Monthly Archives: January 2007

A potential nominee for us?

Looks like Sen. Jim Ritchie is angling for the Energy Party’s nomination in the next election. Nice try, Jim, even though the release is light on specifics… (good thing I’ve linked to the actual bills below, which do contain some pretty decent ideas):

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 31, 2007
Contact: Kendall Robinson
robinsonk@scsenate.org

SENATOR JIM RITCHIE INTRODUCES "ENERGY INDEPENDENCE FOR SC’S FUTURE"
Ritchie Seeks to Create a Sustainable and Energy Independent South Carolina

COLUMBIA, SC – Today, Senator James H. "Jim" Ritchie, Jr. (R-13),
Majority Whip, held a press conference in the South Carolina State House
to announce a series of four bills, collectively entitled "Energy
Independence for South Carolina’s Future." Together, they address
our growing dependence on foreign energy, the rising costs of energy on
our state, the effects of a building’s indoor environment on its
residents, and protecting the beautiful environment for which South
Carolina has become famous.

Joining him at the announcement were fellow colleagues who are
co-sponsoring the legislation and members from prominent state business
and conservation groups. Supporters and co-sponsors include:

Senator Glen McConnell, Senate President Pro Tempore

Senator John Courson, Senate Education Committee Chairman

Senator Phil Leventis

Senator Larry Martin, Senate Rules Committee Chairman

Senator Wes Hayes, Senate Ethics Committee Chairman

Senator Greg Gregory, Senate Fish, Game and Forestry Committee Chairman

Senator Thomas Alexander, Senate Banking and Insurance Committee Chairman

Senator Scott Richardson

Senator Gerald Malloy

Senator Vincent Sheheen

Senator Chip Campsen

Senator Ray Cleary

Senator Nikki Setzler

American Institute of Architects, SC Chapter

Coastal Conservation League

Conservation Voters of SC

Palmetto Conservation Foundation

SC Chapter of the Sierra Club

SC Wildlife Federation

U.S. Green Building Council, SC Chapter

Senator Ritchie said "together, these strategic initiatives will
create a South Carolina that is no longer defenseless against
unpredictable energy costs by establishing strong incentives for private
investors, sustainable construction and environmental standards for
state buildings and our public schools, and new alternative fuel goals
for our state’s transportation fleet.

As a result, no longer will we determine a building project’s worth
merely by what it costs today; instead, we will also focus on how our
buildings affect the well being of the South Carolinians who work and
learn there, its effects on our environment, and the burden each
building’s energy costs imposes on taxpayers."

"This package sets a new course for sustainable construction in South
Carolina. By adopting leading energy efficiency standards, we will
actually save the taxpayers money, reduce energy and water usage, and
improve the interior environment for employees and our school
children," Ritchie said.

"Energy Independence for South Carolina’s Future" is a series of
four bills, listed below:
S. 376: Energy Independence and Sustainable Construction Act of 2007
S. 362: Energy Independence and Sustainable Schools Act of 2007
S. 377: Energy Independence and Sustainable Investment Act of 2007
S. 368: South Carolina Alternative Fuels Act

Senator Ritchie continued, "While this endeavor seeks to relinquish
the Middle East’s control over our energy needs and preserve South
Carolina’s natural resources for our children and grandchildren, it
ensures the proper balance between these goals and the well being of our
economy and the business community. When these bills become law, South
Carolina will be at the forefront of finding meaningful and balanced
solutions to conservation and economic growth. This will enhance South
Carolina’s future as a highly desirable place to live, work and raise
a family."

Several influential associations have already pledged their support to
this initiative, and have written letters of support to members of the
Senate. To obtain a copy of these letters or for more information,
please contact Kendall Robinson at robinsonk@scsenate.org.
###

Mark Shriver

2 Replies

Had breakfast this a.m. with Mark Shriver, son of Sargent (and yes, for the celebrity-obsessed, brother-in-law of Arnold). He was in town to talk up the literacy programs his organization, Save the Children, is supporting in South Carolina.

Actually, he had two main points:

His group’s S.C. affiliate supports increasing our nation’s-lowest cigarette tax to the national average. I liked this about their position: They see the need (as does our editorial board) to raise the tax whatever it is spent on, because it will prevent a lot of teens from taking up smoking just by raising the price. He’d prefer to see it spent on health care and smoking prevention efforts, though.
He’d like state support for his organization’s efforts to give an extra boost to reading skills of kids in poor, rural school districts — wherever the money comes from.

He made the point that as a legislator in Maryland, he was hard-headed about making sure groups that sought money could demonstrate a return on investment, and he’s sure that the economic development boost of better-educated kids qualifies. But I don’t know; I’m inclined to think we should concentrate more on improving the schools themselves, and let private money support private efforts. (That’s not an official editorial opinion; I’d have to study this more. I’m just giving you my first-blush thoughts from the meeting.)

Interestingly, when Mr. Shriver brought up the upcoming reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, I asked what his uncle was thinking about that — seeing as how he had worked with the president to get it passed.

That led to a discussion of a difference between Mr. Shriver and Uncle Ted, who he said is more interested in finding ways to upgrade the teaching corps than in private efforts. I don’t have all the details, but I would tend to think the senator’s on the right track there.

Not to denigrate Save the Children’s efforts. They sound laudable, and I wish them the greatest of success. Our rural areas can use the help, and that’s a profound understatement.

The breakfast was set up by Ted Riley, who I learned does an almost scary impersonation of his dad, the former governor and Education secretary. I’ll have to get that on video sometime.

Peggy gets it wrong

15 Replies

Watch closely, now — you especially, Mary: Here’s how we disagree with someone respectfully.

You’ll recall that I had nice things to say about Peggy Noonan. My attitude on that point is unchanged.

But she was 180 degrees wrong when she wrote "He’s Got Guts," in defense of Chuck Hagel. (In this, my attitude is ALSO unchanged.) She quotes at some length his speech in favor of the spineless resolution griping about the Surge, but doing nothing about it — except, of course, signal to the enemies those 21,500 Americans will be fighting that if they just kill a few more of our boys (and yes, for those of you who are sticklers, sometimes girls, but in this case we’re talking combat infantry), then we’ll probably cave, because we are SO divided about this already.

She includes in her excerpt this quote, which I had read elsewhere in forming my previous judgment:

"Sure it’s tough. Absolutely. And I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why are you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes."

Precisely. So if you don’t want the troops going, stop them. Don’t holler, as they climb on the plane, that you really don’t think this is a good idea, but you’re not going to do anything about it.

If that’s your idea of being a stand-up guy, maybe you should be selling shoes.

Yeah, I get Peggy’s point about all the falseness and cowardice in Washington. But how that resolution is a departure from that rule is beyond me.

And no, I don’t want him to stop the troops from going. That would be disastrous. But passing a resolution saying they shouldn’t go, but taking no concrete action, is contemptible.

Reform gets fragged

21 Replies

Reform gets fragged
in the S.C. Senate

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
“Here we are clinging to this antiquated system just like we clung to segregation, just like we clung to Jim Crow. I don’t mean to equate them, but in South Carolina it takes a long time to get over bad ideas.”
— Sen. Greg Gregory

ONCE AGAIN, the Senate has rejected the idea of letting voters decide whether they want to have a governor they can hold accountable for what state agencies do, or nine separate little governors pulling the state apart.
Not all of the Senate, mind you. Just enough of them to ensure failure, to keep government fragmented so that it can’t ever get its act together.
Whom can we hold accountable? Well, I can’t tell you. It was done in such a classic, befuddled manner that it is virtually impossible to fix blame. That, of course, is the hallmark of the Legislative State.
We must applaud in spite of ourselves. It was a thing of great subtlety, even beauty, if you’re the
sort who is turned on by stagnation: “The Senate, Now More Than Ever,” as the old bumper sticker said the last time senators deflected and diluted reform.
It’s poetic. The problem with having the adjutant general, superintendent of education, agriculture commissioner, etc., all elected separately from the governor is that there is no coordination between their agencies and the rest of the state government. So when roads are falling apart, rural schools aren’t educating kids, prisons are about to burst, we have more state colleges than neighboring states but none as good as they do, and so forth, we can’t hold anybody responsible. (Is it any wonder so few South Carolinians bother to vote?)
Some senators like fragmentation, so they “fragged” the plan to do away with it. And no one can tell who threw the grenade.
A majority of senators voted to put the elected schools chief, the ag commissioner, the adjutant general and secretary of state on the chopping block — but they needed a two-thirds majority. Having the governor and lieutenant governor run on the same ticket didn’t even get 50 percent. The only office a sufficient number of senators were willing to risk a public vote on was comptroller general, and that’s just because he “asked for it.” Afterwards, even some of the reform-minded were saying, ah, what’s the use of changing just one of them. So we might not even get that. A true muddle.
Just for fun, just so we can fully appreciate this ancient art, let’s try to fix blame (this will at least amuse the senators):

Start with the easy part: the 10 who didn’t support reform on any of the votes — Robert Ford, Darrell Jackson, John Land, Phil Leventis, Gerald Malloy, John Matthews, Yancey McGill, Kay Patterson, Clementa Pinckney and Glenn Reese. But others had to join with them, in shifting coalitions, to deny the supermajority in the half-dozen votes.
Was it Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, who had promised the governor a quick vote on the matter — and delivered just that, a vote without debate, held before the votes were lined up? He would be a prime suspect, given his history as a defender of legislative prerogative. Do we really believe that he of all people would have so mishandled the matter accidentally? But we can’t prove that, and must therefore give him credit for being sincere. People do change, you know.
Was it Senate Democrats, who have become convinced that the only statewide office a member of their party can aspire to is superintendent of education, and they don’t want to give that up? Or were the Dems just trying to stick it to a Republican governor? Well, all 10 above were Democrats, but the Senate just isn’t partisan enough to make it that simple. There were Republican “nays” on some votes. Besides, Vincent Sheheen voted for all the changes, and surely, he is a Democrat.
Maybe it was just the small-“d” democrats who believe that the people shouldn’t have the right to vote on every minor official taken away from them? Certain senators did wrap themselves in that. But it’s just not credible that they really believe it. Try this: Ask the next 10 voters you meet to name the nine statewide officers, and then ask yourself: If they don’t know who they are, how are they supposed to hold them accountable? The long ballot dilutes the will of the voters, and that’s the only thing it does efficiently. Besides, if you care so much about the people’s will, why won’t you at least let them vote on whether they want to change?
The Senate is more about personal relationships than about party. So-o-o … was it yet another case of friends of one constitutional officer making deals with the friends of other constitutional officers, plus senators who might themselves want to be constitutional officers someday, in order to get just barely a large-enough minority to kill the thing? That’s always worked in the past. But where do you grab ahold of that kind of multidirectional backscratching so you can stop it?

Well, you don’t. You can’t. Truth is, you can’t blame any of the above causes, because it was most likely several of them, working together. You can’t blame any one phenomenon, party, faction or ego. If you try to fight it, you’ll be overwhelmed by Lilliputians before you decide which way to swing your sword.
Now mind you, I’m not saying there should be any one person running the Senate (sorry, Sen. McConnell). A legislative body should represent and balance diverse views on the way to making laws.
But an executive branch should not be that way. Once everybody’s had their say, and the law is a fact, somebody needs to be charged with carrying it out. At the point of execution, diverse interests are a distraction, an obstacle, a waste of money. We have all that and more in South Carolina.
And there’s nobody to blame — except maybe you, if you continue to sit still for this.

For how they all voted, click on this.

Mary Unroshed

30 Replies

You know, Mary is so close to making a positive contribution to this blog. I’m going to show you how.

As I’ve made clear when I posted this, I intend to have a serious, grownup discussion about energy — without the pointless partisanship, rancid ideology, and ad hominem childishness that has plagued this blog, and held it back from broader participation, since the beginning.

So I made an example of "Mary Rosh," unpublishing two of her comments. I hesitated to do it, because she was actually on topic, although her ideas… well, I’ll let you decide how constructive they are. But since they had violated the higher standard of civility I had set for this post, in the hope that some of our more serious and fastidious participants would warm up to it, they had to go.

But here they are, translated into normal, sane, grownup language (and Doug or anybody else who wants them — I’ll still e-mail you the originals). Glean from them what you will.

These thoughts were posted on Friday (in slightly different form):

I think it’s time to get realistic. It’s just not going to be that easy to replace Middle Eastern oil that can be gotten out of the ground for $3.00 per barrel. There’s a lot going on right not with respect to conservation and alternative energy sources, but all these crash course, consequences-be-damned proposals (are in vain).

… For example, build nuclear power plants as fast as safely possible. First, that’s been done. No nuclear power plant has been put on line since the Three Mile Island accident, and that, as it happens, is as fast as is safely possible. Second, electricity generation mostly doesn’t use oil.

Drilling in ANWR wouldn’t get a significant amount of oil…

Light rail is just (impractical) unless the population is dense enough, which it isn’t in most cities in the U.S.

The $2 per gallon gasoline tax wouldn’t bother me much, but it would be economically crippling to a lot of people, especially in a place like South Carolina, where there aren’t too many alternatives to passenger cars, and where the incomes aren’t that high….

That was it, boiled down to basic concepts. Here’s the one from today (Saturday):

1. The nuclear energy idea is (unwise), because

a) the plants are dangerous and expensive.
b) electricity generation uses relatively little oil. TWO PERCENT of U.S. electric generation in 2001 was oil-fired.

So (we would) waste vast sums of money and … expose the population to considerable danger, and create waste that will last for hundreds of centuries, without saving any oil to speak of.

2. The light rail idea is … too expensive and too inconvenient unless the population is pretty dense, which is not true in most American cities. Imagine light rail in South Carolina, for example. You have to get people from their houses to the station, and you have to get them from the station to their destination. That’s a huge pain, requiring bus transfers at both ends, unless the population around the train station is dense enough to support the train, and the workplaces and other destinations at the other end of the line are clustered around closely enough.

3. The $2.00 per gallon gasoline tax wouldn’t bother me, but it would devastate a lot of people, particularly in South Carolina and other conservative states where the income isn’t that high. It would create an insurmountable hardship for millions of people, and be borne by those who could least afford it.

4. Drilling in ANWR wouldn’t supply a significant percentage of our needs….

5. … Any energy policy should be analyzed in terms of what our needs are and what is the best way to supply our needs.

6. I don’t object on principle to the idea of developing new technologies, including hydrogen. The main problem with hydrogen, though, is probably distribution. And it’s vitally important not to use technological initiatives simply as mechanisms to transfer federal money. For example, any hydrogen fuel initiative carried out in South Carolina is likely to amount to nothing more than a simple transfer of federal money to South Carolina, because South Carolina doesn’t have the educated population necessary to carry such an initiative through to success. [Editor’s note: Even if Mary tried another pseudonym and stopped the sore-thumb practice of calling me "Warthen," we would know her by this signature obsession. It’s like a nervous tic. But despite the implied insult to 4 million people, it doesn’t really break the rules.]

7. It’s not going to be easy to develop an economical way to replace 100% of the oil that lies under sand and costs $3.00 per barrel to get out of the ground. We need to concentrate first on managing our demand so that we avoid shortages that drive the price way up. Sometimes shaving 2% or 3% off of our demand will do that. There’s no need to lurch into some crash program to replace 100% of our imported energy, without considering the alternatives and consequences of doing so.

8. … There are, of course, plenty of ways for us to provide for our security without trying to change the Middle East by military force, or by devoting excessive resource or accepting excessive negative consequences in order to achieve an arbitrarily set goal of complete energy independence. Using diplomacy, for example. For example, when Iran offered in 2001 to help us pursue al Qaeda, and offered numerous other overtures of friendship and assistance, we could have talked to them instead of making threats.

That’s it. Oh, one other thing. Just for fun, I’ll give you an edited version of a still-published comment from Mary. Weirdly, it was one in which she was trying, in spite of herself, to give positive feedback, however ironic — but it just stuck in her craw. Here’s the cleaned-up version (see how much time she could save, if she dropped the hostility):

Actually, it’s not that bad an idea….

Of course, there’s the distinct likelihood that she meant NOTHING positive at all — in other words, that the insult was the point, rather than a cover-up for her embarrassment at saying something positive. But I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

By the way, did any of y’all get ANYTHING out of all those releases I posted? If not, I’ll drop the practice right away, and feel relieved. (I was a little manic yesterday, wasn’t I?)

Out with the UnParty, in with ENERGY!

57 Replies

Nobody’s proposing a comprehensive energy plan, so I guess we’ll have to do it ourselves.

I’ve had this idea percolating lately that I wanted to develop fully before tossing it out. Maybe do a column on it first, roll it out on a Sunday with lots of fanfare. But hey, the situation calls for action, not hoopla.

So here’s the idea (we’ll refine is as we go along):

Reinvent the Unparty as the Energy Party. Not the Green Party — it’s not just about the environment — but a serious energy party. Go all the way, get real, make like we actually know there’s a war going on. Do the stuff that neither the GOP nor the Dems would ever do:

Jack up CAFE standards.
Put about a $2 per gallon tax on gasoline.
Spend the tax proceeds on a Manhattan project on clean, alternative energy (hydrogen, bio, wind, whatever), and on public transportation (especially light rail).
Reduce speed limits everywhere to no more than 55 mph. (This must be credited to Samuel Tenenbaum, who bent my ear about it yet again this morning, and apparently does the same to every presidential wannabe who calls his house looking for him or Inez).
ENFORCE the damn’ speed limits. If states say they can’t, give them the resources out of the gas tax money.
Build nuclear power plants as fast as we can (safely, of course).
Either ban SUVs for everyone who can’t demonstrate a life-or-death need to drive one, or tax them at 100 percent of the sales price and throw THAT into the win-the-war kitty.
If we go the tax route on SUVs (rather than banning), launch a huge propaganda campaign along the lines of "Loose Lips Sink Ships" (for instance, "Hummers are Osama’s Panzer Corps"). Make wasting fuel the next smoking or DUI — absolutely socially unacceptable.
Because it will be a few years before we can be completely free of petrol, drill the ever-lovin’ slush out of the ANWR, explore for oil off Myrtle Beach, and build refinery capacity — all for a limited time of 20 years. Put the limit in the Constitution.

You get the idea. Respect no one’s sacred cows, left or right; go all-out to win the war and, in the long run, save the Earth. Pretty soon, tyrants from Tehran to Moscow to Caracas will be tumbling down without our saying so much as "boo" to them, and global warming will slow within our lifetimes.

THEN, once we’ve done all that, we can start insisting upon some common sense on entitlements, and health care. Change the name to the Pragmatic Party then. Whatever works, whatever is practical, whatever solves our problems — no matter whose ox gets gored. Leave the ideologues in the dust, while we solve the problems.

How’s that sound? Can any of y’all get behind that?

Enough, already!

Brownback support in SC

2 Replies

Got this from fellow Rotarian Hal Stevenson:

Dear Brad,

I am personally an avid supporter of Senator Sam Brownback for President, a true conservative who honestly represents traditional family values. I invite you to attend this event and learn more about Senator Brownback’s platform. For more information please review the details below or explore this website http://millenniumiii.com/brownback.htm

Sincerely,
Hal Stevenson

Senator Brownback to Speak
in Columbia, S.C.
Friday, February 2nd
Tronco’s Rosewood Ballroom at the State Fairgrounds
Doors Open: 11:45 A.M.
Lunch Served: 12:00 P.M. (Complimentary)
The Senator Speaks: 12:30 P.M.

United States Senator Sam Brownback (Republican – Kansas)
Senator Brownback embodies the very core principles that most South Carolina Republicans share, certainly the true conservatives. He does not read polls to decide which popular positions to embrace; rather he leads from strong personal convictions. Sam is motivated by his deep Christian faith that is the very foundation of his calling to public service. On that firm foundation he has built a platform of real solutions to tough problems that confront America today.

This event is open to all supporters and interested persons, but we cordially request the courtesy of an RSVP. Please feel free to invite friends!

Please RSVP to:
David H. Barron (DavidHBarron@gmail.com)

Brownback for President Campaign: (785) 220-2615

PAID FOR BY BROWNBACK FOR PRESIDENT
P.O. Box 2008 | Topeka, KS 66601-2008 | http://www.Brownback.com

——————————————————————————–
You have received this message because you have subscribed to a mailing list of Palmetto Family Council. If you do not wish to receive periodic emails from this source, please click below to unsubscribe.
http://votervoice.net/unsubscribe.asp?id=c:pfc:28568318

McCain support in SC

1 Reply

Another one (this is already getting old, unless y’all say you like it):

Dear The:

Here’s your personal copy of the McCain News From the Palmetto State! Inside you’ll find breaking news from the campaign trail and ways you can get involved with McCain 2008 – The Exploratory Committee. If you would prefer not to receive this email-newsletter, then simply hit reply and type “Remove” in the subject line.

Thank you,
John McCain 2008 – The Exploratory Committee

McCain News From the Palmetto State
From the Spartanburg Herald-Journal – Johnson ready to back McCain
Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain has added one of Spartanburg’s biggest hitters to his lineup.
George Dean Johnson is set to climb aboard McCain’s South Carolina juggernaut, the Herald-Journal has learned. The official announcement could come as early as today. (To read the whole story, click here.)

From the Myrtle Beach Sun News – Bachus to serve as southeast co-chairman of McCain Committee
U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama will serve as Southeast co-chairman of U.S. Sen. John McCain’s presidential exploratory committee, the Arizona Republican announced Thursday. (To read the whole story, click here.)

From the Myrtle Beach Sun News – McCain suggests Iraqi Government meet benchmarks
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the most stalwart supporters of the war in Iraq, said Thursday that he might propose that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks for the United States to continue its engagement. (To read the whole story, click here.)

From National Review – The Tragic Courage of John McCain
“…as poll-conscious Republicans flee from Bush, John McCain is steadfast, and the very picture of courageous political leadership.” (To read the whole story, click here.)

From the Blogosphere
From SC Chaser – Zogby from N.H.
McCain leads Giuliani 26% to 20%! (To view the poll, click here.)

From SC Chaser – McCain Adds Two More to Staff
Josh Robinson and Blake Montgomery join the McCain team. (To read the whole story, click here.)

John McCain – In His Own Words
“Until the government and its coalition allies can protect the population, the Iraqi people will increasingly turn to extra-governmental forces, especially Sunni and Shiite militias, for protection. Only when the government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force will its authority have meaning, and only when its authority has meaning can political activity have the results we seek.” (Sen. John McCain, “Send More Troops,” The Washington Post, 1/7/07)

Paid For By John McCain 2008 – The Exploratory Committee, Inc.
www.ExploreMcCain.com

The Friday Freakley briefing

2 Replies

This is an altogether different sort of release, but I thought I’d vary up the mix. It’s very long, so I’ll just give you the link to the Web version, with this excerpt to give you an idea of the flavor:

"Progress quietly proceeds here in Afghanistan, and we see in this both counterinsurgency and in development.Reporting acts of violence continues to make news in the United States, but significant good news are often overlooked.The Taliban have not achieved any of their objectives in the last year, and by contrast the Afghan government, the international community has worked on infrastructure, getting more Afghans to work, more children into schools and expanding the government."

Those are the words of Maj. Gen. Benjamin Freakley, speaking to a Washington press briefing from Afghanistan, where he is the commander of the Combined Joint Task Force-76 and commanding general, 10th Mountain Division.

Diocese settles sex abuse claims

10 Replies

This afternoon was so busy, I was letting the machine get the phone, and I missed a call from the Bishop giving me a heads-up on the following news, which I will now share with you:

CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) – The Roman Catholic Diocese of Charleston
announced Friday it will settle child sex abuse claims in South
Carolina, designating as much as $12 million for damages.

"It
is my fervent hope that this settlement will allow us, as the Catholic
community of faith in South Carolina, to bring closure to an ugly
period in our history," Bishop Robert Baker said.

The
class-action settlement has been given initial approval by a state
judge, said Larry Richter, an attorney for four victims whose claims
were settled last summer.

Peter Shahid Jr., an attorney
representing the diocese, said the church knows of at least eight other
victims although others may come forward.

Under the settlement, abuse victims could get anywhere from $10,000 to $200,000 while spouses and parents would receive $20,000.

Since
1950, there have been 50 abuse claims involving 28 clergy or others
diocesan employees settled for almost $3 million, Shahid said. Those
claims were not apart of the new settlement.

Richter, himself a Roman Catholic, said it is unclear how many other victims may come forward.

"What
you find in this area is people can’t just be molested and the next day
step up to the plate and say ‘I’m a victim,’" he said. "It’s often
after a very painful time in life."

Baker said in a letter
published in the diocesan newspaper on Friday that he deeply regrets
"the anguish of any individual who has suffered the scourge of
childhood abuse and I am firmly committed to a just resolution of any
instance in which a person who holds the responsibility of a protector
has become a predator."

The settlement allows compensation for sexual abuse victims born before August 30, 1980, and their spouses and parents.

The
attorneys said the 1980 date was negotiated generally to assure the
settlement would cover victims who otherwise could not sue because the
statute of limitations would have expired.

The agreement sets up an initial pool of $5 million. If $4 million of that is paid, a second pool of $7 million will be added.

Richter
said they arrived at the $12 million figure by reviewing settlements
throughout the country. An arbitrator will validate claims and
determine the amount of compensation, according to the statement.

The diocese said it was encouraging anyone who was a victim to contact Richter.

John
Barker, chief financial officer for the diocese, said the money would
come from insurance, interest on investments and, if needed, selling
church property.

"There have been dioceses that have declared
bankruptcy," Shahid said. "The faithful should understand … we have
capped our liability at $12 million. Those (other) dioceses were faced
with huge debts as a result of claims and were forced into bankruptcy."

Diocese
officials in South Carolina have said the incidence of child abuse has
been lower here than the national average during the past half century.

Statistics
released by the church three years ago show that between 1950 and 2002
about 4 percent of all American Catholic clerics were accused of abuse
compared with 2.7 percent of the clergy in South Carolina.

A
former South Carolina priest who pleaded guilty last year to assault
and battery of a high and aggravated nature in the sexual abuse of two
boys 30 years ago was the seventh former priest, coach or teacher in
the diocese to plead guilty to abuse charges.

There are about
158,000 Catholics in South Carolina, almost four percent of the state
population, according to the diocesan Web site.

A final hearing on the settlement will be held in early March.

Romney to S.C.

1 Reply

Here’s another one. In a strategy you may have heard about, Romney sends out a LOT of these:

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY
CONTACT: Romney Press Shop

January 26, 2007                                                                                                                         (857) 288-6390

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY TRAVELS TO SOUTH CAROLINA
Boston, MA – On Monday and Tuesday, January 29-30, Governor Mitt Romney and his son, Tagg Romney, will travel to South Carolina. Governor Romney will begin his trip by delivering the Keynote Address at the Aiken Rotary Club Meeting in Aiken, SC. The Romneys will then travel to Mt. Pleasant, SC, and hold a press conference to announce key endorsements from leaders in the Charleston, SC area. The following day, Governor Romney and his son will meet with local residents in Columbia, SC. The events listed below will be open to members of the media.

Monday, January 29
12:40 p.m.    Governor Romney Keynotes Meeting of the Aiken Rotary Club
                     Aiken Municipal Conference Center
215 The Alley
Aiken, SC

5:00 p.m.    Governor Romney Announces Key Endorsements of Charleston Area Leaders
                           Coen Capital
                     100 Church Street
                     Mt. Pleasant, SC

Tuesday, January 30
8:30 a.m.    Governor Romney and Tagg Romney Meet with Area Residents
                     Lizard’s Thicket
                     818 Elmwood Avenue
                     Columbia, SC

*All Times Are Eastern Standard Time

Joe Wilson on TV

3 Replies

Do y’all see any value in my routinely posting such extremely routine press releases as this?

Congressman Joe Wilson (SC-02) on Saturday will be a special guest on Fox News’ Weekend Live with Brian Wilson to discuss the impact of 2008 Presidential hopefuls on the 110th Congress. Congressman Eliot Engel (NY-17) will join Congressman Wilson for the segment.
*TOMORROW*

12:15 p.m. EST

I tend to go ahead and post some of the interesting e-mails I get, but it sometimes occurs to me that some folks would find it useful to know really small stuff like this.

So what do you think? If several of you would like me to try it for awhile, I will.

Dang! I missed it…

5 Replies

Hey, did any of y’all see me on ETV last night? I just found out about it, because I just caught up back to Wednesday on one of my e-mail addresses:

Hi Brad,

Just wanted to make you aware that ETV is airing the "Carolina Stories" documentary, Down the Ballot, on Thursday, Jan. 25 at 9 p.m.

This film is a must-see in it’s own right, however, the fact that you figure rather prominently in it is just an added bonus. Be sure to watch! <smile>

Have a good day,

Dana P. McCullough
Public Relations Specialist
South Carolina Educational Television

If you saw it, how did I look? I mean, how was the show?

He fought for it BEFORE he fought against it. Or something.

25 Replies

Just now noticed that I received two press releases, one right after the other, from Barack Obama on the subject of John Kerry’s big announcement yesterday. Here’s the second one:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Bill Burton/ Dan Pfeiffer, 202-248-5050
Date: January 24, 2007

Obama Statement on Senator Kerry’s Decision Not to Run for President in 2008
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following statement on Senator Kerry’s decision not to run for President in 2008:

"From his earliest days in Vietnam to the Presidential Election in 2004, John Kerry has fought for his country and his ideals. I am proud to call him a friend and a colleague in the United States Senate, and know that he will continue to serve his country with honor and distinction in the years to come."
###

And here was the first one:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Bill Burton/ Dan Pfeiffer,
202-248-5050
Date: January 24, 2007

Obama Statement on Senator Kerry’s
Decision Not to Run for President in 2008

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following
statement on Senator Kerry’s decision not to run for President in 2008:

"From his earliest days in Vietnam to the Presidential Election in 2004, John
Kerry has fought his country and his ideals. I am proud to call him a friend and
a colleague in the United States Senate, and know that he will continue to serve
his country with honor and distinction in the years to come."

###

Don’t believe me? Tell me so, and I’ll forward the originals to you.

Either way, the once-and-future Obama meant to be nice. Think about what he could have said:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Bill Burton/ Dan Pfeiffer,
202-248-5050
Date: January 24, 2007

Obama Statement on Senator Kerry’s
Decision Not to Run for President in 2008

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following
statement on Senator Kerry’s decision not to run for President in 2008:

"Yeah, you better run. Get on outta here, you stiff, stuffy, pompous, SUV-driving, can’t-even-beat-George-Bush LOSER! You think any of us want to look at your sorry chin any more? Take a good look at the new wave, old-timer!"

###

But he didn’t. So give him a break.

Barack_chicago

Shame, cowardice and betrayal

35 Replies

Finally, the Congress is heard from on Iraq, and what does its vanguard decide to do?

It passes a resolution that accomplishes absolutely nothing legislatively. It won’t stop a single soldier or Marine from going into harm’s way in Iraq.

Oh, but it does accomplish this: It tells the force of chaos, those who wish to kill as many of those brave Americans as possible, that they only have to hold out a little longer: See how divided we are? See how we tell our troops we don’t support their mission, even as they kiss their wives and babies goodbye, possibly for the last time?

This is utterly disgusting — worse than that, because Americans will pay for it in blood.

If those who don’t think it necessary to do all we can to succeed in Iraq had the slightest trace of courage, they would take tangible ACTION — they ARE the majority are they not (and I’m including the nihilists of both parties here, so give me none of your partisan umbrage)?

Get this paragraph, describing the depth of senatorial resolve:

But they said that whatever language is sent to the floor will have to
include the policy prescriptions that are in both resolutions: a
statement against further deployments; a call for U.S. troops to be
re-deployed to guard Iraq’s borders, focus on counterterrorism and
speeding up the training of Iraqi troops; and a call for diplomatic
efforts to engage Iraq’s neighbors in the pursuit of a political
settlement to the war.

A statement. A call. Another call. No action, of course. Oh, what inexcusable, bloodyminded fecklessness!

They make the laws. They control the pursestrings, completely. All they need do is cut off all funding for offensive operations, and appropriate money that, BY LAW, can only be used to fund the retreat that they desire. As Newt Gingrich and company learned to their great pain and chagrin after 1994, governing carries far weightier responsibility than merely sitting on the back benches and criticizing.

As my readers know, I don’t WANT them to do those things; such actions would be disastrous. But at least I could respect them more.

But they don’t have the guts to do that, do they, Hagel and the rest? All they have the gumption to do is make gestures of the sort that undermine, that corrode, that fester in the national soul as they watch more Americans die, and say, "See? We told you so." Self-fulfilled defeat.

What of that, though? The senators have now expressed themselves, however nonbinding their expression, and that has enabled them to go home tonight feeling much better about themselves. Surely we can all take solace from that.

I can write no more about it tonight. My contempt is complete, and so is my grief for my country, and its finest and bravest — who, despite this deadly insult, will go and do their duty, however much more difficult the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has resolved to make it.

Outrage

6 Replies

Sorry. I buried the lead on that one. A colleague had earlier brought the Andre nonsense to my attention, and I had made a mental note to post something on it.

When the Senate actually REJECTED this critical legislation — in a classic, befuddled manner that renders it virtually impossible to fix blame, which is of course the hallmark of the Legislative State — I failed to pause to pass on the enormity of it to you. I figured we’d save the important stuff for the paper.

Scratch that plan.

The Senate’s action today is nothing short of a big, fat middle finger flipped at the people of South Carolina, as senators once again say "Hell, no!" to a commonsense effort to construct a rational form of government.

They insist upon sticking to the Ben Tillman formula. Well, this newspaper was founded in 1891 to fight Ben Tillman, and we’re not done, not by a long sight. You will hear more, much more, from us on this.

Meanwhile, to save you the trouble of following links, here is the AP’s story:

m1088 scsc-nbx
AP-SC XGR SANFORD AGENDA, 1ST LD-WRITETHRU
Sanford’s constitutional officer agenda dies in Senate
Eds: AMs. UPDATES throughout.
By JIM DAVENPORT
Associated Press Writer
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – State senators scuttled Gov. Mark Sanford’s plan to have voters decide whether several statewide offices should be appointed by the governor.
Sanford lost mostly party-line votes Wednesday, with senators only giving the necessary two-thirds approval to eliminating elections for comptroller general.
The Republican-controlled Senate gave majority approval to whether the state’s education superintendent, agriculture commissioner, National Guard chief or secretary of state are elected or appointed, but all fell short of the two-thirds needed. And a bill requiring governors and lieutenant governors to run on a joint ticket couldn’t muster a majority.
The bills that didn’t pass were sent back to the Senate Judiciary Committee to die. "I’m not putting them back on the agenda," committee chairman Glenn McConnell said.
It was a disappointment for the Republican governor, whose re-election campaign was filled with calls to modernize and streamline state government and give governors more control of day-to-day state operations.
Sanford said senators show a lack of faith in letting the people of South Carolina decide if their government was inefficient.
Power "is hard to give up and there is a minority in the Senate who are working to protect an antiquated, inefficient and unaccountable government structure," the governor said in a prepared statement.
Wednesday’s votes means South Carolina’s "governor will continue to be one of the weakest in the nation," said Sen. Chip Campsen, R-Isle of Palms.
Sen. Chauncey "Greg" Gregory noted that probably 90 percent of the voters couldn’t even name the state’s agriculture commissioner and many of the rest wouldn’t know his name unless they’d seen it on a gas pump’s certification sticker or a campaign sign.
The Senate is clinging to the idea of having all those elected offices "just like we clung to segregation, just like we clung to Jim Crow" and the Confederate flag flying at the Statehouse, said Gregory, R-Lancaster.
South Carolina "takes a long time to get over bad ideas," Gregory said.
And even the bill getting rid of elections for comptroller general may not survive. It now just needs a majority vote to get to the House, but if an amendment is attached to the bill, it would trigger another two-thirds vote, said McConnell, R-Charleston.
If a second two-thirds vote is taken, some senators may change their minds. "Are we really accomplishing anything with one office?" asked Sen. Vincent Sheheen, D-Camden, who voted for all the bills except the one involving the lieutenant governor.
Sanford isn’t giving up. He said he plans to take his case to voters and talk to them "about the unwillingness of many in office to make those changes."
The governor will also push the House to pass similar bills, even though McConnell said the Senate won’t reconsider them.
Sanford also will continue to push his plan to restructure some state agencies, spokesman Joel Sawyer said.
The decision to pass the bill allowing the governor to appoint a comptroller general was easy because Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom told voters the office should be appointed as he campaigned for re-election and asked legislators Tuesday to make his office an example for government restructuring, said Sen. Jake Knotts, R-West Columbia.
"Be careful what you ask for, you might get it," Knotts said.

Andre’s still got it, whatever it is

28 Replies

The S.C. Senate proved yet again it can still make mincemeat of the most common-sense reforms as it basically rejected a fundamental element of government modernization — putting the elected chief executive in charge of the executive branch.

Here’s the AP story
on today’s foolishness, in case you possess the requisite energy to click on it.

I’ll go ahead and quote my favorite part (be sure to brace yourself so you don’t get whiplash between the second and third paragraphs):

Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer showed up at Sanford’s news conference at the Statehouse, but wouldn’t publicly say whether he supported the changes. Bauer didn’t want his personal feelings to influence the debate he will preside over.
"I think that could drastically influence" the vote, Bauer said.
Bauer, who controls the debate in the Senate by recognizing speakers, said he wouldn’t hand the gavel to someone else during the discussions about his office.

Yes, that’s right. He won’t express his opinion, because it allegedly would have such weight in influencing the debate. But he won’t step aside from actually presiding over the debate.

Sure, he had that crash last year and all, but ol’ Andre hasn’t lost a bit of the hop on his patented screwball, which thus far has never failed to strike out any rational, ethical batter who dares to stand at the plate against him.

But the fans love it.

Blast from the past

Biden vs. Dodd in S.C.

4 Replies

As you know, while the national media falls all over itself recording each breath, each blink of Barack and Hillary (do we really need last names; we know them too well for formality), some other Democratic candidates, largely ignored, have been working their posteriors off here in South Carolina.

As readers of this blog know, no one of that ilk has been working the state harder than Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware. Well, last week, on MLK Day, he and brother aspirant Chris Dodd of Connecticut were both working the same crowds in Columbia.

As I review some of my video from that day (sorry to be so far behind), I thought I might share with you something that struck me that day.

You’ll remember Mr. Biden’s over-the-top performance before the Columbia Rotary in November. I wrote about it at the time, in addition to providing some very low-quality video from 35my phone.

Welcome to another edition of Bad Cinema, as I present the same candidate speaking in a room with insufficient lighting last week.

Here’s what struck me: Before the Rotary, a group that he perceived to be largely Republican, he waxed populist on that nasty Mexico down there sending us all their poor and their drugs. I’d never seen him like this before. He had given a spirited performance at the Galivants Ferry Stump Meeting back in May, but it was nothing like the energy he poured into Rotary.

But in front of the Columbia Urban League and the NAACP and related groups, he was completely — if you’ll excuse the phrase — vanilla. Bland as they come. Like a high school kid trying to win a Daughters of the American Revolution oratory contest or something. Quotes from JFK’s inaugural speech and the like. Very safe.

By contrast, Chris Dodd went the red-meat route, including a headline-grabber about the Confederate flag delivered on the State House steps.

Now, admittedly, I missed some of the Biden speech at the Dome. But I heard all of it at the Urban League breakfast, and the low energy he displayed was notable. So I’m noting it.

I’m not sure what it means.

None of this is meant to express a preference for Chris Dodd because he chose to be more interesting or anything. He’ll have to do a lot more than that before I forget how he chose his party over my boy Joe back during the campaign.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits

Monthly Archives: January 2007

A potential nominee for us?

Mark Shriver

Peggy gets it wrong

Reform gets fragged

Mary Unroshed

Out with the UnParty, in with ENERGY!

Enough, already!

Brownback support in SC

McCain support in SC

The Friday Freakley briefing

Diocese settles sex abuse claims

Romney to S.C.

Joe Wilson on TV

Dang! I missed it…

He fought for it BEFORE he fought against it. Or something.

Shame, cowardice and betrayal

Outrage

Andre’s still got it, whatever it is

Blast from the past

Biden vs. Dodd in S.C.