Was just looking back at some stuff from last week, and I think once again that if we were to give out prizes for blog comments, Emile DeFelice would walk away with this month’s award. I refer to the comment containing this line:
I grew canard for awhile a few years ago, and my customers can tell you that fresh local canard is much better than frozen foreign canard.
I think that’s the best, wittiest bit of self-satire I’ve seen from a political candidate in — well, just about ever.
I know we didn’t endorse him, but this is the great thing about being an Unpartisan — you can like and admire people you don’t endorse. Democrats and Republicans can’t do that. Some of the nicer ones would like to, but it’s like a physical law or something that they can’t. I don’t know.
Anyway, Emile is definitely money. He is so money, and he doesn’t even know it.
(OK, I admit I was just rewatching "Swingers.")
Related Posts
Brad, thanks to Emile’s posting here, I won’t be voting a straight ticket for the GOP. We could use his ideas in state government. And some humor.
Dave,
I agree. I’m no farmer but DeFelice’s home grown food philosophy seems sensible. I think he could learn the job and would bring innovation that Weathers would not.
I cast my absentee ballot yesterday and gave my vote to Mr. DeFelice. Hope it makes a difference… (and if he wants to send a little “canard” my way for the Thanksgiving table, we can call it even) 🙂
I didn’t vote straight Republican as I had originally thought I would. Sanford, Bauer, Floyd, Ravenal, Theodore, DeFelice,
Denise Jones, Ellisor (a vote against Joe Wilson is a vote against George Bush).
Whoa — could it be that, without realizing it, Emile actually is the Unparty candidate? Our very first one.
I mean, he’s qualified, in that he’s definitely cool enough. As I said, he’s money.
To think that I’m just realizing now that our candidate was right here all along. I must be blind not to have seen it. As party founder, I could have been the guy behind the guy behind the guy.
Jim Rex could join Emile on the 2006 UnParty ticket. He said initially he wanted to run as an independent but felt that he’d have a more realistic chance of success as a Democrat. Until that sentiment changes, the UnParty is doomed. Perhaps if Joe Lieberman wins he will try to create a party around himself a la Ariel Sharon and Kadima.
Emile would make the office of Ag Commissioner so much more interesting.
Editorial boards don’t seem to place much value on innovation, energy, creativity, personality. I hope the voters do, and give Emile a chance.
Yeah, we do — else why would I be giving my man Emile so many props?
After Emile left at the end of his interview, we were pumped. He was going to be our boy.
Then Hugh came in, and when he left we gave each other baleful looks because we had simulaneously realized that if we were to be consistent — and we place great store by being intellectually consistent; it’s not everything, but it’s important — we would have to go with the guy who exemplified what we had been advocating for years.
We believe that the post should be appointed. He was appointed, and he was a good choice on the governor’s part.
We believe that having that post separately elected undermines governmental accountability. He was appointed to replace a guy who personified the problem — a corrupt incompetent who was elected purely because he had an R after his name.
He was highly qualified. His well-wounded resume was much like that of the Democrat we endorsed four years earlier, John Long — who was defeated solely because he did NOT have an R after his name.
He believes the office should be appointive, and Emile does not (his one flaw).
If we had endorsed my bud Emile, we would have been guilty of going with the guy who we personally liked and thought was cool, instead of the guy who pretty much perfectly fit the description we’ve cited for years of what the ag commissioner would be.
I’m glad to have endorsed Hugh. I’m sorry not to have been able to endorse Emile also, but that’s not the way it works.
I just went back and re-read your notes on the interviews with Hugh Weathers and Emile DeFelice. I can’t for the life of me figure out how you chose to endorse Mr. Weathers.
It appears to have been based on his visionary leadership where “he says the agency is about to issue its request-for-proposal on a new branding campaign for S.C. products this very week.”… wow… that’s heroic.
Tax dollars for a branding campaign — oh wait… might some of those marketing dollars be spent on ADVERTISING in maybe local newspapers???? Ahhhhhh….
Probably not. He mostly talked about signage to promote SC products in stores; stuff like that…
Interesting thought, though. Tell my publisher I was making decisions with a mind to the company making money. He’ll be stunned. If he believes you, who knows, maybe it will redound to my benefit. But he would never believe you, alas.
I appreciate your attempt to help me, but we’ll just have to come up with something else.
I was hoping YOU could come up with a better reason for endorsing Weathers. Your interview notes didn’t exactly make it clear as to what Mr. Weathers has accomplished in the time he’s been on the job.
Brad,
After reading this tonight, it appears the only reason you and the ed board endorsed Hugh, and the cows from Bowman, is because Emile believes (he probably really doesn’t care one way or the other) the post should be an elected position. To me, and to your readers who seek some counsel from your page, that’s a sad testament of your reasoning. Heres why. It’s pretty unlikely that any of the constitutional offices will change from elected to appointed. The legislature, especially the Senate, is pretty hostile to any power grab by the executive branch.
My point is this Brad, your paged missed a great opportunity to endorse a smart idea-factory in Emile DeFelice. You settled for the status quo for some bs “consistency” argument. And because the race is so far down the ballot, and there being less information available to the general public, your endorsement, means more.
So, next year, after the state wastes $2 million of our tax dollars on a marketing plan, I hope you’re the first ed board to say, publicly, “Wow, Emile DeFelice didn’t need $2 million, he already thought and lived “Put Your State on Your Plate.”
Susan et. al.,
don’t be so downcast. Most thinking people in the Columbia area pay great attention to The State’s endorsements – and then vote for the other guy! That’s what I’ve been doing for 10 years (with 1 or 2 exceptions).
Now you can go out and do all sorts of research as to whom you should vote for, but why? The State is already doing all that work for you. If you vote for the other guy you will be voting for your kinda guy at least 90% of the time.
I’ll probably vote for Emile myself, just because he’s so unorthodox. Besides, how much damage can he do at Agriculture?
A big part of the problem in South Carolina, from its schools to its government and even to its football teams, is that the prevailing mindset is “That’s the way we’ve always done it.” There’s a higher level of stubbornness regarding change than you will find in more progressive states. There’s a whole lot more we COULD be doing if we get people with ideas and energy into our government.
I’m no fan of Ted Kennedy, but compare the sheer volume and breadth of legislation he has been involved with to what Strom Thurmond did over essentially the same time period.
Only farmers should be allowed to vote for Commissioner of Agriculture.
The pat answer by almost every politician is a marketing campaign, hiring the political pals to come up with some silly billboards and jingles. Sometimes they are a necessary COMPONENT of fixing a problem, but never the entire solution.
Emile DeFelice already has one going. Let’s not spend more money paying off cronies of Hugh Weathers for an inferior set of ideas.