Sound a bit over-the-top — even disturbing, with the figurative suggestion of violence? (I almost didn’t post this because of the violent metaphor — held it for several hours before posting — and might still take it down if enough of you recoil from it the way I did. But the fact that it WAS so extreme was what I wanted to comment on…)
Yeah, well, that’s kind of what I thought when I read this overheated blog post, which you can see pictured below. I don’t know who The Garnet Spy is, but it must be one of those white guys I hear about who do not question the Official Nikki Haley Narrative, which can fit on a postcard:
Nikki Haley is a triple threat to powerful people in South Carolina. She’s (1) a woman of (2) minority heritage and (3) a political reformer.
I had thought only the national media believed that that narrative was true, and it was all you needed to know about Nikki Haley. I thought everybody in South Carolina knew enough to know better. But apparently not.
(By the way, did y’all see the movie that I’m taking off on above, in that badly-Photoshopped image? It was pretty good. Really evoked a mood.)
Related Posts
This isn’t violent; it’s just plain silly. Unless Will Folks has proof I wish he wouldn’t kiss and tel–it’s tacky. But assassination??? Give me a break! On top of that, I don’t see a single substantive argument in that blog.
While I remain mostly disinterested in this whole subject, I can’t wait to hear the reason for this hatchet job. Somehow I have the feeling that it won’t reflect well on Nikki Hailey, even if the claims prove to be bogus. What set this all off? There is a back-story here, somewhere; that’s for sure.
Folks is taking a risk by swearing under oath, which a notarized statement is.
Transparent Haley (a/k/a Lady Godiva) won’t even share all her emails.
Who do you think is more likely to be lying.
and Karen–it may not matter to you what Nikki’s sexual trangressions may have been, but it sure matters to many of her potential voters….which means it matters to me.
If, at this point, I still considered it a reasonable possiblility that I might vote for Ms. Haley, I’d be concerned about whether or not she’d honored the vows she made at her wedding. Since I don’t consider her a viable candidate for many political and ethical reasons, I really don’t care if she has the sexual habits of a meerkat.
Karen–enough with the speciesism–first with the bears, now with the meerkats!
(LOL, btw)
Sheheen’s positive appeal is based in things difficult to communicate clearly in a campaign — and not valued by Doug in any case.
He’s a moderate, sensible individual who has demonstrated over time his ability to work with all sorts of people, whether they agree with him or not, toward the betterment of South Carolina. It’s an attitude and a temperament, combined with sound judgment, that reveals itself over the course of extended exposure — the kind of exposure that news media in this state do not provide for free, and which he cannot afford.
So the quickest, clearest thing he can communicate that might motivate people to get out of their slavish devotion to the Republican Party and vote for him is that Nikki Haley is a disaster. NO rational person who cares about this state more than about a political party would vote for her, whatever their ideology. Her resume doesn’t hold up. This is no someone a sensible person would hire (as someone who’s been a manager most of my life, I think in those terms, but EVERYONE should think in those terms as voters), regardless of ideology.
Clearly and fairly communicating that idea is his best chance to overcome the fact that a plurality of voters in this state don’t give a damn about Vincent Sheheen one way or the other; they just don’t want to vote for a Democrat.
As long as she has these problems — being a failure as an accountant, as a foundation employee and as a legislator — as long as he can politely make people aware of the fact and let them know that he is NOT like her, the better off he is.
For her part, she’s relying on one thing: Nikki makes a great first impression. She is counting on voters not to look any deeper than that first impression.
“NO rational person who cares about this state more than about a political party would vote for her, whatever their ideology.”
That, in a nutshell, is the very definition of an extremist statement…the exact kind of statement one would not expect to come from a self-professed moderate unpartisan.
Really…the people I know who speak in those terms are the people who are the uber-hyper partisans and extmeme idealogues.
Sorry, Matt, but you see, I’ve been paying attention. And over and over again, Nikki has demonstrated her unsuitability. And there is no longer any room for anyone to entertain the idea that she would be good in that job; she has demonstrated the contrary too many ways.
You’re talking to a guy who liked BOTH McCain and Obama in 2008 (although I liked McCain more). My notions of whether a person is qualified for high office have little to do with political ideology. They have to do with personal suitability to fill a critical management position. Vincent has those qualities; Nikki does not. And I have neither seen nor heard anyone make anything like a credible case for her suitability.
This isn’t about any kind of politics, extreme or otherwise. It’s about whom a serious person would hire for the job.
I’m with Brad, and as a former employment lawyer (defense side) I’m here to tell you that she had to have been a COMPLETE disasater for Lex Med to ask her to go on leave. You are inviting a lawsuit in a position at that high a level, not to mention the fact that she was a sitting legislator, to suggest leave without a ridiculously good reason. And the inclusion of the promise by Lex Med to refrain from saying anything that would embarrass her or impugn her character–they didn’t suggest that be included. That would have been negotiated by her attorneys and is in there because Lex Med has info that is embarrassing and would impugn her character. Not a single doubt in my mind.
Extremism in the defense of rationality is no vice, or something like that.
Sometimes something is pretty much all bad or all good. You don’t always have to split the baby in half or dwell in the gray area, or [insert cliche here].
I liked the bit in today’s paper about how she didn’t even do well in a 10-hour-a-week $100K job. Sounds so Sanford!
@brad
Doesn’t the fact that you liked McCain sort of make your endorsement of Sheheen less reliable?
McCain post 2008 election has been a disaster. That’s the guy you wanted for President. Now you’re telling us to believe YOU on Sheheen since Vincent can’t make the case for himself (not really – he COULD have but chose a different route).
You want someone like me to value Sheheen basically because you think he’s a good guy. I don’t want a good guy. I want someone who will fix the broken government. I don’t care if he says grace before dinner, goes hunting with his boys, or drives his kids to school. Anybody can do that. I want to see him articulate specifically what he would do to make South Carolina a better place to live and work. He hasn’t done that. All he’s said is “trust me”.
Doug, Vincent is a good guy who is the ONLY member of the General Assembly with a credible, workable plan for fixing state government.
This was true before he started running for governor, and the prospect of having a GOVERNOR using his bully pulpit to push that plan is actually pretty exciting.
Did you watch my show with Vincent? I deliberately got him talking about elements of that plan, just for you… well, and because I just like talking about that stuff.
The main thing about his advocacy of reform is that all you have to do is talk to him for a few minutes (nothing that would fit in a 30-second spot) to realize that he really understands what’s wrong. He gets it. And that’s rare, in or out of state government.
I mean, good Lord, did you see the “references” from her last employer? And that was in a job that personally, I would have thought Nikki would be good at. She presents herself well; I would imagine she would a great messenger for the message that Lexington Medical is a cause worth giving to. And yet they seem to have been eager to get rid of her. Does this not disturb you?
@brad
He could post his plan on his website. This is all you get on his issues page:
“Change the Way South Carolina Works
Our state government is broken. A 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. As governor, Vincent will continue to push for greater accountability, increased efficiency, and reform of the governmental process.”
That’s it. Boilerplate verbiage with no specifics.
Compare that to Haley’s specifics on her page.
http://www.nikkihaley.com/reform
Specifics: term limits, on the record voting, capping government spending, disclosing sources of income, modernizing government.
You can question whether she can achieve any of those — but at least she articulates a plan.
Instead of bombarding voters with anti-Haley commercials, Sheheen could have done multiple commercials defining his plan. He didn’t. He will lose because he didn’t make the case to the voters.
And let’s assume Sheheen loses. If he has a “credible, workable plan for fixing state government” then we should see that put into effect, right?
He would have more power as a legislator to make it happen than as governor. All he has to do is convince Leatherman and Harrell. That’s all.
Sorry, Matt, but you see, I’ve been paying attention. And over and over again, Nikki has demonstrated her unsuitability. And there is no longer any room for anyone to entertain the idea that she would be good in that job; she has demonstrated the contrary too many ways.
she has demonstrated the contrary too many ways.
You’re talking to a guy who liked BOTH McCain and Obama in 2008 (although I liked McCain more). My notions of whether a person is qualified for high office have little to do with political ideology. They have to do with personal suitability to fill a critical management position. Vincent has those qualities; Nikki does not. And I have neither seen nor heard anyone make anything like a credible case for her suitability.
This isn’t about any kind of politics, extreme or otherwise. It’s about whom a serious person would hire for the job.
Brad, you are certainly entitled to your own opinions. I have no doubt that you believe that Nikki does not possess the “personal suitability to fill a critical management position.” And I’m sure you also think that there should no longer be any room for others to entertain the idea that she would be good as governor. But just because you possess your own opinion doesn’t mean that everyone else has to have the same opinion as you. This is pretty basic logic here.
Saying things like “[a]nd there is no longer any room for anyone to entertain the idea that she would be good in that job” makes you sound delusional at best, or simply a Sheheen sycophant at worst.
Doug- what does “modernizing government mean? That’s not a plan – that’s a term.
A governor in South Carolina can’t “Cap government spending.”
Heck, she’s even stated she wouldn’t be submitting a detailed budget like Sanford did. At least Sanford would put his ideas out there.
The General Assembly writes the budget in South Carolina. “Capping Government spending” will be a nonstarter if a Governor doesn’t work well with BOTH Sides of the aisle in the General Assembly. That’s not a plan- it’s a catch phrase.
Term limits? Really? How many years do we see this proposed? Heck, national party folks have just not quit talking about this non starter of an issue. The issue of Term Limits would be laughed off the Senate and House floor.