Just when you thought you had figured out Jim Rex as the mild-mannered-professor type, this comes out on his blog. Apparently, an alternative paper finally printed the stuff that everybody’s been muttering about Karen Floyd — her three marriages, etc. — and Mr. Rex wants to make sure you don’t miss it.
Mrs. Floyd has been worried that her personal life would be used against her from the beginning. I
think it was a major consideration she had to overcome in deciding to run. She made it through the five-way primary unscathed — except for all the talk, which didn’t reach most of the voters.
Now it’s out, and I find myself wondering who will be hurt more by it — Karen Floyd, or Jim Rex. I have to say it raises certain chivalrous hackles in me. A gentleman doesn’t speak publicly about a lady’s past. But, trapped in that Jane Austen mode of thinking as I am, I find myself wanting to give Mr. Rex some benefit of doubt. Do you think it’s actually written by him? Do you think he even reads it? Is Zeke Stokes or somebody acting on his own?
Still, Mr. Rex is responsible for it, just as Andre Bauer is responsible for the MySpace site he says he has nothing to do with.
So what do you think? Does this make you think less of Karen? Or of Jim?
Related Posts
I can not see how this is relevant in the least. Mr. Rex just fell many rungs down the ladder with me.
When will we get past the low brow, goocha, juvenile form of politics?
Rex ought to be ashamed. But of course he won’t…
So, exactly how far behind in the polls do you have to be to decide to become the poster boy for “low brow politics”?
This was an ill advised move Mr. Rex. There was still plenty of time before the election for your campaign to “catch its stride”…but once you jump head first into the slime, you are there for the duration.
Bad move indeed…
Hypocrite. Politician. What’s the difference?
I hope Mr. Rex has no skeletons in his closet. Republicans in this state are notorious for getting down in the mud when necessary. I expect the anonymous “push poll” phone banks will be going into overdrive shortly.
My standard is this: If a candidate campaigns on an agenda of so-called “family values” issues then that candidates past is relevant. Otherwise no.
LOL…funny how Family Values are irrelevant to the R’s NOW when the tables are turned.
Can we see where the label HYPOCRITE comes from? They can certainly dish it out, but can’t take it.
The only things that saddens me is that Democrats feel like in order to beat the Republicans sketchy, unethical funding machine we have stoop to their level.
After reviewing the blog in question, our campaign decided today to remove the entry. Our policy has been not to stifle conversation on the blog by censoring the comments of those who choose to participate, so long as the content does not contain offensive language or other inappropriate material. In this case, however, we have decided to remove the post, because in no way does Jim or does our campaign want to be perceived as leveling personal attacks against Ms. Floyd. That’s not the kind of person Jim Rex is, and it’s not the kind of campaign we’re running. Thanks for bringing this post to our attention.
urrh, Mr. Stokes…it seems that this is exactly the kind of person Jim Rex is. He made his decision…he took the low road. At least he should be man enough to honor his decision. No one likes a wishy washy man…
Just to be clear, chris w, our blog is open to anyone who wants to participate, and this was posted by someone outside our campaign organization. I take responsibility for letting it get posted without my review. Jim never saw it and would certainly have not wanted it associated with his web site. Thanks again.
I don’t see a way for any random person to create a blog entry on the Rex blog. This entry was not a comment, it was the main topic. Anyone have a copy im their browser history to post here for all to review?
Steve,, I didnt save it but there was a preface about.. Surprise,, take note South Carolina Christians, and then a bunch of nasty rubbish about her divorces.. Here is a piece of the alternative paper..
Her volatile employment history paralleled her personal relationships. She was divorced from husband James Lafon Rogers in June, 1989. She then married Michael Murphy Armor in 1992; they were divorced in 1996. She married current husband Andrew Gordon Floyd on December 31, 1997. Gordon Floyd is a mortician who owned Floyd Mortuary. As noted by a January, 2000 article in the Spartanburg Herald Journal, “Marrying Gordon Floyd also meant marrying money and community connections.”
In 1999, Karen Floyd was elected to the Spartanburg County Council and became chair. She left that office after one term. While in office, she founded The Palladian Group, a marketing and public affairs company.
The twin boys seen in her campaign commercial came into the home of Karen and Gordon Floyd in 2000. Many people who have known Karen over the years were surprised because they had never known her to have children. In July 2004, the Floyd’s took steps to adopt the twins. Respect for the privacy of the boys precludes any discussion of the circumstances of their adoption, but it should be noted it was Floyd herself who put them in the public eye. Whether the motivation for that was the pride of an adoptive parent or cold political calculation is left to the judgment of the reader.
Steve,
I’m pretty sure users may register for the Rex blog and actually create posts themselves. I’ve never seen any other candidate allow this option on his/her campaign site. It’s really a pretty neat idea and a good way to get folks excited about a candidate, but obviously it needs some oversight by the campaign — perhaps even moderating each entry before it posts.
Laurin,
Or maybe by claiming to allow uncontrolled access to the blog, it allows the Rex campaign to put whatever they want out there. Either that or they’re dumb enough to allow Floyd supporters to put anti-Rex posts there too. I doubt it.
Does Mr. Stokes know the name of the individual who posted the entry? has anyone from the SC blogosphere asked him if he knows? What if it was a Rex staffer?
By the way, Mrs. Floyd’s op-ed piece in today’s State paper was the perfect foil to the Rex fumble. She was respectful of her opponent and made a very strong case for her position on vouchers as well as on school discipline. If she stays on message for the next six weeks and doesn’t get drawn into the muck and mire with the Rex campaign, it will be smooth sailing to victory.
The Floyd op-ed also mentions that Rex sent one of his kids to private school. How come the biggest opponents to vouchers choose to keep their kids out of public schools?
Steve,
You raise a good point. Allowing anyone the capability to post does give a campaign the ability to say, “Well, that was them and not us.” Regardless of who posts what, the campaign does still have to answer for what’s on their site. Plus, it’s kind of confusing to explain to the general public how someone unaffiliated with the campaign can add content to the campaign’s site. Like I said before, it’s a neat idea, but it is also risky.
I think the most interesting aspect of Floyd’s op-ed is that it ran on a Saturday — the day of the week when the paper’s readership is the absolute lowest. Perhaps Brad could shed some light on how the decisions are made of what pieces to run when on the editorial page.
Many people get a weekend or a Fri-Sun subscription so Saturday is not necessarily the lowest readership day.
There are different reasons people send their kids to private school. I am a public school teacher and want my child to have a Catholic education. A friend sent his girl to a private school to deal with a disability. I’d like to hear the reason for Rex’s decision before passing judgement.
Floyd’s piece today was very narrow – safety and choice. She basically re-wrote her position papers from her website. She also doesn’t address the equity gap between white and black. She doesn’t address the discipline issues not involving violence. She doesn’t address the tracking system etc.
She offers a “Diverse Provider” model to help our poor failing rural schools. She basis this on a 3 1/2 year old program in Philadelphia. To deal with a MAJOR issue in SC education, she offers an uproven big city plan to help schools in Marlboro and Calhoun counties.
By mentioning that Rex sent a child to private school WITHOUT an explanation as to why is not the high road in my book.
This race is light on details and heavy on ideology.
“I am a public school teacher and want my child to have a Catholic education.”
Could you elaborate on that sentence a little? Are you saying that your child is (or will be) attending a private school?
What difference does it make Lex?
Don’t tell me you’re going to start “yammering” (your term) about your “plan” which I repeatedly undercut with facts and your lack of facts. That dead dog of a “plan” is dead.
So is that yes or no?
It makes a huge difference. One way you’re a public teacher putting his own kid in the public school system. The other way you’re one of those many, many public school teachers who know how sorry the public schools are and who are sending their own kids to private schools even while screaming blue murder against any plan to let other kids out of the PS system. You know, like the cooks who won’t eat the food they cook – I never knowingly eat at such restaurants because if even the cook producing the food won’t eat it, then I surely would be better off eating elsewhere.
P.S. you’ve never undercut the school choice “plan” with facts – except maybe in your dreams. But let’s not even get into that again. Instead just tell us why exactly the PS system isn’t good enough for your kid — and why other people shouldn’t have the same right to decide for themselves, especially the ones who aren’t as well-paid as you and can’t afford private schools.
Ok Lex, once again here’s an example of how I shredded your “plan” with facts.
You claimed “SC schools are terrible” and offered up the NAEP scores in which SC middle and elementary schools scored below average on some tests. You suggested private schools would be the “solution”.
I went to YOUR data source and found that on 5 out of 8 tests, SC middle and elementary schools scored higher than MOST of the other states.
You replied “it’s not where our students start, but where they finish”.
When I pointed out this was an explicit admission that you were wrong about middle and elementary schools being “terrible” and needing choice as a solution, you replied that we need private school choice for the sake of choice itself.
You admitted to being wrong about the terrible middle and elementary schools and you changed your position on the need for choice.
Your feeble effort to catch me in a contraction is useless. We are zoned for a highly rated elementary school. Wanting a Catholic education for our child has nothing to do with the quality of public education – another example of your reliance on ideology vs facts.
Ummmm…..please spare us all the tortured quotes and BS about what you allege I said.
Instead, just tell us why exactly the PS system isn’t good enough for your kid — and why other people shouldn’t have the same right to decide for themselves, especially the ones who aren’t as well-paid as you and can’t afford private schools.
tell us exactly why the PS system isn’t good enough for your kid – Lex
S-E-P-A-R-A-T-I-O-N O-F C-H-U-R-C-H A-N-D S-T-A-T-E
At a public school, including the excellent one in our area, the students do not go to mass once a week and don’t have daily lessons on Christian Faith.
What is “BS” about the scenario I reviewed for you? Which part do you protest? I’ll certainly be happy to cut and paste YOUR posts and prove your wrong Lex. I think you should just stay down Rocky!
So why shouldn’t poor parents be able to enroll their kids in schools that have “mass once a week” and “daily lessons on Christian Faith”? Or is this something only for the well-to-do?
Here’s the basic problem once again. With full vouchers, poor parents would be able to do just that but you oppose it tooth and nail, secure in the knowledge that you can afford it without vouchers. Shouldn’t poor kids also have these opportunities or is your kid somehow “better” than they are, or should we say “more equal”?
You may not have realized it yet but you have just lost absolutely all credibility on the school choice issue. IMO there’s little worse than someone forcing other kids to stay in the failed PS system while sending his own kid to private school. Rank hypocrisy!
How “un-nuanced” (your term) of you Lex. Let me go through this slowly…
You push private schools as a “solution” to failed public schools – academic issue.
We are zoned for an excellent school but look to pay for private school for reasons of Faith – religious issue.
We would actually benefit from vouchers as I wouldn’t have to write that stiff check every month.
Once again you try to use an apples to oranges comparison to justify your faulty ideological “plan”.
Rest assured though Lex, I won’t be sitting around waiting for my son’s teachers to email me.
I’m for school choice not just as a “”solution” to failed public schools” but on general principle. I simply don’t believe that some unaccountable educrat will ever have my child’s best interest more at heart than I will myself. Therefore I believe that government should be in the business of funding K-12 only, by allotting a certain amount for each student, usable at any qualified school. The actual service should be provided by private enterprise, just as is the fact for college education, Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other government-paid services. However, good public schools would undoubtedly be able to continue as well as long as they satisfy their customers.
Of course, you would benefit from vouchers but so would many lower-income families who are currently left with no escape from the failed public school system. Why deny them that means of escape when you yourself won’t let your child partake from your fellow educrats’ teaching?
I’ve never had to wait for my child’s teacher to email me. They email long before school even starts for the year. I know you said that your public school doesn’t believe in that high level of service but doesn’t your private school do that for you?
I’m still stunned that you actually had the nerve to write hundreds (thousands?) of posts in favor of keeping kids on the educrat plantation even while you yourself are sending your kid to a private school. Have you no shame?
I’m stunned that you tried to dismiss Foley’s actions merely as those of a lonely gay man hitting on other adult males.
Atleast it’s nice that you show so much concern for those who can not afford private school. Too bad your “plan” still wouldn’t allow for them to pay for it. You posted that public schools in SC spend less than 8k/year yet you are shelling out 12k/year. Is this another hole that your “plan” will work out on it’s own?
I see that it’s lost on you how some people make major decisions based on faith such as by-passing an excellent public school in our neighborhood to write a stiff monthly check for a Catholic education. This calls to mind another gapping hole in your “plan” – the assumption that all these private schools want to expand to take on these new students.
I actually favor more choice for low socio-economic students, unlike you who favors taking tax dollars from the public schools and giving them to rich families who have kids in private school now.
Atleast you admitted some mistakes and agreed that SC middle and elementary schools are not “terrible” and that private schools in your plan would have to answer to the government. You and old George Allen make use of the ever evolving explanations.
Randy, do you get a reduced rate at your child’s elementary school because you belong to the Catholic parish that runs the school? More specifically, would a non-parishioner pay more tuition than you would? By the way, I think it’s great that you are taking advantage of a parochial school.
Lex — How’s the campaign coming to get those poor struggling students into Heathwood Hall?
Seriously (well, that IS a serious question), this is an interesting debate. There’s plenty of things to look at.
It comes to ideological questions and questions of what’s practical in a state where compulsory free education for ALL is REQUIRED. It’s fine to say that the government shouldn’t tell people what they can and can’t do….and the government obviously CAN’T keep people from putting their kids into private school. Of course, the money is a deal-breaker for many, just as obviously….so what to do about those folks? A voucher will work for all those folks? Non-accountable schools will work best in a state where we spend PUBLIC money on education? Every poor kid struggling with academics in the public system will be able to get into a good private school, especially when top schools like Heathwood keep them out?
Lots of very interesting questions.
Thanks Dave. Parishoners get a reduced rate 15% ish I believe. I’ll be working an extra job to pay for it.
Some guy, I think you’re right. It’s a very complicated issue as well.
The idea behind the blog as more than a personal diary is beginning to spread its wings and as such, some sticky points are bound to be encountered.
Were I to know for a fact that Rex endorsed -whether he agreed with the content or the inference made by the article – but that he endorsed the *idea* that Mrs. Floyd’s personal life was up for mud slinging, that would tarnish any previously okay notion I had of him.
As it is I never did in the first place and now, more than an inept politician, he looks like a crummy person too – IF he endorsed the idea in the blog article. [Which appears to be gone now.]
I see this article though and I can’t help but wonder if he looked better not talking so much.
http://blog.jimrex.com/?m=200609