This has happened twice now, and it was helpful both times.
As is my usual pattern with these either-way-I’m-unhappy endorsements, I came in on the morning of June 4, the day the original Jake Knotts endorsement ran, with my usual now-it’s-too-late sense of buyer’s remorse. Not that I wished we’d endorsed Katrina Shealy (or Mike Sturkie), it was just one of those that I wasn’t going to be happy any way you looked at it.
Fortunately, Gov. Mark Sanford came to the rescue, making me feel so much better, so much more confident that we did the right thing — or as confident as I could be. We had said the governor was too fixated on getting rid of this guy — meaning that if he succeeded, it would intimidate the whole Legislature — that it was best to re-elect him. And right on cue, the governor stops everything, on the day before the end of the legislative session, to write an op-ed about why Jake’s got to go. It was highly vindicating.
Then this morning, after we’ve gone through Round Two of the Jake wars here on the editorial board, and endorsed him again in the runoff (not doing so was actually on the table, yes), and I pick up my paper today wondering whether that really was necessary, and along comes Jim DeMint to the rescue.
Things are so much clearer now. Let’s see:
- Jim DeMint is for Katrina Shealy. Jim DeMint was for Mitt Romney, right to the bitter end.
- Lindsey Graham is (by logical extension, at least) for Jake Knotts. Lindsey was for John McCain, all along, even in the darkest days. So was Jake Knotts.
- Mark Sanford, for whom there is no greater priority apparently than defeating Jake Knotts, was never for anybody but himself and the Club for Growth, his cheerleaders — that is, not until John McCain had it sewn up, at which point he weighed in with an insulting, desultory, offhand "me, too."
This makes everything so much clearer. Oh yeah, in case you didn’t know: We endorsed McCain in the GOP primary. That’s one we were utterly sure of. And unlike the governor, we actually did so when the outcome was in doubt.
Related Posts
When you can’t understand the politics, just spin it into an attack on Mark Sanford.
Throw in some of the groups you think are boogeymen, like the Club for Growth. Ooooooh! We are supposed to be conditioned to fear and loathe them, but Brad can’t remember why.
Is it any surprise that Brad Warthen and The Snake newspaper don’t like REAL conservative politicians? The ones who want to cut taxes, slow growth of government, stop pork and general serve the public good (all things which Jake Knotts opposes). Why are we surprised that Brad & The Snake always back the most liberal person they can find?
Jake Must Go!
(Lindsey Graham & John McCain are NOT conservatives. They need to go too.)
Why wouldn’t one endorsement do? No new opponents came along in the runoff, so why endorse Knotts again? Are you that enamored of his piggish persona or do y’all just not have anything to write about?
I would guess the latter, since you use this blog every two or three days or weeks or whatever to say the same old thing, which never amounts to more than, “Oh, and by the way, I still don’t like Mark Sanford.”
Jeez, we got it already.
Obviously, if that’s all you’re getting, you haven’t “got it” at all.
And what on Earth do you say about anyone who believes that libertarianism is “REAL” conservatism, or that — and this is the really wild one — Jake Knotts is ANY kind of a “liberal?”
Good Lord. One can list things to say about Jake Knotts — some pretty mean, nasty, ugly things at that — from here to the end of the century, but NO ONE who has respect for the English language would call him “liberal.”
If you want a label, he’s a populist. Let me know if you need any more labels; I want to do all I can to keep this debate somewhere within the realm of reality.
…Oh, and (just to help you out here) it’s spelled “State.”
No one called Jake Knotts a liberal.
Several people noted that Lindsay Graham and John McCain have voted against the conservative, patriotic positions of lowering taxes, stopping illegal immigration, reducing government regulations and the size of government.
Jake Knotts, Graham and McCain apparently have no ideology except delivering the goods for special interest groups – the greater good of the state and nation be damned.
Once I actually read your second endorsement of Knotts — which was no endorsement at all, but merely a condemnation of Shealy and her out-of-state support — I see the centerpiece of your objection is that vouchers might somehow destroy public education in South Carolina.
Where I live, public education already lies in ruins cloaked by millions and millions of dollars spent on new bricks to provide virtually content-free daycare from cradle to whatever age students choose to drop out.
No bomb — vouchers or anything else — could much hurt a school system that values money more than good teaching and skin color more than competent leadership.
But that’s what I see where I am.
And, yes, one of Rep. Clyburn’s relatives works in one of the schools in my district.
Once I actually read your second endorsement of Knotts — which was no endorsement at all, but merely a condemnation of Shealy and her out-of-state support — I see the centerpiece of your objection is that vouchers might somehow destroy public education in South Carolina.
Where I live, public education already lies in ruins cloaked by millions and millions of dollars spent on new bricks to provide virtually content-free daycare from cradle to whatever age students choose to drop out.
No bomb — vouchers or anything else — could much hurt a school system that values money more than good teaching and skin color more than competent leadership.
But that’s what I see where I am.
And, yes, one of Rep. Clyburn’s relatives works in one of the schools in my district.
Sorry about the double post.
Gee, Brad, you really know how to stir up the right-wing fringe. Two of your posters here will never be pleased with any government that doesn’t resemble feudalism.
I doubt Harry knows what feudalism or socialism are.