Don’t know if I mentioned this, but I’m going to be on “Whad’Ya Know?” when it broadcasts live from the Koger Center on Saturday. Show starts at 11, but I have to be there at 10:30. They said there’d be coffee.
And that’s about it. No prep. I’m told that host Michael Feldman is prepping by reading thestate.com and this blog, which is probably why his signature answer to the title question is, “Not much.” The Web site, in case you haven’t been there, is notmuch.com.
And if you haven’t seen the show at all, Otis Taylor provided a taste of what it’s like in his story today. The State also provided some “if you’re going” info.
Related Posts
I went to see him in Clemson 4 years ago – great show. He’s a cool dude.
You’re going to have to say something about Sanford. He’s from Wisconsin, right? He’ll want you to bash Sanford.
Good luck.
Yes, if you can’t debate Mark Sanford, by all means make some corny jokes.
That makes no sense. The format is not open to debates. It’s not CSPAN.
SCNaive, when you dare venture beyond your provincial existence you’ll find most of the rest of the country scoffing at your governor’s ridiculous stance on stimulus. At least he has Jindal on his side; the man who belittled volcano monitoring but is now accepting stimulus money for hurricane monitoring.
That’s almost as bad as being the governor of the corridor of shame and refusing money to improve said corridor.
Brad Warthen owns this blog, which is devoted to attacking Mark Sanford and fiscal responsibility.
He even has a thread with the theme of “Mark Sanford cannot make a case for refusing the $700.000.000.”
Yet Mr. Warthen doesn’t dare debate a single reason Sanford gives for refusing the money.
Are you up to speed, now?
I haven’t heard him offer anything that sounds like a reason. Mostly he spouts totally irrelevancies. Such as arguing with the stimulus, when that’s been decided. The only issue here is whether South Carolinians get the money that they will be paying for along with everybody else.
He prattles about “growing government” when even if every penny of the stimulus went to recurring needs — which won’t happen; as much as possible will go to one-time expenditures — it would still be LESS than the amount that has been CUT from state budgets. So that’s not a reason; it’s just loco talk.
Maybe he stated a “reason” and I missed it. There’s always that possibility.
Also, how could the blog be devoted to attacking Mark Sanford AND fiscal responsibility? I could follow you if you said, “This blog is devoted to fiscal responsibility, in the course of which one would naturally criticize the guy who wants us not to get a stimulus that we’re going to pay for, even though our economy needs stimulating more than any other state’s with the possible exception of Michigan.”
But even that would be inaccurate, because no blog written by me could be devoted to fiscal ANYTHING — responsibility, irresponsibility, or whatever. I hate talking money. In fact, something pretty outrageous has to happen with regard to money to make me say anything. Which is why I’m saying a lot about the governor and the stimulus.
But back to the show — I have no idea what we’ll talk about, although since the whole country is looking at South Carolina right now and wondering what is wrong with our governor, that will probably come up.
The economy in general is a likely topic, since the show’s producer knew I had been laid off when he asked me to do the gig.
Brad, you haven’t bothered to pay attention to Mark Sanford’s detailed reasons for each item of the stimulus he opposes. You should really keep your mouth shut until you do.
Flea, he may have typed that with his mouth closed…unless he’s a mouth breather…oops, given his nasal history maybe his mouth was open. In that case, if he shut his mouth he’d pass out.
For the record, these are the politicians Brad has sided with in his never ending screeds against Sanford:
Tommy Moore
Jake Knotts
Hugh Leatherman
Bobby Harrell
That’s a club where you leave your wallet in the car when you go to a meeting.
Randy, you’re welcome try to debate any one of Sanford’s reasons for rejecting the Pelosi pork money, if you happen to be familiar with them.
If not, continue the childish insults and dishonest slogans about education being in danger.
The Gov’s idea that $700m. be spent on debt reduction is still very much on the table on the State level. This is a credible idea which many believe will have a more positive effect on the long term economic well being of SC. I certainly don’t ask you to agree with him but I think you should acknowledge that he has a rationale for his actions, that with legislative cooperation his ideas can be implemented (in whole or in part) and that his ideas are based on sound economics with which many agree and do not deserve the labels wacko or irrational. Disagree do not denigrate. To me the GA is culpable for not even offering to negotiate with the Gov.
Greg, it’s one thing to take a position because of your beliefs. It’s another to do so for personal gain as in seeking higher political office. Surely you won’t disagree that Sanford is testing the national waters and that he is a political animal who must make politically motivated decisions at times.
With that in mind, I think it’s fair to be skeptical of his motives. I acknowledge that he has been a consistent “every man for himself” conservative. That doesn’t necessarily indicate his motives are pure. The man who carried pigs into the state legislative chamber to make a sensasionalized point calls out a high school girl for a “political spectacle” because she dare take an interest in her government. He showed what a small and out of touch person he can be.
In terms of policy, how does paying down the debt help the unemployed? How does it help the economy rebound?
Sanford has a long history of confrontation and not consensus building. He is not a leader, he is an ideologue which makes him a poor public servant.
Nice job, Brad.
Thanks, Snead. Right after I left the stage, my PDA buzzed and it was you, registering. My daughter had just said I’d probably get a lot of hits after the plug on the show, and there you were.
Anybody else listening to the show? (It’s still going on; I’m sitting out in the audience now.)
You done good, Brad! I enjoy Michael Feldman, but it was a special gift to listen to you this morning and to know about your blog. I’m sorry about your change in circumstances but believe you’ll do well regardless and since I spend more time on line than I ever did reading The State (my bad), I expect I’ll be better informed about state news than I ever have been.
Just keep reading; you are appreciated. Drink Small is doing a second number, this one about his hometown of Bishopville — which as it happens is on the way to MY hometown, Bennettsville…
The number one reason to reject all of the stimulus money is that the state does not need it.
As Governor Sanford and others have repeatedly pointed out, Hugh Leatherman still expects more revenue than any other year in history, and has budgeted increases for every agency. If anything is being cut, that is the agency and legislature shifting money because of their priorities.
The legislature received $4 billion in extra revenue due to a vibrant economy from 2001 through 2007. They could have paid off all the bonds, and saved $167 million a year in interest. Instead, they blew the money on new projects for special interests, that were just cooked up to grab the money.
Lee! Use your name!
I’ll use whatever name you like, Brad.
How do I change it in your blog?