 2006 tax returns on July 23, 2008 — also eight months after the extended deadline. Their 2007 returns were filed Nov. 5, 2008, just a few days after the extended deadline. (Their 2004, 2008 and 2009 returns were filed after April 15, but before Oct. 15, so the IRS doesn’t consider them late.)
Now, in my book, anytime you have to pay the government a penalty, you’ve done something wrong, and the Haleys have paid the IRS $4,452 in penalties in the past five years — $2,853 for filing late, and $1,599 for paying late…
Still, the idea that paying your taxes late, and waiting eight months after the extended deadline to file a return, is doing “nothing wrong” is more of a stretch.
But the biggest stretch is the way Ms. Haley has sought to spin her income tax problem into a virtue. She talks about how she and her husband fell upon tough economic times and cut back on their spending and learned to live within their means, which she says demonstrates what a fiscally responsible governor she would be. It seems to me that her actions demonstrate just the opposite.
The Haleys didn’t pay their taxes late once or twice, when things were bad; they paid their taxes late in every one of the past five years — not just in 2006, when their income dropped by half, but also in 2005 when it was going up, and in 2007, 2008 and 2009, when it was going up substantially, topping out at nearly $200,000 last year….
… the fact is that part of her strategy was to avoid paying her bills on time, by essentially giving herself a loan from those of us who paid our taxes on time. A bailout if you will, albeit temporary, for the candidate who deplores federal bailouts. And since she failed to pay her taxes on time five years in a row, it raises questions about her stewardship of money….
I questioned Ms. Haley’s campaign several times to make absolutely sure that the Haleys had not somehow managed to get an additional extension, and her spokesman never attempted to give any sort of justification for their missing the extended deadlines. I’m not sure what the repeated delinquent tax filings suggest: Poor organizational skills? Inability to delegate authority — or, if delegated, to choose trustworthy people to whom to delegate? A disregard for the laws the rest of us have to obey? What I am sure of is that if it were me, I wouldn’t be bragging about it.

Posted in 2010 Governor, Business, Character, Elections, In case you wondered, Media, Money, Nikki Haley, Republicans, South Carolina, Taxes, The State | 32 Responses »

Nikki Haley’s ‘limited hangout’ (This is what she means by ‘transparency,’ when it’s applied to her)

Saturday, August 21st, 2010

First, for you youngsters who’ve only been alive for five minutes or so, here’s a definition of “limited hangout.” Or perhaps we should refer to what Nikki has done as a “modified limited hangout,” the extra-special version invented by Richard Nixon and his droogs.

In any case, this passage from The State’s story today pretty much tells you all you need to know about what Nikki means by the word “transparency” when it is applied to her. To be helpful, I’ve boldfaced the most important parts, in this passage and subsequent ones:

Sheheen released his legislative e-mails, copies of his hard drives and campaign receipts two weeks ago in response to identical open records requests The State sent to both campaigns. Haley released her e-mails, but said she would not release any other documents or allow reporters to review her state-issued computer hard drives. A hard drive keeps a permanent record of e-mails.

Then there’s this little elaboration, which I suppose Nikki put out for the benefit of the technological Neanderthals among the electorate:

“I think 10,000 sheets of paper is a lot,” Haley said, referring to the volume of e-mails in defending the decision not to match Sheheen’s disclosure. “I’m comfortable with how transparent we have been. I’m not going to get into this tit for tat about whether that’s enough sheets of paper.”

Ahem. Nikki, if you’d just go ahead and release the hard drives — you know, the public hard drives that belong to us, the taxpayers whom you allegedly love so much — nobody’s asking for so much as ONE “sheet of paper.” This is the 21st century. Give us the frickin’ hard drives, and we’ll have all that we need. Your good faith will have been demonstrated. Those “sheets of paper” you’re touting are the emblem of your refusal to just go ahead and be transparent, the physical manifestations of your selectivity. And you say there are 10,000 of them. Ten thousand documents attesting to your refusal to simply open up access to a public resource.

Then there’s this:

The Haley campaign emphasized she is exempt from state open records laws as a lawmaker, and all compliance is voluntary.

Wow. Yeah, Nikki, lawmakers ARE exempt, because they write the laws, and refuse to abide by the openness they have statutorily imposed on the rest of government, from the governor to the guy who sweeps up in the offices of our bureaucracy. This is an exemption they carved out for themselves, and themselves alone. This is the very cult of stonewalling that someone we know constantly berates her fellow legislators about. That someone’s initials, in the spirit of limited hangout, are N.H. And I’m not talking New Hampshire.

And you want to hide behind THAT? Really?

Amazing.

Posted in 2010 Governor, Character, Elections, Legislature, Nikki Haley, Republicans, South Carolina, The State | 65 Responses »

Prominent Indian-American politicians in the South — all 2 of them

Friday, August 20th, 2010

Salon has a piece on how our own Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal work to carve out a place for themselves in the GOP of the South. An excerpt:

There’s no doubt that the religious conversions of Haley and Jindal, the two most prominent Indian-American politicians, have powerful personal and spiritual roots. But it’s also inarguable that being Christians with Anglicized names has made it easier for them to create bonds with the overwhelmingly white and deeply religious voters who dominate Republican politics in the South.

That basic imperative, to project an identity that voters aren’t threatened by, is one that all minority candidates in all regions of the country can relate to. But for Indian-Americans, who are only now stepping into American politics in sizable numbers, figuring out how to do so is still a work in progress…

Find the whole piece here.

Posted in Kulturkampf, Nikki Haley, Race, Republicans, South Carolina, Southern Discomfort | 7 Responses »

« Older Entries