The thing I noted in my previous post has gone a step further:
Columbia, SC– South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler issued the following statement today in response to Congressman Gresham Barrett’s meeting with Columbia City Council regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Earlier this year, Barrett spoke out against the federal stimulus bill, and he joined the state’s other Republican members of Congress in voting against it, but today he said he supports stimulus funds for local governments.
“Gresham Barrett is showing himself to be hypocritical in his early campaigning for governor. He was vocal about his opposition to the stimulus, but now that this view has proven to be unpopular in our state he’s modified his stance. That’s not going to work with voters in 2010. The only thing we need to know from Mr. Barrett is whether or not he supports Gov. Sanford’s rejection of $700 million in stimulus funds primarily dedicated to public education. Decisions need to be made quickly to avert thousands of teacher layoffs and other deep cuts in our schools. South Carolinians don’t want or need another Republican governor who’s willing to play politics with the lives of real people.”
Maybe some of y’all could explain this to me: Why would Democrats resent Gresham Barrett, who had opposed the stimulus, now helping local governments get their share? Don’t they want him to do that? Or is criticizing a member of the other party SO important to partisans that they have to criticize the guy as “hypocritical” when he tries to do the right thing? In other words, is hitting the other side more important than S.C. communities getting the benefit of the stimulus.
It’s not even inconsistent. As rational people keep pointing out, the stimulus debate is over. Now it’s time to make sure that South Carolina gets its share of something that South Carolinians will have to pay for whether we get the benefit or not. This is obvious to rational people, whatever party label they wear — unless they are one of the dwindling band of Sanfordistas.
Those of you who have trouble understanding me when I talk about how parties foment conflict purely for the sake of conflict, see if you can understand me now. This is what I’ve been on about. Yeah, I agree that we don’t need another governor, of any party, “who’s willing to play politics with the lives of real people.” But isn’t that what you’re doing when you place criticizing the opposition ahead of making sure everybody’s on board in getting the stimulus funds to real people in SC?
Related Posts
It is simply partisan BS. It’s exactly what you mentioned – mindless hitting at a politician of the other party. It’s probably an early shot at his gubernatorial run. I’m a consistently Democratic voter, support Obama and the stimulus, and I think this stuff is counter to the governing spirit Obama has promoted and counter to what we need. In this, Carol Fowler is acting like the kind of hack that is beneath her skills and contrary to her better nature. Working to bring home money one voted against is a mainstay of politics.
The idea that people who disagree with you are not rational is, in my opinion, misguided. I am sorry but if you listen with an open mind you will find that most people with strong opinions have arrived at them through a rational process whether you agree with the end result or not. To me, civility, which you strongly promote on this board, includes extending respect to opinions which you do not understand and with which you will never agree.
Maybe some of y’all could explain this to me: Why would Democrats resent Gresham Barrett, who had opposed the stimulus, now helping local governments get their share? Don’t they want him to do that? Or is criticizing a member of the other party SO important to partisans that they have to criticize the guy as “hypocritical” when he tries to do the right thing? In other words, is hitting the other side more important than S.C. communities getting the benefit of the stimulus.
That about sums it up, yes.
I am no fan of the stimulus / porkulus bill, but since it passed, I’ve no issue with Barrett aiding state and local governments carve out a piece of the pie. Right now he’s a legislator at the federal level, so he may have some insights into the composition of this massive sausage that his colleagues produced.
The other party at the state level will of course criticize him since he’s a potential candidate for governor that they may have to oppose come election time. Heck, if he walked across Lake Murray they’d dismiss it with a press release headlined “Barrett Can’t Swim!” It is good to see that Carol is carrying on the Fowler family tradition.
(I know little about Barrett and nothing about his campaign.)
In other news I am back in town but understand that this week is special, so I offer to buy you a brewski next week.
Carol Fowler and Katon Dawson are the pit bulls of the parties. It’s not their job to like what members of the other party does or takes credit for.
In fact, it is impossible for either to see any good that the other party does.
Only six hundred forty-four days to a new governor for South Carolina. Hopefully, this one will lead and serve the citizens of South Carolina, instead of serving himself.
What I resent is the hypocrisy. This guy makes a big deal out of his opposition to the stimulus. He campaigns against earmarks and introduces some stupid TEA party crap in Congress. But now that he’s running for governor, he comes to a city outside of his district to talk about how great local stimulus funds are after securing millions of dollars in earmarks in yet another bill he voted against. Gresham Barrett is another air-headed pretty boy congressman who wants to be governor, and we see where that’s gotten us since 2002.
Why would Democrats resent Gresham Barrett, who had opposed the stimulus, now helping local governments get their share?
-Brad
This isn’t about “resentment”, it’s just politics. Sure it comes across as crass partisanship but at the end of the day Barrett was on the wrong side of this issue and that point needs to be made. The voters need to be reminded that Barrett oppossed the stimulus plan. That’s all Fowler is doing.
But why? Why do voters need to know where he stood on the stimulus? It has nothing to do the city of Columbia’s work to get the funds to the local governments.
Why do voters need to know where Barrett stood on the stimulus? That’s easy, he’s running for governor. What he’s doing is mere showboating. His efforts to secure money for Columbia are not necessary. At the end of the day let’s not forget who got us into this mess (Republicans); who voted against the stimulus (Republicans); and who continues to play politics by refusing to accept part of the money (a Republican governor).
I get what Brad is saying and he has a point. But let’s not get so caught up in this crusade to rid the world of partisanship that we forget who the real villians are in this economic mess we’re dealing with: members of the GOP.
Here’s a quote from Phil Gramm, the primary architect of the current financial crisis, announcing the passage of the partial repeal of the Glass-Steagall act in 1999:
‘Obviously, after setting out a dramatic change in public policy, it is fair to set out a test for determining its success,” Gramm said. “Ultimately, the final judge of the bill is history. Ultimately, as you look at the bill, you have to ask yourself, ‘Will people in the future be trying to repeal it, as we are here today trying to repeal — and hopefully repealing — Glass-Steagall?’ I think the answer will be no. I think it will be no because we are doing something very different from Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall, in the midst of the Great Depression, thought government was the answer. In this period of economic growth and prosperity, we believe freedom is the answer.”
Of course we know how that turned out. Gramm is probably the person MOST responsible for the current recession. Keep in mind this is the same Phil Gramm who was leading John McCain’s economic team during the presidential campaign. This is the same Phil Gramm who would have likely become the Treasury Secretary in a McCain-Palin administration. While Brad moans and groans over Carol Fowler’s ‘resentment’ the real point is being missed. Simply put, the GOP cannot and must not be trusted with our economic future. They’ve proven at each important juncture in this meltdown that they are incapable of doing the right thing regarding our financial wellbeing as a nation. Fowler may not have the best timing in the world and her manners are somewhat suspect but she makes a good point: Don’t trust the hypocritical GOP at this time of crisis. It’s not worth the price we’ll pay later. If that offends Brad and the anti-partisan zealots, so be it.
To be exact, on November 12, 1999, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.
Hilliary Clinton’s campaign manager, Maggie Williams, was paid $200,000 a year by subprime lender Delta Financial.
John Spratt of SC was head of the banking committee.
Chris Dodd and Barney Frank pushed subprime lending, and deregulation of banking.
Joe Biden protected credit card companies from regulation. That is why so many of them are headquartered in Delaware – legal protection from customers.
Delaware harbors so many of our Credit Card companies because of a 1978 Supreme Court ruling: Marquette National Bank vs. First of Omaha Corp: the Justices ruled that a bank can charge customers in all states whatever rate is allowed by the bank’s “home state”. So banks moved their credit card operations to South Dakota or Delaware – the better to screw us. So it’s very difficult for states to defend themselves vs. predatory credit card companies via mechanisms such as usury laws.
Article from The Wall Street Journal on Sanford:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123914757330399021.html