Just got a call from NPR; they want me on the radio this afternoon at 2:20 to talk SC politics, even though I told them I wasn’t really paying that much attention yesterday to the stuff THEY were watching, but was following runoffs that were actually in doubt.
Which gets me to my point. As I said this morning over breakfast to Rep. Dynamite (a.k.a. Anton Gunn), we are about to see something we have NEVER before seen in South Carolina, and I’m not talking about an Indian woman or a black man having the GOP nomination.
For the first time ever, national media coverage is going to be a significant factor in who becomes governor of South Carolina.
If you’re Vincent Sheheen, this has got to worry you even more than the usually-decisive advantage that Republicans tend to enjoy in statewide elections. That can be overcome, as Jim Hodges demonstrated at the peak of the GOP ascension, before the party started falling apart squabbling.
But the national media factor is likely to be insurmountable.
Nikki Haley does not have to spend one thin dime on TV ads. She really doesn’t. She’s going to be on national TV, on the 24/7 cable channels, day in and day out. That means she will be on every TV in the state, every market, to a saturation point. And the tone will be gushing, breathless, wondering, hagiographic. The tone will be one of delight, and grotesquely simplistic: Look, she’s a woman! Look, she’s ethnic! She’s Sarah Palin! She’s Bobby Jindal.
Never mind that Sarah Palin is as vapid and empty a political celebrity as any to come along in a generation if not longer, the political equivalent of Charro — the celebrity who is famous for being famous. Never mind that when Bobby Jindal finally got up to bat in the bigs after all kinds of buildup about what an exciting new player he was — giving the Republican “response” live — he went down swinging at bad pitches.
One thing about national media is that they are ubiquitous. They saturate our lives. We don’t have to take action to consume them; they consume us. Every citizen in this country who is not directly involved in state or local government knows vastly more about national politics than about local and state — or at least thinks he does. Unfortunately, the coverage is so superficial and thin that the consumer’s level of understanding is unlikely to be impressive. But there’s just so MUCH of it.
And that is made for Nikki. Nikki is a telegenic young woman who SHINES as long as nothing goes deeper than her being a woman, being a minority, being fresh, being engaging, having a great smile. Of course, she says she wants to talk issues, such as her biggie, transparency. And no one wants to break the spell of her being just so darned exciting to ask, “Transparency? OK, how about that $40k you pulled down for having connections? And (whisper this) how about those public-account e-mails you won’t release?” But national media coverage doesn’t dig down even that far, much less far enough to challenge her understanding of, say, education policy. Or economic development. Or anything else that matters in one who would be the governor who replaces the most disengaged, apathetic governor in our history. You know, her political mentor.
And if you’re Vincent Sheheen, what can you do to overcome that wide, thin, wall-to-wall, breathless coverage of your opponent? Frankly, I can’t think of anything he CAN do. But I hope he knows of something.
Related Posts
That relentless national exposure cuts both ways, as any stumbles by Haley or revelations about her or even allegations will be magnified. Can she handle that kind of limelight? Moreover, Sheheen can at least try to jujitsu that by portraying Haley as the anointed national candidate of outsiders, of a hardcore ideological faction, Club for Growth, etc., and portray her as “Mark Sanford in drag” as Andy Brack describes her in today’s Free Times. He needs to stress that Haley is the candidate of powerful outside interests who have held SC’s politics hostage for too long, while he, Sheheen, is South Carolina’s own candidate, not a pawn for a national movement. In short, he has to grab the change mantle for himself.
“Nikki is a telegenic young woman who SHINES as long as nothing goes deeper than her being a woman, being a minority, being fresh, being engaging, having a great smile. ”
That’s a pretty misogynistic statement. A similar statement could be made of Sheheen:
“Vince is a telegenic young man who SHINES as long as nothing goes deeper than him being a legacy politician, being a family man, being fresh, being engaging, having a great smile. ”
I see how this campaign season is going to go on this blog. You won’t be outright nasty toward Haley (well maybe later when it becomes apparent she is going to win easily) but you’ll do whatever you can to throw in your little digs at every opportunity. Never about her opinions on the issues, just the same Sanford Derangement Syndrome whining that we’ve seen for years. Face it, it’s very likely she will win. And the reason she will win is because the voters in this state WANT a Sanford-style governor. It’s either that or you have to paint them with the broad brush of stupidity. Which is it?
Maybe I’m just a bit naive but I think the transparency thing is going to come back to bite Ms. Haley in the keester. How long can she expect to promote this idea while still refusing to release the e-mails? I think the national spotlight has the potential to unmask her fake persona. Just look what a bit of exposure did to Sarah Palin.
Sheheen is a good man and I think he’ll come across pretty well once the campaign gets going. Will it be enough? Probably not. After all this is a Tea Party state. But I think the national attention on SC may actually help Sheheen and make it close. If the sexual stuff gains any traction it could get interesting.
When you talk to NPR, try to talk some sense into them. Phillip’s advice sounds good, but it is going to be a dreadful uphill battle to overcome this national anointing. Truly, has the national press any idea how much harm they are doing?
I agree with Phillip. Sheheen needs to push the message that Haily = 4 more years of the same, aka Sanford. And he needs to push it hard. SC needs change. Repeat ad infinitum.
This from the National Review Online newsletter this morning. They not only hit Nikki but Will Folks as well.
2. Hail Haley
Nikki Haley is now the odds-on favorite to be the next governor of South Carolina, winning by a mere 30 percent or so last night over Gresham Barrett in the GOP primary runoff. Votes for Nikki Haley in the runoff: more than 233,000. Votes for Democratic nominee Sheheen on primary night: 111,637.
Well, maybe Sheheen can count on some top-of-the-ticket help from the Democrats’ pick for the U.S. Senate race . . . oh, wait.
I think Allahpundit’s in love: “A star is being born before our eyes here. And one with national reach, too: Not only is she bound to figure in the GOP’s plans for a State of the Union rebuttal sooner rather than later, but as governor of a key primary state, she’ll be wooed by every major player on the Republican landscape. Those endorsements from Romney and Palin were no accident, my friends.”
4. Addenda
14:56 . . . 14:57. . . 14:58 . . . 14:59 . . . 15:00. Alright, Mr. Folks. You’re done.
Don’t forget that the office of Governor in the state of SC is not much more than a formality, that the legislature still holds the power in this state.
@Greg
Those voter turnout numbers show why we eventually will see the Sheheen campaign get down in the mud in attacking Haley. If he doesn’t, it will be a 55-45 win for Haley… and that’s assuming no negative campaigning against Sheheen.
Haley basically just has to play ball control and avoid any major mistakes to be the next governor. And she will always have the good old boy dirty tricksters to knock Sheheen down whenever necessary.
We can assume safely that some cross-over Dems helped Haley win her runoff (as the weakest Republican vs. Vincent).
Also, we know that: (1) the SC Chamber would rather have Sheheen as governor than Haley; and (2) the Republican party plans to neuter its own TEA-party candidates (e.g. Chmn Floyd’s pairing of Haley on an intentionally infeasible national ticket with Jim DeMint) to diminish support among South Carolinians who want Nikki as Gov.
No worries — the major monies, and most viciously dirty cards are yet to be played. There is only one way Vincent can lose.
Doug, tell us something about Ms. Haley other than she’s a pro-life, pro-second ammendment, common sense conservative. Seems like that’s about all she has to offer. Her tranparency issue is less convincing the less transparent she becomes.
Doug said:
“That’s a pretty misogynistic statement. A similar statement could be made of Sheheen:
“Vince is a telegenic young man who SHINES as long as nothing goes deeper than him being a legacy politician, being a family man, being fresh, being engaging, having a great smile.” ”
Doug is spot on. Maybe our buddy Brad is the one who needs to look deeper to realize things like this.
bud–there aren’t that many Sheheen supporters that I met during the primary that could tell me why they were voting for the guy other than the fact that “he seems to be the front-runner.”
We have the right to critcize and point out a candidate’s weakness. Haley comes with baggage considered by many to not be very conducive to becoming a successful governor of the state.
With that said, every time she is criticized by Democrats, every time she is attacked by her opponents, every time the Republican establishment makes a disparaging remark, the higher her approval ratings move up with the general public.
She withstood the sexual impropriety allegations and won the primary and run-off going away. She made the right moves for her candicacy and unless she suddenly develops severe brain damage, she will win in November, going away.
The national media, who do not enjoy a high approval rating with South Carolinians in general, along with liberal web and blog sites, will attack and only serve to enhance and entrench her popularity with South Carolina voters.
She has a Palinesque quality and if you take a close look at the picture Brad used for a long time, showing the two together on the state house steps, they are very similar in build, appearance, looks, and demeanor. Both come across with confidence and a ” critics can go to hell” attitude.
As far as transparency, she is no more or less transparent than any other politician. Transparency is a term that has become overused and is slowly beginning to lose any real meaning or have an impact on anyone accusing others of not being “transparent”.
I think most of us are capable of determining what is “apparent” about the candidates. In the end, does the voter like the candidate or not? Nikki Haley is very well liked.
That my friends, resonates well with the citizens of this state.
@Juan
Give me an estimate of how many Democrats you seriously think went out of their way on Tuesday to vote for Haley because she’s the weaker candidate. 12? 35? 75? You really think there are that many people who would go out of their way to do that? The same geniuses who cast 100,000 votes for Alvin Greene?
@Bud
I’ll give you an example of how little impact Haley’s “transparency” issue will have. My wife doesn’t follow politics. She saw the report on the news about Haley’s errors of omission on her income. She watched the story and then said, “Who cares?”
She didn’t steal the money. There’s no evidence that it had any quid pro quo benefits. It’s an inside-the-echo-chamber story that very few people care about.
I haven’t decided yet on who I will vote for. Sheheen has not defined himself on the issues nor demonstrated any strategy aside from “I’m not Sanford”. That won’t win. If he doesn’t come out with any specific policies, why would I vote for him? Haley starts ahead of him in my book based on her willingness to take on the State House (the true cause of all problems in this state). Guns? Don’t care. Have as many as you want. Pro-life? Don’t care. She’s not going to stop any abortions nor cause any more to happen. All I care about is tax reform and making government more efficient. If that is all she commits herself to do, she’ll get my vote. Sheheen will have to present some real specifics on tax reform before I believe his boilerplate stump speech.
Seems like the sexual stuff was never resolved. Perhaps its unresolvable. But what if something new comes up? That would be a game changer.
All this cockiness from the Haley camp is going to make the November surprise that much sweeter. What Doug, National Review, etc. fail to grasp is that Haley has just hit the peak of her support. She has little place to go in this race but down. Watch those poll numbers…she’ll have a big lead now, but that race will tighten and tighten, all the way to election day. The raw turnout numbers mean little, as the GOP gubernatorial primary race was more vigorously contested than the Dem side. (And Democratic turnout for November is going to be MUCH higher than in the primary; the organizational apparatus—Organizing for America— that worked hard for turnout in 08 for Obama including among the African-American community—which generally breaks heavily Democratic—is already going back to work for Sheheen this fall in this state…Though you won’t see any ads on statewide TV featuring Obama and Sheheen together, except from Republicans.) Sure, the Greene debacle doesn’t help Sheheen, but in a few weeks everybody will forget Greene because he will stay invisible. (Although I wouldn’t be surprised to see Haley’s and DeMented’s minions actually buy ad time FOR Greene, on the theory that it will hurt Sheheen).
I just have a sneaky feeling that while the national press is talking about Haley today, come the Wednesday after Election Day, they will be stumbling all over each other asking the question, who is this Democrat that knocked off the powerful Republicans in this red state? That will be one of the lead stories of post-election, nationally.
Of course she’s well liked. I “well like” her myself, and always have.
But I care far too much about South Carolina to want to see her become governor.
And Matt — no, those things cannot be said about Vincent Sheheen. At least not honestly, by anyone who knows both candidates. Sheheen is a policy wonk, a total geek on government restructuring, ecodevo and the like. In other words, someone likely to bore voters to tears. But qualified.
@Doug Ross– Brad has been pretty specific all over the blog about what substantively he dislikes about Nikki Haley: she is Mark Sanford all over again, and we know how that turned out. I’m talking about how she said in today’s paper that she’s an accountant and all she could think about was the numbers–there’s a lot more to effective governing than counting beans and pinching pennies and vetoing everything. She doesn’t even work well with her colleagues now….
As far as Democrats crossing over, this Democrat crossed over yesterday, but because I assessed the three races I cared about: Governor, Attorney General and 5th Circuit Solicitor. I thought, erroneously,that John Meadors had it wrapped up, and I also thought Dan Johnson was a worthy candidate. I felt that Gresham Barrett would make a far better governor than Nikki Haley, so I voted FOR him. I mostly wanted to vote for the excellent Leighton Lord and against the minimally qualified Alan Wilson. Leighton not only would never embarrass us; he would do us proud. Maybe next time.
Didn’t work out so hot for me, at all. Sigh.
So what show was it? Talk of the Nation? We can listen online.
By the way, did any of y’all hear me on NPR? They said it went well, and want to have me back, which is nice. Finally, I’ve broken my string of getting bumped by bigger news on NPR. Even when Michelle Norris came to my office and interviewed me personally (and SAID it went well, although maybe she was just being nice), I got bumped.
So it was good to make in on the air this time, and I look forward to opportunities to do it again. I love doing radio. TV’s fun, too, but you have to keep thinking about sitting up straight and such. With radio, you just shut your eyes, open your mouth and TALK, and keep talking. Which is just brain candy to me.
@brad
Where does one go to review all the policies that Sheheen wants to implement as Governor?
Did you ever try to get an answer from his camp as to how he would have handled this year’s budget?
Doug, you ask, “Give me an estimate of how many Democrats you seriously think went out of their way on Tuesday to vote for Haley because she’s the weaker candidate. 12? 35? 75? You really think there are that many people who would go out of their way to do that? The same geniuses who cast 100,000 votes for Alvin Greene?”
Couldn’t be, unless someone wasn’t playing fair. If they voted in the Democratic Primary for Alvin, then they didn’t get to vote in the republican run-off. However, the democratic primary ticket was extremely brief. I only had 3 races to vote in and the republicans at my precinct had 2 pages worth at least. And the choices did not seem as dire on the democratic side to me -i.e. I really wanted Jim Rex, but I also like Sheheen alot – similar with the education candidates – I was OK with either – and I must admit, I was thrown by the Greene thing – when I researched the candidates before going to the polls, I totally thought Rawl would just win. I didn’t read it as a race where my vote would be important – the choice seemed clear (Yea, I goofed there). My point is, it is conceivable to me that other democrats could have decided to vote in the republican primary because the democratic races did not seem as crucial at this point. I almost made that decision myself. So no, it would not be the democrats that voted for Alvin Greene who may have voted for Haley in the runoff, but nevertheless, some of those republican primary votes could actually be Sheheen votes in November.
And I would like to reiterate that the statement about shining as long as nothing goes too deep could NOT be made about Sheheen. I haven’t paid deep attention yet but even a brief look indicates he has a brain in his head (and knows how to use it). Haley comes across as a kinder gentler Palin with slightly better grammar – I get the feeling Nikki is a nicer person than Palin, but her ideas are equally vapid – it’s just a little less obvious on first listen because she doesn’t have quite as many lost clauses just hanging out in the middle of the her answers.
@Phillip says:
“All this cockiness from the Haley camp is going to make the November surprise that much sweeter.”
Well, I hope there won’t be any sour grapes from the Sheheen fans if he loses. If a Democrat can’t win in the current environment (Sanford fatigue, no help from the State House for Haley, minor scandals), then can we just agree that this state WANTS a Sanford style governor?
Here is the radio link http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128058765
in case it’s not yet been posted. It’s about 34 minutes in. Brad, I thought you sounded good. Was Neal Conan saying your last name wierd, or do I just hear it different in my head? I imagine the “ar” is as in “car” and the medial ‘th’ is voiced – I think he was saying “ar” like “er” with an unvoiced ‘th’. (Sorry I am a speech geek.)
Thanks! I started a separate post with that link as well.
No, he got it right. It’s like the words “War” and “then.” (And “war” the way most of us say it, not the way Bob Dylan does in “Masters of War,” in which he indeed pronounces it to rhyme with “car.”)
I have a history-geek sort of mnemonic for it:
Think of 1945. First there was a WAR, THEN it was over.
@Kathryn
So you voted for Barrett because you were hoping (against hope) that he could to beat Haley – even though you would have no intention of voting for him for Governor in November?
So you voted for Sheheen two weeks ago and Barrett this week? I didn’t think you could do that. Or did you not feel Sheheen was worthy of your vote?
The whole “Nikki = Palin” meme is going to grow old very quickly, especially trying to call her dumb or vapid.
Start with the fact that Haley has a B.S. in accounting from Clemson. Palin attended about seven different schools to get a degree in broadcast journalism.
I’ll make the assumption Haley is of above average intelligence. Prove me wrong.
I won’t hold my breath for this blog to provide a fair and objective coverage of the Haley and the Sheheen candidacies.
Do you really want to be such a Sheheen-sycophant and such a Haley-basher? That kind of thing should be reserved for young unemployed politicos blogging from Mom’s basement.
Ohmygosh, what on earth did I say? You must be addressing someone other than me.
I’ve represented Nikki as a very likable, pleasant, personable young woman who lacks depth in understanding of policy. Someone I’ve happily endorsed, twice, and would endorse again if she were running for the House against the people she was running for then.
But she is essentially a sophomore lawmaker, and her understanding of policy is roughly at that level, neither higher nor lower. She’s not a prodigy, just a fairly bright young woman.
And Vincent’s a policy geek, who has an understanding of what’s right and wrong with government that belies his years — which is NOT a big asset in connecting with voters, a fact that’s been demonstrated too many times to doubt. But it’s there, and undeniable if you’ve ever spent time discussing such things with him.
If I were supporting Nikki, I’d say the same things. Any thoughtful, experienced observer would note the same differences between them.
I couldn’t get an absentee ballot sorted before we left for our three week sojourn in the Northeast, so I did not vote in the June 8 primary at all. They make it really tough–you have to go in in person—considering that I bank online, buy lots of things online, how hard would it be to let me vote online?
I voted for Barrett because I preferred him over Haley–the straight-up choice–the honest vote. Cindi Scoppe was suggesting the opposite as a Machiavellian strategy but correctly suggested that it wold have to actually happen to be Machiavellian.
Nikki just said on CNN’s John King USA that she would not accept a possible small 2nd stimulus for teachers and law enforcement.
Sanford redux.
Give us examples of Haley’s lack of understanding of policy. What topic is just too difficult for her pretty little head to understand?
Sheheen’s “understanding of what is right and wrong with government” has not been demonstrated. His website is very thin on content. He makes generic claims about “cronyism in the Commerce Department” — does he have the guts to tell us who those cronies are? Doubt it.
Saw he started the “I’m not Sanford” campaign in Myrtle Beach today. At some point he’s going to have to come up with a reason to vote for him instead of against Haley. It’s all been boilerplate Democrat talking points so far.
I missed that, Martin. Of course, if she said we don’t need another stimulus, I might agree with her. I think we’ve done enough deficit spending, and the economy is crawling forward; I’d really have to be sold on another one.
But if she’s saying that, if there WERE another stimulus, she would resist South Carolina getting its share of what we’ll all be on the hook to pay for eventually, then yeah, it’s Sanford redux. And inexcusable.
And Doug, I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth meant to misrepresent, and thereby delegitimize, what I say.
My observations are based on things that would probably be meaningless to you, and that you would loudly contradict even if I could document it all for you as you request. These are people I’ve talked to over the years and formed deep impressions of, based in the very thing that you denigrate — my experience. Sorry, but I don’t carry around a laminated card with “Nikki-isms” to knock down.
And if I could remember them all, you would just scoff and dismiss them, so what’s the point? I mean, that’s why you want me to do it, right?
For instance, here’s one I DO remember. I have on more than one occasion chided Nikki for always saying she wants to “run government like a business,” a cliche that you hear from people who have a vague concept in mind but don’t express it well, and lack understanding of the fact that business and government are, and SHOULD be, fundamentally and essentially different. Something that I’m pretty sure you disagree with me on.
If she would say she wants government to be more efficient, more pragmatic, more rational, more accountable, I’d applaud. But saying “run it like a business” shows a penchant for the applause line (applause from people who haven’t thought more deeply about it than that) at the expense of showing understanding of what it is you’re trying to run. Nikki would smile when she said it to me because she knew how it appalled me, and explain that she liked it anyway. And that was enough for Nikki. But it’s actually harmful for elected officials to say such things. It creates an expectation that government in a representative democracy can never deliver on. For instance, certain people (you among them, I believe) are extremely impatient with the fact that government doesn’t do the things that YOU want it to do. After all, when a business doesn’t do what you want, it changes to meet your demand or you take your custom elsewhere — and it really chafes that you can’t do that with government, and that you’re forced to pay for it anyway, etc. This utterly ignores the fact that a government exists for all of us, and that means it has to serve people who want the opposite of what you want as well as it does you, which really sets you up to be dissatisfied — ESPECIALLY if you’ve been encouraged to think of government as being like a business. A business is about a transaction between you and the business, and revolves around that. A government is about ordering society for the greatest achievable benefit of all, which means compromise and inevitable dissatisfaction from someone who expects that same kind of transaction as you get with a business. It’s a recipe for frustration and alienation. You may be able to identify with that result.
And yet, no matter how well-run a government is, it will always disappoint the person who expects that same essential relationship as with a business.
We could go on and on and on about that one, simple misconception that Nikki embraces, and then move on to others. But I don’t think that would help justify my judgment of her in YOUR mind, would it, Doug?
Doug Ross,
“Give us examples of Haley’s lack of understanding of policy. What topic is just too difficult for her pretty little head to understand?”
Excellent challenge! In my opinion,
Democrats impute undue expertise to lawyers (e.g. Sheheen, Obama) in total disregard of related experience required by arms-length employers (such as, but not limited to law firms).
Based upon her experience compared to Obama Haley could be eligible for presidency after a short term in the U.S. Senate (provided she rarely voted).
I’m starting to get the impression that Juan has a bad experience with an abogado somewhere along the line. He brings up lawyers a lot.
It had not occurred to me to think of Vincent as a lawyer, and Nikki as a non-lawyer, but I suppose that’s yet another way to compare them if you so choose, and attach whatever importance to as fits your values.
Name the candidate who says the following:
“Our state government is broken. Its flawed structure has left us with massive inefficiencies and a lack of accountability. Neither the executive branch nor the legislative branch is meeting the demands of the modern age.”
No, it wasn’t Doug Ross. It was Vincent Sheheen on his website.
http://www.vincentsheheen.com/issues/government-reform
So when I say the government is broken, I’m a cynical government-hater. When Sheheen says it, apparently that makes him a visionary policy wonk.
Sounds like Vince would like to see government run like a business also. If he’s serious about fixing our broken government, I’ll consider voting for him.
Now, how can you spin that quote to match your preconceived notions?
I’m guessing we’ll see the McCain endorsement of Haley any day now. He’s going to need her coattails…
Brad,
We all tend to stereotype, so you are forgiven your assumption of my “bad experience with an abogado”. (I am a natural born U.S. citizen).
I am aware of the unique news generating connections between attorneys and jornalists:
(1) Howell Raines, ex-New York Times executive editor, said, “Almost all leakers are lawyers. That’s the bottom line.”
(2) “Well-connected local people probably don’t get prosecuted as much,” said professor John Corkery of the James Madison Law School in Chicago, “That’s just endemic in government, including lawyers and judges. People don’t like to prosecute their friends.”
(3) When it comes to jounalistic due diligence, who is a reporter’s best friend and worst nightmare regarding libel?
My objection to lawyers has very little to do with the private practice of law (friends and relatives are lawyers, including a famous author), but has loads to do with their gradual takeover and corruption of elected, political bodies such as the U.S. House and Senate. Did I mention their monopolization of the Supreme Court?
Who heads, as well as comprises the majority memberships in, congressional committees empowered to investigate ethics violations and wrongdoing? – Elected lawyers.
Does this give certain members the impact of extortion?
Which political party not only includes the most elected lawyers and party officials, but receives the largest tributes from the profession? Does the government in turn fund the employment of thousands of other lawyers through grants to nonprofits such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU, ACORN, etc?
Just the tip of an iceberg, Brad.
Doug. Doug. Doug. Do you ever pay attention to me?
Who is THE apostle of the message of how dysfunctional our form of government is here in SC? It is I. (Which is different from being opposed to government AS government.) I pretty much built my career at The State on the findings of my year-long investigation into just how dysfunctional it is, and why, and what should be done to fix it. My entire 15 years on the editorial board, addressing that dysfunction was at the top of the list of my legislative priorities.
I endorsed Mark Sanford in 2002 because he read my work on that, and made my agenda his own in that race.
When you asked me to give you examples of where Nikki is lacking in depth of understanding and Vincent is stronger, I gave you half of that equation. But before giving you the other half, I thought, “Doug’s probably sick of my referring back to Vincent’s advocacy of restructuring, based in an understanding of the dysfunction of SC government that matches my own.” Because I do it frequently. So I figured, if it didn’t work all the other times, why would it impress you now?
And now you hold up to me that very same insight of Vincent’s that I have held up to his credit repeatedly here, and do as some sort of “gotcha!” as though I didn’t know that he has that understanding?
How can you read this blog on a regular basis and a) not know that those words you quote of Vincent’s could have been taken from my own writings, and b) understand that it’s one of the reasons I’m impressed with Vincent?
Sometimes I despair of ever getting my message across…
Juan–You don’t want Supreme Court Justices to be lawyers?
I guess I’m in a different universe, then.
“Sometimes I despair of ever getting my message across…”
Stick with the issues. Anytime you talk gender it comes across as misogynistic. I don’t know if you are, but you sure do hit all the right notes when you broach the subject.
@Doug, based on what I’ve seen in my ten years in South Carolina, you nailed it with option 2:
“And the reason she will win is because the voters in this state WANT a Sanford-style governor. It’s either that or you have to paint them with the broad brush of stupidity.”
Nothing else explains the intense dislike of government programs by those who stand to benefit most from those programs.
I’ve talked to people from Aiken to Myrtle Beach, from Greenville to Hilton Head. The vast majority of those I’ve talked with (granted, not a statistically solid sample) are tired of the infighting between Sanford and the Legislature. If the effects of the Sanford budget vetoes are strongly felt before the election, I think a good many people may ask themselves “Do I really want another four years of this?”
So Nikki Haley saying the government is broken because of the legislature is due to her lack of understanding but Vincent Sheheen saying exactly the same thing is a sign of his understanding. Got it.
Your idea of fixing “broken” is rotating four flat tires. Hopefully, Sheheen doesn’t have the same idea.
So from a Meyers Briggs perspective, it could be that Haley is an S (Sensing) and Sheheen is an N (intuitive) in the way they perceive things. That would mean Haley tends to notice details more and deals with tangible concrete realities with a narrower focus in her thinking, and Sheheen would notice deeper patterns and get more of the big picture. It would not mean that either is necessarily less intelligent than the other – just that they have different strengths.
Just a possible theory; I really don’t know enough about either of them to really have a good opinion yet.
But if that were the difference, which thinking style would serve our state best? Perhaps that should be the question.
Doug: I agree—Haley strikes me as more intelligent than Palin. As far as grasp of policy, and Juan’s comment about her qualifications for the prez job relative to Obama…well, A) she might very well have a decent grasp on policy concepts, but just has the wrong prescriptions to fix our state, and B) Juan, I said she’s smarter than Palin…that’s a low standard…she’s not remotely in Obama’s league, though! Let’s not get carried away.
I think it’s great that the Jakie constituency that would call Ms. Haley a “raghead” has been repudiated by a large portion of the GOP in this state. What would make me MORE impressed with Ms. Haley is if she said to South Carolinians: “Yes, I converted to Christianity, but had I NOT done so and were still a practicing Sikh, if that would be enough to make you even consider not voting for me, than I don’t want your vote.” THAT would be courageous.
No, Doug, and again you are misrepresenting what I say in order to have a straw man to knock down.
To go back to the beginning, I stand firmly behind my analysis of what is fundamentally wrong with government in South Carolina, the analysis that has been the basis of so many of the issues that I have pushed on the hardest over the past 20 years. At the time, this analysis was a hard sell to some folks, such as Vincent’s uncle Bob. But Bob was won over to a great extent, and helped Carroll Campbell at least move in the right direction. Even though that restructuring was grossly inadequate, as I wrote at the time, what the Legislature embraced under Speaker Sheheen was FAR more than I expected, and far, FAR more than we have seen subsequently in terms of willingness to reform on the part of the Legislature.
For that reason, when Mark Sanford embraced our agenda (after I sent him a reprint of our original series analyzing our structural deficiencies), I got behind Mark Sanford, because he was the first candidate for governor since Campbell to take an interest in reform. That turned out disastrously, as Sanford went out of his way to alienate the one constituency he most needed to win over to achieve reform.
But Sanford was RIGHT about our structural problems. He’s very WRONG about his Grover Norquist-inspired notions about the size of our government — which he distorts with bogus numbers — which is something he ALSO puts under the heading of “governmental reform,” but set that aside — he’s right about the structural problems.
Nikki has adopted BOTH of those Sanford notions — what he’s right about and what he’s wrong about. So she’s both right and wrong.
Meanwhile, Vincent has traveled much further down the road his Uncle Bob started down in working with Campbell all those years ago. And what Vincent has done is not only embrace real, substantive governmental reform, but crafted a very smart way to package it so that there is a good chance of someone in the bully pulpit of governor selling it and making it actually happen. It’s very pragmatic, very much based in the real world. And it’s based on his own observations and understanding of what works and doesn’t. Rather than basing it on our research long ago (my “Power Failure” project in 1991) as Sanford did, Vincent seems to have arrived there on his own — or at least that’s the impression I get.
I have never, EVER suggested that either Sanford or Nikki has ever been wrong about the structural analysis. So what you say about me dismissing it when Nikki says it is completely false. The difference is that I believe Vincent could make it happen.
Scout, first, I saw Jem and Atticus and Dill the other night on AMC. They seemed to be doing fine.
As for Myers-Briggs — I’m not sure about the N-S axis. I feel more comfortable making an observation about J (judging) versus P (perceiving). Based on what I’ve observed clinically over the years, Nikki is likely a J, and Vincent is likely a P.
Js make up their minds about something and that’s it; from that point on it’s the God’s truth, and nothing will shake it. It makes for dynamic, impressive public speaking, because audiences hear the conviction, the confidence, and it lends credibility to the speaker. Mark Sanford, too, would be a textbook J, I believe — no amount of experience going forward will shake his theories, once adopted. (Although he’s a far less dynamic speaker.)
A P reaches conclusions, also. But they are always subject to re-examination. The door is open to new information, and conclusions are constantly re-evaluated in light of new data.
I’m an INTP — especially strong on the first two, the introversion and the intuition. In the early 90s, I had a close working relationship with a fellow editor (my boss), who was an INTJ. We intuitively leaped together to all kinds of wonderful theories and conclusions, and launched various projects on the basis of them (the “Power Failure” project was one). But one of those projects that I helped him implement was a structural reorganization of the newsroom that completely changed reporting relationships and workflow, the way we covered South Carolina and the way we got that coverage into the paper.
We completed the reorganization, and he pronounced it good, and kept on pronouncing it good. But I saw very quickly that it was not working. The theories were wrong. We had serious arguments about it, and something of a falling-out.
All based in the difference between a J and a P.
@Phillip
Agree completely with you on whether Haley could win as a Sikh. It’s the same reason Mitt Romney can’t win here. The tolerance level for different religious beliefs in South Carolina is very low.
Going back to the government is broken theme – it’s actually not the government that is broken. The government is just the people who run it. It’s the politicians who make up the government who are broken (corrupt, power hungry, plain old incompetent). Anyone who says the government is broken needs to recognize that unless the people at the top are replaced, it will remain broken. And by “people at the top” I don’t mean our figurehead governor.
@scout–Accountants (happy ones anyway) are usually ST types. Successful ones are J. Lawyers are usually NT types. Good call.
Oh, and N-S is the hardest to judge.
I find it interesting that you refuse to find a common ground, if it’s not what Brad wants, it’s wrong.
I also am interested in why you feel so inclined to demand things change but do little more than complain about it. Why don’t you run for office? It’s not like you have anything else to do.
@Michael P.
You talkin’ to me?
If you are, Brad and I disagree on many topics, abortion rights chief among them, but also the war in Iraq and the pretexts under which we got into it, the wonderfulness of John McCain (who birthed Sarah Palin), the actions of the Catholic hierarchy…
And how do you know what I have to do?
No, Doug, the government IS broken, in the sense that it’s structured to fail. That is to say, it’s structured to resist change, which means it ill serves a changing society. And it’s extremely hard to hold it accountable in any way.
We need better people AND better structures to enable those people to make a difference. It’s not either-or. You can have the best structure in the world, and if you have the wrong people, you won’t succeed. But the opposite is true as well. Our structure is set up to resist the best efforts of the best people.
Also, back on Myers-Briggs — one of the reasons Doug and I argue so much, to little avail, is probably because of an N-S conflict.
While as a P I’ve had some horrific and ugly arguments with Js, the most intractable divide is between Ns and Ss. It’s SO hard for them to agree, because they simply do not take in and process information the same way. Ss find Ns’ leaps to conclusions completely invalid — lazy, irresponsible, even immoral. It disgusts them. While Ns have little patience for the more methodical ways of the S, which never seem to get anywhere — or only get there after the Ns have lost interest and moved on to something else.
That was really the biggest thing I learned from my experience with Myers-Briggs. It helped me understand why there were certain people I was always ticking off. The more inspired I was (in my opinion) in what I said and did, the more disgusted they seemed to get. That’s because they were extremely S, while I was almost off-the-chart N.
Brad,
The government did not arise out of thin air. It was created by people. People with specific agendas. People who recognize the power that comes from the structure that exists and have no desire to see a change in that structure that would negatively impact them. We have the state government that Harrell, Leatherman, Cooper, McConnell, et al want. They could change it. They won’t. It won’t matter who is Governor in six months… because the people who control the broken structure want it that way.
Kathryn – Nope, I was talking to Brad so you can put your paranoia away for a while.
BTW – I don’t really know or care what you do besides complain about neighbors and go to Rotary.
Doug Ross says: June 23, 2010 at 1:29 pm“Nikki is a telegenic young woman who SHINES as long as nothing goes deeper than her being a woman, being a minority, being fresh, being engaging, having a great smile.”
That’s a pretty misogynistic statement
Oh, come on. Arguably it’s a little bit sexist, but misogynistic? Hardly.
I don’t even think it’s sexist, in this context. Mr. W is capable of making the occasional sexist observation, but this isn’t one of them. Rep. Haley IS very attractive, and that is going to get her a lot more national media exposure than she could have dreamed of otherwise. And it’s going to be a lot more than she deserves.
Let’s face it, if Sarah Palin looked like, well, Barbara Bush, no one would be paying much attention to her now.
And the fact that Nikki is a woman has gotten a ton of media play.
Leighton Lord has a great smile, too…ask the “girls” at Nexsen Pruet. I guess that was lost on Brad….
Thank you, kc. I had meant to reply to Maude earlier on that point, but hey, you know how it is when you try to argue with a woman…
Seriously, if what Maude means is that I don’t sound like a feminist, then thanks, I’m coming across exactly as I intend. But “mysogynistic”? No way. I like women, a LOT. And by that I mean in platonic ways as well as the other ways. This is something you quickly learn about me if you pay attention.
Once, I was having a business-related conversation from my home, and when I got off the phone, my wife said, “You were talking to a woman, weren’t you?” Well, yeah, I said, wracking my brain to think, “How did she KNOW that?” She explained, “You were enjoying it so much.” So, needless to say, I don’t try to put anything over on HER…
@MIchael P.
“I find it interesting that you refuse to find a common ground, if it’s not what Brad wants, it’s wrong.”
I suppose I was trying to infuse your comment with meaning. I mean, it IS Brad’s blog, and we read it to find out what he thinks…at least I do. It’s not a mediation session.
And yes, Doug, our government was created by people. Just not living people. It started with John Locke, who drafted it for his patron, Lord Anthony Ashley-Cooper. And we’ve been saddled with it ever since.
Point taken. I’ll retract misogynistic and replace it with sexist.
Thank you, Maude.
You know, increasingly, I think maybe Maude really IS the character from the movie…
Kathryn Fenner,
re: “You don’t want Supreme Court Justices to be lawyers?”
Like judgeship, lawyership is not a requirement of the U.S. Constitution, is it, Kathryn Fenner?
No, we are certainly not in the same universe when it comes to the perverse power grabs by lawyers any more than we would be of any other profession that came to dominance all branches of federal government.
You offered no response to the Raines and Corkery quotes. Do you feel as a journalist that the public needs no enlightenment as to these behaviors?