Yearly Archives: 2009

You don’t want to know what I think

Somebody wrote me an e-mail today saying,

Brad-

No blog post on yesterday’s tea parties?  Shame on you.

Tom Willett

Now that doesn’t give me much to go on, but I’m sort of guessing that Tom thought I’d have something NICE to say about these demonstrations. That’s usually the case with such nonspecific comments. Which brings to mind the old Bugs Bunny line, “He don’t know me very well, do he?”

And you know, I don’t want to say anything snide. I did say something snide at the actual event yesterday, and felt bad about it, because those folks were all pretty well behaved and probably sincere and it was a beautiful day, but sometimes you can’t help yourself. But I’m not going to repeat it. I mean, my rep’s bad enough already. In fact, when I ran into Andy Haworth from thestate.com, who was shooting video of the event, he joked (I think it was a joke) that he’d better get away from me lest he catch a stray bullet.

Ironically, he said that not far from the spot when the first editorialist for The State, N.G. Gonzales, was shot down in broad daylight by the lieutenant governor, James Tillman. Y’all know the story: Tillman shot him in cold blood in front of multiple witnesses, including a cop — and the Lexington County jury (there was a change of venue) acquited him, on the grounds that N.G. had written all sorts of mean, nasty ugly things about the killer, causing him to lose an election, and therefore had it coming. That was in 1903.

He got shot, and I only got laid off. So times are better for editorialists, although getting laid off lacks the romance of the way N.G. went out. He did it with style, too. Remember what he said as he fell? “Shoot again, you coward.” Editorialists had a lot of sand in those days.

Oh, but I was supposed to be writing about the anti-tax thing. Look, y’all know how I am about this subject. I’ve always thought the fuss that some whiny people make over what they call “Tax Day” is ridiculous, and a demonstration such as this just doesn’t connect with me. I don’t get it why people resent paying their taxes so much. But they do go on about it, don’t they? (When I see all these folks walking around with “Don’t Tread on Me” flags and such, on a beautiful day in the freest country in the history of the world, I wonder how they would react if they actually were oppressed? What if they lived in a country where you got shot or locked up for protesting? Would it matter enough to them to do so? What if they actually lived in a country that HAD no government to tax them — say, Somalia? Would they like that better? Or worse? I don’t know.)

Go on as they did, even they had a limit. I missed most of the rally because I had an appointment at noon. I arrived at about 1:30, expecting it to go until 2 as announced. But it ended at 1:41. I guess they didn’t have as much outrage as planned, or something.

I shot the above video with my phone. As you can see, what I captured was pretty vanilla stuff, not much to write home about. Maybe the parts I missed were more exciting. Probably not to me, but to someone.

Check out Jeffrey Day’s ‘Carolina Culture’ blog

Lots of folks have said very kind things in expressing their dismay at my having been laid off from the paper. But I don’t think the outpouring I’ve received has been quite as intense as the feeling in the arts community over the loss of my colleague Jeffrey Day. I saw an e-mail calling for a letter-writing campaign to protest his departure within 24 hours of the news breaking — and unlike me, Jeffrey wasn’t even mentioned in the news story. The arts grapevine just moved that fast. The gist of the message I saw was, we may have hated what he said in some of his reviews, but we’re going to miss the serious attention he gave the arts. Or something along those lines.

Well, Jeffrey’s back — with a blog he unveiled today. I urge you to go check it out. There’s something to be said for taking a little time before launching your blog. Jeffrey’s is certainly more esthetically pleasing than mine. But you’d expect that.

You know, once Robert gets the bugs worked out of his new blog (he actually has a Web guru going to his house to cast spells over it tomorrow, I hear), between that and mine and Jeffrey’s, you’re practically going to have a reconstituted Stet Pepper online. Just add water.

Whad’Ya Know? I’m gonna be on the radio

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.

Alternative reality

You know, setting the record straight on the bizarre things Mark Sanford says could be a full-time job. If only I could figure a way to get paid for it.

Basically, to continue to hold the positions the governor does, you have to cling to an alternative version of reality. Take some of the things he has said over the last day or so:

He told Sean Hannity that in joining these tax protests today, he is speaking for a “silent majority.” He should leave the Nixonian expressions alone. Does anyone on the planet Earth think that the anti-gummint types have been “silent” about their resentment toward paying their taxes? Ever? Certainly not in this state. They whine constantly, and the Legislature grovels at their feet and gives them whatever they whine loudest about at a given moment, which is a big reason why our tax structure is such an irrational, patchy mess. They are the reason why lawmakers hardly ever let a session go by without a major tax cut, but have only raised a general tax once since 1987 — and that was the sales tax increase that was passed to offset the virtual elimination of school taxes on owner-occupied homes (perhaps the whiniest of all tax whiner groups). Whether they are the majority remains to be seen. But they have never, ever been silent for even a moment. And they are always heard.

Then, he put out this statement:

“Today it’s worth noting the fact that we are at a truly frightening tipping point with regard to federal spending, and the consequences it will have for every current -and especially future – taxpayer here in South Carolina. This year, government spending will account for more than a quarter of the entire economy, a level not seen since our country was fighting for its survival against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Federal debt is nearly the size of our yearly economy, and is about four times the size of the economy when you add in other government promises like Social Security and Medicare.

“That’s why this stimulus debate we’re having in South Carolina is so important. Though today’s taxpayers are the ones who benefit from the so-called ‘stimulus,’ they’re not the ones paying for it – it will be their children, their grandchildren, and likely their great-grandchildren. We continue to believe that in the midst of this spending, it’s important to leave a dividend for those future taxpayers in the form of debt repayment.”

Ahem. We are not having a “debate” on the stimulus. The debate occurred in Washington. Sanford’s point of view lost the debate. South Carolinians WILL be paying for the stimulus, which WILL be paid out to the states. If South Carolina is insane enough (and we never do quite give up trying to prove wrong the axiom that we are too large to be an insane asylum) not to
take its share of the funds, that amount will be paid to other states and territories.

There’s no debate. There can’t be a debate, because the governor does not have a position that can be rationally argued — except, of course, by pretending that the facts are other than what they are. Which is what he continues to insist on doing.

FEELING like I’m 100 years old

Here’s the problem with live blogging and twittering and all that (which is the same as the problem with 24/7 TV “news”) — if I were to write what I’m actually seeing and thinking and experiencing, I’d write stuff like this from sitting in the gallery at the SC Senate:

  • The guy who reads the bills aloud sounds a lot like Richard Gergel — but he’s not Richard Gergel.
  • We just spent a long time being introduced to a 100-year-old lady by Jake Knotts. One of the things I learned about her (I think) is that she was once John Spratt’s schoolteacher. She was presented with a framed resolution, and the senators sang “Happy Birthday” to her. All this was explained when Jake said, “Miz Kennedy still votes, and you know who she votes for.” Well, bless her heart.
  • The senators THEN sang “Happy Birthday” to Hugh Leatherman, after he blew out a candle atop a stack of donuts. A senator explained that this “cake” consisted of 70 donuts, adding that “Each donut represents $1 million in stimulus we’re not going to get.” I guess he meant $10 million.
  • Kulturkampf was alive and well in the chamber, as one senator got up and said if we were going to protect children from smoking in cars, we should also protect UNBORN children from smoke in cars. An objection was voiced, so that was set aside.

And so forth, and so on. I came hoping to hear something about Vincent Sheheen’s proposal to get the stimulus funds in spite of the governor. But I either missed it (which I think is what happened), or they’re just too busy with “more important” stuff.

This is why I was an editor all these years — so somebody else could sit through all this stuff, and get to me when something actually happened.

An hour of this can make you FEEL like you’re 100 years old…

Tony Blair contradiction?

Back on this earlier post Herb drew my attention to a piece in The Times about Tony Blair. His link didn’t work, so I went there and hunted for the piece on my own, and found two items of interest.

Well, three. The first is that I hadn’t checked in with my hero Tony in a while, and last I knew he was thinking about converting to Roman Catholicism, as I did long ago. According to both pieces in the Times, that’s a done deal now. Good. Welcome, Tony.

The other two things suggest a contradiction in thinking, which may result from bad reporting as Herb suggests, but there is the remote possibility that our Tony has been caught being inconsistent. In a piece about Iraq, he suggested that sometimes, in order to do the right thing, you have to look past the polls:

In an interview with Time magazine last year he said: “The worst thing in politics is when you’re so scared of losing support that you don’t do what you think is the right thing. What faith can do is not tell you what is right but give you the strength to do it.”

Tony’s certainly right about that, and he was always right about Iraq. I used to wish HE had been in charge of the Special Relationship, as he was actually able to explain clearly why we were there, unlike a certain chief executive I could name over on this side of the pond.

But then, in another piece — and I think this was the one to which Herb meant to refer — he suggests something very different. After telling the Pope he should “rethink” his ideas about homosexuality, he goes on:

In the interview Mr Blair spoke of a “quiet revolution in thinking” and implied that he believed the Pope to be out of step with the public.

“There are many good and great things the Catholic Church does, and there are many fantastic things this Pope stands for, but I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic Church, particularly a wellattended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you’d be surprised at how liberal-minded people were.” The faith of ordinary Catholics is rarely found “in those types of entrenched attitudes”, he said.

In other words, the magisterium should bow to the popular view of the moment.

Contradiction? You be the judge. If it is, it’s a natural human failing. We all tend to admire individuals standing against the herd when we agree with them, and not so much when we don’t.

Three rounds, not ‘a hail of bullets’

Forgive me for being pedantic, but I hate it when I see misleading cliches such as this one in the WSJ today:

U.S. Navy Seal sharpshooters brought a five-day hostage standoff to an abrupt end Sunday with a hail of bullets that killed three pirates holding Capt. Phillips.

It’s not just that it’s a cliche. I’ve got nothing against cliches in general; they can be a handy way to communicate information quickly. What gets me is when they are clearly at odds with the facts.

Those Seals took out those pirates with three perfectly aimed rounds, probably fired simultaneously.

“Hail of bullets” makes it sound as though those Seals were no-talent gangsters wildly spraying the scene on full auto or something. Sonny Corleone died in a hail of bullets. Last scene of “Bonnie and Clyde?” Hail of bullets. But this was not.

Do such things bother you, too? And yes, it seems a small thing to worry about in the context of three lives suddenly and messily snuffed out, but I appreciate precision in language as well as in marksmanship (in a good cause, that is).

Get your new Robert Ariail cartoons right here!

With great pleasure, I note that my great friend and colleague finally has his blog, robertariail.com, up and running, with the new cartoons he’s done in the last couple of weeks.

This is a relief. Over the weekend, I tried to give him some remote technical aid — he was having a lot of trouble getting the cartoons up on the site — but it was beyond my poor, humble talents.

Great to see that someone has come to his rescue (or, he figured it out himself).

Sorry about the comments glitch

Noting that there were NO comments on today’s posts, I was wondering why I was so unpopular all of a sudden. Halitosis, perhaps? Then I looked and saw there were some comments “awaiting moderation,” and one of them was from Greg, saying:

Why have you gone to moderating comments? That certainly slows the flow of conversation.

I agree totally, Greg. And I certainly didn’t do it intentionally. Someone was helping me fix some other settings yesterday, and maybe the wrong thing got accidentally clicked. Clumsy me.

Anyway, I think I’ve got it fixed now. Sorry about the inconvenience.

Joe Darby’s revelation

Joe Darby’s quicker than I am, I learned from his op-ed piece today:

South Carolinians of every cultural and political mindset have asked why the governor has drawn a firm and ludicrous line in the sand on the use of stimulus funds for education; they have wondered whether he’s cold and insensitive, out of touch with the common people or laying the groundwork for future political aspirations. I had the chance to talk with the governor prior to his first-term election and early in his first term, and I think the real reason for his stance is that our governor really isn’t a Republican — he’s a libertarian.

I probably had a lot more exposure to Mark Sanford than the Rev. Darby did, during the 2002 campaign and in the early days of his administration, and it took me several months to fully realize what Joe picked up on from fewer clues, if he realized it way back then.

Sure, his idea for cutting back income taxes was out there during the campaign, as was his tuition tax credit proposal. But they didn’t seem that central at the time — the tax credit idea was presented as a sort of boutique, experimental, peripheral thing, not his entire education strategy, which is what it turned out to be. And lots of “conservative Republicans” have some economic libertarian ideas mixed in with their other positions.

But it took a lot of exposure on my part to realize how very different this guy was from that herd. I had picked up on the way he stood aloof from other Republicans, but that had seemed almost a virtue, hating parties the way I do.

Then, one day, in a private conversation in his office, it hit me fully just how outside the box he was, and I blurted out: “You ran as a ‘conservative Republican,’ but you’re not that at all! You’re a libertarian!” He allowed as how perhaps I had a point.

Yeah, I know — that sounds amazingly stupid on my part, mainly because everybody knows now that that’s what Mark Sanford is. But the realization had to do with the utter purity of the difference. What I had realized, and what I was saying, was that he was utterly unlike any other Republican, and certainly any “conservative,”  I had ever met. And suddenly I was realizing how many GOOD points normal Republicans had, points which he lacked. Normal Republicans wanted efficient, streamlined government, and felt a responsibility to make it run on time and on budget. This guy simply didn’t believe in government, on a very deep, fundamental level. Lots of “conservatives” grumble and even rant about government. None dismiss it as fully as he does.

There was, essentially, nothing conservative about him. He was a classical liberal, through and through, and his ideology was utterly unmodified by experiences in the real world. Most people, as they live and work and interact with the world, modify such extreme views, seeing how they don’t always work. Not this guy. Most people try to get things done, and to get things done you have to face reality. He had never cared about getting things done. He hadn’t in Congress. He was perfectly satisfied to cling to hermetically sealed ideals, unsullied by experience.

And yes, there was a time when that was a revelation to me.

Cindi sets the governor’s numbers straight

I highly recommend Cindi’s column in The State today, which debunks the numbers the governor uses in arguing his quirky view of the stimulus, and does so in highly understandable (even for me) terms. A sample:

The governor’s other numbers aren’t quite as obviously skewed, which is why we need to take a closer look at them. Since Mr. Sanford consolidated most of his claims in a recent op-ed column, let’s just work from that:

• “Last year state government spent $19 billion, and this year we will spend $21 billion.”

The budget passed by the House, which includes all $928 million in stimulus funds, was $21.2 billion, but because of another across-the-board cut last month, it will have to be cut to $21.1 billion. If you left out the $350 million Mr. Sanford wants left out, you’d be down to $20.7 billion. That’s about $800 million more than the current budget of $19.9 billion, which has been cut many times, but it’s less than the $20.9 budget the Legislature passed last spring.

On top of that, more than a third of the money is federal funds, which agencies don’t have the discretion to divert the way they can state funds. And of course our population is increasing, which increases the demand for government services.

• “Even education spending will go from $3.3 billion to $3.5 billion.”

After I raised questions about the first figure, Mr. Sanford’s office sent out a note Tuesday saying it got bad figures from the State Budget Office and it should have said education spending will go from $3.43 billion to $3.55 billion. But even the “correct” numbers demand explanation. The budget passed by the House includes $3.8 billion in state and federal funding for the state Education Department; eliminate stimulus funds, and it drops to $3.55 billion. Last month’s budget cuts would reduce that figure to $3.5 billion. So, the increase would be $70 million, not $200 million.

Still, that is an increase. Sort of. Here’s where context is crucial: The budget the Legislature passed last spring promised $3.8 billion to the schools, so they started this school year thinking they had $3.8 billion to spend; they paid the raises the Legislature mandated, and kept their staff at the levels that would support. Then the state budget cuts started. Since schools were barred by law from laying off teachers or cutting their pay, they had to dip into their reserve funds. That means they will actually spend significantly more than $3.5 billion this year.

So getting $3.5 billion next year would be a reduction, and reductions mean layoffs. (At an average $61,000 in salary and benefits, a $100 million cut takes out more than 1,600 teachers.)…

But you should go read the whole thing. It’s all valuable.

There’s no journalist in South Carolina who understands, or explains, state fiscal matters better than Cindi. I’ve relied heavily on her ability to explain these things — to me, and to the readers — for over 20 years.

Obama looking appalled in the Corridor of Shame

obama-photo-bud

Bud Ferillo and I had lunch today for about two hours and 40 minutes, which is something we unemployed people can get away with (although it doesn’t touch my all-time personal best, a three-hour lunch with the late Gov. John C. West at the Summit Club, sometime around the year 2000, when I actually had a job).

Anyway, we spoke of many things, and one of them was this photograph he shared with me of Barack Obama last year when he first beheld J.V. Martin Junior High in Dillon. Bud urged me to note the president-to-be’s look of disgust that children were still attending class in a structure so old. (Or is he just squinting in the sunlight? You be the judge.)

Bud is the director of the acclaimed “Corridor of Shame,” by the way.

Why do Democrats resent Barrett helping on the stimulus?

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?

Meanwhile, over in the real world…

Laurin raises a question over at Indigo Journal (and by the way, it was nice seeing Laurin, if only for a split-second, at the rally last week): She wonders why Columbia City Council would be meeting to be talking stimulus with Gresham Barrett, an opponent of the stimulus who has no obvious political connection to the Midlands other than running for governor.

Well, I don’t know exactly. But it didn’t strike me as all that odd. After all, Mayor Bob mentioned to me several weeks ago, about the time I was doing this column, that Jim DeMint’s office was being helpful to the city in its effort to get in line for stimulus funds. And there’s nothing strange about that.

Here’s the thing that I have to keep reminding folks on both the right and the left about: The stimulus passed. It’s now time for those who are elected to represent the people to make sure their constituents (and, in Barrett’s case, those he would LIKE to be his constituents) get their share of it. After all, we will all be paying for it (as will our children).

This is the thing that Mark Sanford’s dwindling cadre of supporters still fail to grasp: This isn’t a left-vs.-right or Democrat-vs.-Republican thing now. Every public servant who takes his responsibilities seriously, who believes in doing the job, will usually make SOME effort to make sure the people they work for don’t get shortchanged. Rhetoric’s one thing; doing the job is another.

Mark Sanford is the only significant officeholder I know for whom ideology and rhetoric are the only reality. Now watch — Doug and others will say that’s him being consistent and principled! But they’re not following me. Sanford never notices when his ideology is at odds with reality. He doesn’t care.

For instance, just to mention something routine that illustrates my point, take the hydrogen conference last week. Any other governor in the country would have been proud to have that going on a couple of blocks from his office, and would have broken through barricades to make SOME sort of appearance at it. I’m talking about basic courtesy here, not political opportunism. Something like that comes to your state, to your capital, and you acknowledge it. You encourage it. You care about it. Our governor doesn’t give a damn about it, so he ignored it. What he cares about is taking ideological stands that get him into the national news.

Any other governor, one who was serious about the responsibility of the job, would make it clear that he had problems with the stimulus, if that’s his point of view. But once the debate was over (and at most, the viewpoint of a governor on such a congressional matter is peripheral), he would go ahead and facilitate the flow of the funds, to keep his state from losing out on a benefit that it was going to pay for.

That’s at the least, the very least. What Mark Sanford is doing, acting deliberately as an obstacle, is so far beyond the pale of what any public servant who believed in serving would do that it is inexcusable. And this governor is the ONLY officeholder I have ever run into who would do anything like this.

We are not amused

Has anyone besides me noticed that, the more Mark Sanford isolates himself with his stance on the stimulus, the more he uses the collective term “we” to refer to himself?

For instance, take this passage from John O’Connor’s interview story over the weekend:

Q: Are you saying that at no point your understanding of how the … law works changed?

A: No, that only we could apply. I think we’ve been totally clear on that. … Let’s be clear. We are in a negotiation. I’m not going to lay all my cards on the table because we’re trying to get, Sen. (Hugh) Leatherman in particular, to take some movement … and at this point he isn’t blinking. And it is indeed up to those budget writers as to what they want to and don’t want to do. … There were a group of lawmakers here that are committed to trying to work with us and finding some alternatives to what Sen. Leatherman suggested.

When he says, “only we could apply,” I’m pretty sure that he means “only I could apply.” Anyone more conversant in Sanfordspeak should correct me, but I’m pretty sure that’s what he means.

Somebody should give this guy a copy of “Anthem,” which, if you go by his statements and behavior, you would think he would have memorized.

Does he mean to suggest the royal “we?” Certainly he doesn’t mean the editorial “we,” which you will notice that I don’t use any more, now that I’m not entitled.

Politicians do this a lot — trying to suggest they are speaking for a group when they’re referring to themselves — and I’ve always thought it odd. But it’s especially so coming from a guy who’s all about his own radical individualism.

Welcome to ‘Sanfordville’

Have you reserved your space at the “Sanfordville” tent city set to go up tomorrow at Finlay Park? Here’s where to sign up, and here’s the release I got about it today:

South Carolinians to protest Sanford’s refusal to use stimulus money for education and law enforcement with “tent city” near Governor’s Mansion

On Tuesday, April 7, concerned citizens from all over South Carolina will erect a “tent city” in Finlay Park (Taylor and Gadsden Street) near the Governor’s Mansion in Columbia. The “tent city protest” will run from 10:00 AM until midnight. The symbolic protest is in response to Governor Mark Sanford’s continued refusal to accept $700 million in federal stimulus money meant for public education and law enforcement. State leaders from both political parties predict that Sanford’s actions could lead to the firing of thousands of teachers and hundreds of prison guards.

South Carolina’s unemployment rate is currently the second highest in the nation and education and law enforcement budgets have already endured deep cuts.  Sanford has consistently ignored pleas from teachers, parents and law enforcement officials to use this funding to prevent disastrous consequences.

Special guests will visit the “tent city” throughout the day. A list of guests will be distributed by tomorrow morning.  Contact Brady Quirk-Garvan for more information at 843-743-5453 or [email protected]

——————–

###

Yes, you’ve seen this before.

Doug Jennings and the teachers


After the pro-stimulus rally Wednesday, I walked up the State House steps (which was tiring; I really need to start working out again) to chat with Doug Jennings from Bennettsville. Doug and I go way back. His daddy was my doctor when I was a kid, the one year that I attended B’ville High School (yes, I was a Green Gremlin).

Anyway, a moment later these two teachers followed me up a moment later, and started expressing their indignation over the governor refusing to take the stimulus money to Doug. I pass it on for four reasons:

It expresses the frustration that many South Carolinians — not just schoolteachers — feel over the governor’s position.

It shows the powerlessness that lawmakers — not just Democrats like Doug — also feel over the issue. They’re watching something they just can’t quite believe, and can’t seem to do anything about it.

It shows something else as well. You’ll note that Doug says something along the lines of, you see what we’ve been dealing with all these years? The stubborn absurdity of the governor’s position is not really a new thing for folks at the State House. As bad as the situation is, at least lawmakers can take comfort from the fact that THIS time, regular voters out there finally see what the guy is like.

It actually turned out to be fairly decent video, even though it was shot on my phone. Yes, the medium IS the message.

Sorry I haven’t written a “column” for this week. You wouldn’t believe how busy unemployed people can be. I was going to write something about what a shame it is that some of the public expressions on this stimulus issue are so tainted with partisanship, which is unnecessary and harmful. Here we are with a situation in which most Republicans agree with Democrats on the essentials — that since the stimulus DID pass, and we’re going to have to pay for it, it’s total lunacy even to contemplate South Carolina not getting its badly needed share.

And yet we have this rally Wednesday at which nary a Republican was to be seen (Jake Knotts doesn’t count; he’s sort of a Huey Long Democrat lost in time), enabling critics to brush it off as a partisan affair. Then we have Jim Clyburn picking a fight with, of all people, Lindsey Graham, who wants us to get the money.

I’ve seldom seen a time in which Democrat and Republican leaders have more of a common purpose — with only a handful coalescing around the governor — and yet they can’t seem to get it together and present a united front on the issue. Which is very sad, given the stakes involved for our state.

That’s what I was going to write a column about. So let’s just say I did, OK?

Aren’t you a bit north of Broad?

horse

Maybe we’ve had these for awhile, but I didn’t realize that Charleston-style buggy tours had come to Colatown. I was walking out of the Starbuck’s on Gervais, headed down Lincoln, looking at my Blackberry, and hearing a slow clop-clop on the brick road, and thinking, you know what that sounds like?

And that’s what it was.

Apparently, it’s $10 a ride. All I know at this point.

Way to go, Reggie

Sorry I haven’t posted this earlier; I haven’t been at a computer all day — and I need to run now, too. But I couldn’t let the day go by without thanking Reggie Lloyd for being a voice of sanity on the stimulus issue:

State Law Enforcement Division director Reggie Lloyd on Thursday openly disagreed with his boss — Gov. Mark Sanford — over Sanford’s plan to use federal stimulus money.

Not spending the $700 million as intended by the White House would have “devastating” consequences for state and local law enforcement agencies in South Carolina, the state’s top cop said.

An agitated Lloyd, 42, told The State newspaper in an interview before an afternoon news conference he “didn’t care” if his views get him in trouble with Sanford, who nominated him in January 2008 to lead the state’s premier investigative agency.

“I’ve thought long and hard about it; it’s not personal,” said Lloyd, a former state circuit judge and U.S. attorney for South Carolina. “My professional career has been devoted to … public safety, and I’m not going to sacrifice that for anybody. This means more to me than this job does.”

Mind you, this was Sanford’s “new broom” who went to SLED to run the agency the governor’s way. But obviously he cares more about doing the job and serving the people of South Carolina than about any sense of duty to follow the governor as he tries to lead our state over a cliff.