Today’s endorsement of Jake Knotts for re-election has upset supporters of the governor, as well it might. To the only person who wrote to me directly, I responded that I thought we were quite clear in the editorial as to our reasoning: The governor’s voucher allies have become like video poker, a force that undermines democracy in our Legislature by intimidating lawmakers into doing things they would not otherwise do, and which their constituents would not want them to do.
In the latter years of the video poker era, lawmakers who opposed that racket were afraid to move against it, because they knew they would have well-financed opposition in their next primary. We’ve been seeing the same phenomenon with the voucher/tax credit thing, among Republicans at least. And the word was out that this race was the big test. It was clear that if the governor could take out Jake, no one was safe from such retaliation.
It was another one of those endorsements of the "we don’t much like this guy, but…" variety. Like George W. Bush in 2004.
Anyway, here’s today’s editorial, and here’s your chance to get your licks in…
Oh, and don’t forget — this is the only blog on which you can see video from interviews with all three candidates…
Related Posts
The governor’s voucher allies have become like video poker, a force that undermines democracy in our Legislature by intimidating lawmakers into doing things they would not otherwise do, and which their constituents would not want them to do.
-Brad
Huh? This statement makes absolutely no logical sense. If a lawmaker’s constituents don’t like what he’s doing they can vote him out. If they don’t vote him out that’s an indication that he’s doing what his constituents want him to do.
I’ve been getting mailers from SCRG on any subject they can come up with to try and bash Jake. This week it was cockfighting, last week it was something else I don’t recall.
For the record, I’d say your endorsement of Jake makes far more sense than your endorsement of Bush in 2004.
If vouchers for K-12 education are so bad, why don’t your voucher haters call for abolition of the vouchers for college education, which include tax-funded grants and loans for private and church colleges?
And why don’t you folks call for the abolition of the vouchers for food and medical care, like Food Stamps, WIC, Medicare and Medicaid?
~~~Endorsement = a many-splendored thing~~~
Obama and McCain got the coveted MSM endorsement, but favorable winds can change…
~~~~~~~~~~~~Viva La Hillary!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~Viva La Senator Shealy!!~~~~~~~~~~~
Viva Viva and Viva some more people!!
bud, Wally has answered your question. The voucher lobby doesn’t take people on directly over the issue. If it did, it would usually lose. So you have the phenomenon of a lawmaker who opposes vouchers, and knows his constituents oppose them, still being intimidated by well-financed opposition that will attack him about completely unrelated issues, often misrepresenting the facts to do so.
That’s why I say it’s an antidemocratic force.
Gee’s Loise, if that was an endorsement I would hate to see a detraction. I frankly don’t care either way about Knotts so it is not out of affinity, but this was definitely more than a “best of a few bad choice argument.” If some one read the first half of the article and that was all, as many people tend to do – your “endorsement” may have backfired.
Bud, lived much in Lexington County? It is infested with GOB mobsters who are corrupting:
law enforcement; city, county, and state government; public schools; courtrooms; mainstream churches; etc. etc. etc.
So the logic seems to be:
i) vouchers are bad;
ii) if third party groups tied to the voucher issue donate money to a candidate that is ultimately successful, other legislators will cave in to the voucher lobby’s demands;
iii) Shealy accepted money from said voucher-related groups; therefore,
iv) Shealy’s opponent should be endorsed, regardless of whether a) he’s a better candidate or b) Shealy is actually beholden to the voucher lobby, becuase this will “save democracy” (or something to that effect) in SC?
Give me a break. The general consensus over the past couple of election cycles has been that Sanford and his “out of state voucher interest groups” ultimately don’t have very much influence over electing the candidates they annoint; if anything, their support may be counter-productive.
It just seems absurd (and not worthy of the opinion page of our state’s most prestigious newspaper) to endorse a candidate because of the hypothetical ancillary effects on an issue that you’re not even convinced is relevant to this race.
There’s a simple solution to the voucher question. Put it on the ballot in November.
But we know how that one would turn out, right? All the same hand wringing that we heard about how the lottery was going to destroy people’s lives would happen all over again from the anti-voucher crowd. This time it would be “the sky is falling on our children” (including the illiterate ones in the lousy public schools).
And then when the public speaks overwhelmingly in favor of vouchers (I’d guess it would be 60-40), we’ll see that those big, bad, old vouchers help some kids and don’t help others. Just like the lottery — people predisposed to excessive gambling will find their outlet anyway.
Brad doesn’t like ballot questions though because they threaten his ideal “representative democracy” view. But then when the public could possibly vote in someone who has an opinion that goes against his own pro-government view, then we have to forget about representative democracy and shift into “doing what’s best for everyone” mode by endorsing someone who is on his side on that one issue.
Must be tough to wrestle with that logic on a daily basis…
I have to agree with Peaches. Anyone who’s ever seen Jake Knotts open his mouth knows how ill-informed the man is. He can barely follow legal arguments and language, he never leads discussion that is reasonable or on topic, and he’s consistently treated with contempt by other legislators, making his influence even smaller (even if he does hold the Invitations Committee chair). No single issue, even if it is school vouchers, is more important than EVERY SINGLE OTHER ISSUE, which this newspaper appears to have ignored.
And also, education in the state is going nowhere without a total re-haul of the way in which the state funds education, something school vouchers or school choice will not accomplish.
I support Jake.
However, I do disagree with his stance on vouchers and that idiotic/moronic bill he sponsored/introduced concerning “vehicle pet deaths”.
But, he gets things done and he opposes Sanford on his stupid ideological stances.
Jake is the kind of guy who will oppose Sanford and The State’s editorial board; both are cut from the same cloth. “I/We know what is best for you…”
No one bad-mouths lawyers for being an unscrupulous profession in my presence without being enlightened by my thoughts on journalists; they are by far the worst of the worst mankind has to offer in a career choice.
BP
Well I guess The State editors must have been slipped VIP passes to the Southern Gentleman.
I do not support vouchers.
However, Jake Knotts is an embarrassment to himself, his district, and the state of South Carolina.
He’s a low class bully with the title of “State Senator.” He isn’t the brightest bulb around.
More propaganda smear tags from Brad”
“the voucher lobby”
That would be the hundreds of grassroots organizations seeking to improve education by letting parents control spending directly by choosing their schools, something supported by about 2/3 of parents.
Could somebody cite for me the source or poll that is being used to state that 60% or 2/3 of taxpayers are in favor of using tax revenues to pay for private school tuition and fees. Thank for your help.
BP,
Jake probably belongs in the pen along with that “solicitor” that yanks his strings. And nothing is going to improve in Lexington County without a new sheriff. Jimmy Brazelle has the strength of character to lead the department, and the integrity to get to the TRUTH in that slack-a55, corrupt “investigative” department.
I can’t believe that a majority of SC voters are in favor of vouchers. If that were the case, how do you explain Karen Floyd (the pro-voucher GOP candidate) losing to Jim Rex in 2006, while EVERY other statewide race went to the GOP?
Even if the majority doesn’t favor vouchers, why not offer them to the poor?
If you don’t want them, don’t use them, just like the vouchers we now have for college tuition, groceries (Food Stamps, AFDC, WIC) and medical care (Medicare, Medicaid)?
Or let’s abolish the vouchers for Life Scholarships, WIC, Food Stamps, and Medicaid.
Does this latest exchange mean the statistics being cited are made up?
Could it be that the majority of the voters who do ultimately determine the direction and policies of the state through their electoral wisdom do not in fact support the spending of tax revenues on private schools.
Undermines democracy?
Don’t you mean, Mr. Warthen, might cause legislators to do something you don’t like?
That’s a ditto, Doug.
Mr. Warthen’s intellect allows him to rationalize his bias with apparent logic.
What I’m wondering is how many more days in a row does Jakie plan on cluttering up our mailboxes with his junk mail? It’s been everyday for two weeks and some days it’s multiple pieces. If I wasn’t already 100% convinced to not vote for him, I would be after this.
Have you actually gotten anything from Jake? I’ve gotten nothing from him, but several items from SCRG (yesterday’s topic du jour was the Competitive Grants program), plus one from GunRights PAC comparing Jake to Bill Clinton and Katrina Shealy to Reagan.
WWB,
Your refusal to answer my direct question about why not offer vouchers is an indication YOU think there is majority support for school choice.
Polls show different numbers, because most polls are paid for by groups promoting or opposing parental choice, so the polls are framed with a bias.
Some even-handed national polls show 40 to 50 percent wanting to try vouchers.
23% of parents already have a child in private school.
The demographic with the most children in private school is physicians, followed closely by public school teachers. What does that tell you?
I get annoyed when the commerical comes on in which folks are praising Jake on how he has helped them …. but the rest of the story is should be told … of how he helps them to my tax dollars…
On the subject of my tax dollars… do folks not remember that he voted to give Audre Bauer his own personal driver last year? I believe that’s at least 90K per year. It all adds up…
Just drive to Charlotte about 7:00 AM at 60 mph and count how many SC state vehicles pass you going 75 mph with just the driver, sometimes 3 and 4 of them strung out, going to the same exit.
After reading today’s letters to the editor, it looks like the Jakie Camp and it’s leader are beginning to shake in their boots.
Not to mention that there isn’t one Knotts yard sign in my subdivision or in the next one over, and these are fairly large subdivisions. I do see lots of Shealy signs though.
I just wonder how far off the deep end Jakie will go if he doesn’t get re-elected? He seems like he could do some damage if he snaps.
He’s not far from the deep end now, Bill C. Do you think blasting ‘Free For All’ by Ted Nugent at the polls Tuesday would help him over the edge?
I just got back from voting…there was some dude that looked just like Jake Knotts, in a red shirt and a beige Crown Vic-type vehicle, pulling out of the Lake Murray Fire Department on St. Peter’s Church Road [one of the many underfunded ones around here].
Do y’all think he will burn down the State House if he loses? Or mine? Or yours?
Not sayin’…just sayin’…
? I guess we have two more weeks of drama.
I like your URL – blogs.thestate.com
Proud to tell you, the URLabsolutely freeusefull site. Try to see it career and job search website http://www.mijob.org is there for free.
*
Knotts grabs endorsement
Defeated state Senate candidate Mike Sturkie announced Saturday he is endorsing Sen. Jake Knotts, R-Lexington, in a runoff election.- 9:13 PM
…………………………………
* through death threats, I wonder?
Arson Scrabble
Caribbean Island Restaurant
c-crystal clear
i-it is what it is
r-reasonable
.
I just found your blog by a random search for movies to download and came across it. I’m glad I did! Great site and love the nice clean design. Nice reading too.
I’ll be a regular for sure đŸ™‚