This was brought to my attention via a release from the SC Democrats yesterday, as follows:
Haley Makes Time’s 40 Under 40, But Why?
COLUMBIA- Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley made national headlines again today for being named one of Time magazine’s 40 Under 40. The scandal-plagued candidate was named alongside young civic leaders who are actually making a difference in American politics by working to fix a broken system – and to restore faith in the process.
South Carolina Democrats said today that Haley fit the age requirement for Time’s list but hasn’t really met the list’s other requirements.
“Nikki Haley may have national notoriety for her ties to Sarah Palin, but she hasn’t done much to alleviate South Carolina’s problems. With her only legislative victory a law that says who can shampoo hair, she’s shown herself to be completely ineffective as a legislator. It’s going to be hard for Ms. Haley to restore faith in the political process when it’s obvious she’s been less than truthful about so many things. Something new is revealed about her every week,” said South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler.
And here’s the abomination to which they refer. And it gets worse. The headline is “40 Under 40: A New Generation of Leaders.” (You can see a video about it. And if you let the video keep running, you get to see one on “Naughty Lingerie in Conservative Syria.” Nope, I’m not making it up.)
Really? You’re serious — a backbencher whose only passed bill had to do with washing hair, and she is a “leader?”
Huh.
Tell you what, TIME. I’d greatly appreciate it if you’d wait until we have an election before you find out who will be the new leader out of South Carolina who is under 40.
Yeah, I know that the national media, particularly the “news”magazines that are a sort of parody of journalism, just practically collapse with excitement that there’s an Indian-American woman running for governor in SC. Because that’s just the sort of superficial, meaningless trivia that hits you where you live. Here’s the mag’s entire in-depth analysis of the situation (step back so it doesn’t gush all over you):
Haley, the daughter of Indian immigrants, may seem an unlikely figure to lead the rebirth of South Carolina’s Republican Party. But when the stiletto-heeled 38-year-old bested three white men to win its gubernatorial nomination in June, she proved that the good-ol’-boy culture of Southern politics is no match for a charismatic conservative newcomer who promises to shake up the Palmetto State.
But we may have a surprise for all of you alleged journalists out there — the first Lebanese-American Catholic ever elected governor in South Carolina. Oooohhh — exciting, huh? Personally, I couldn’t care one way or the other about the winner’s demographics. I just want to have an actual leader, one who has demonstrated some capacity to lead.
So how about getting all worked up later, huh?
Related Posts
There is a whole bunch of people on that list of 40 who are up for election… so big deal…
These two are on the list… and they’re running against each other… one of them is going to lose…
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2023831_2023829_2025220,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2023831_2023829_2025182,00.html
The worst part of the Time article is the introduction to the “40 under 40”: “In an epic election cycle, a new generation of civic leaders is already at work trying to fix a broken system — and restore faith in the process.” This could not have been written by anyone who actually looked at her history. Blatant influence peddling and playing fast and loose with tax laws and personal finances do not restore my faith in anything other than South Carolina’s seemingly infinite capacity to shoot itself in the foot.
I would not posit Carol Fowler as a paragon of Truthful virtue. She frequently is FORCEd to retract a great deal of what she says because – – it is untrue. HMMMM!
How about transcribing what Sheheen said when you asked him why he SHOULD be governor?
I think it was something like “I passed a conservation bill and raised the gas tax. “. Those were the first two things he came up with. Not exactly inspiring.
“a charismatic conservative newcomer who promises to shake up the Palmetto State.”
What a joke.
Correction – sheheen said he raised the cigarette tax.
@Tom Fillinger–If what Carol Fowler says is true, an ad hominem attack on her is doubly wrong.
Re Maude’s comment: I guess when Time says that Haley will “shake up the Palmetto State,” they must mean shake up all these many years now of Democratic administration, progressive governance, wonderful support for public education with equal opportunity for all, and famously smooth functioning of the executive with legislative branches of government. Hey, let’s try something different for a change!
“news”magazines that are a sort of parody of journalism, …”
Why single out the national news magazines for being a “parody of journalism”? Have you actually looked at the front page of most newspapers lately? I pick on the State a lot because that rag sheet is among the worst of the worst but most of them could fit that description. And the Wall Street Journal is really nothing more than the propaganda wing of the GOP. And of course the TV news channels have now picked sides. Fox News in particular is a complete and utter joke. MSNBC is pretty much nothing but a counter weight to FOX. (Although I do like Rachel Maddow).
With all of that you can get at the truth. It just takes some digging.
Here’s the kind of crap, absurdity we get from the Wall Street Journal:
“It needs to be said. The rescue of the Chilean miners is a smashing victory for free-market capitalism.”
– Daniel Henninger in a story titled: “Capitalism Saved the Miners”.
Seriously, how can you take a newspaper seriously when they spout off crap like this. Let’s put this whole thing in perspective. First of all, the private company the miners worked for, San Esteban, was notorious for safety violations. In the mining incident that nearly killed these men San Esteban had failed to make the necessary precautions that could have prevented the disaster in the first place or, at the very least, made the rescue much faster and easier.
Second, the rescue attempt was run by the Chilean government, NOT by a private, for- profit company. This rescue attempt was made possible by the ingenuity and perseverance of a number of individuals, companies and governments from around the world and to single out capitalism as the source for this success is absurd on it’s face.
And finally, 29 of the 33 miners suing this capitalist “success story”, San Esteban, for negligence in the events leading up to the mining collapse.
To sully the joyful rescue story by propagating this jingoistic nonsense about the success of capitalism really doesn’t speak well for the Wall Street Journal. It is shameful to politicize this event for the promotion of GOP talking points. But what makes Mr. Henninger’s story doubly disturbing is how the facts actually refute his claim, not support it. I’m not sure I’d want to use the Wall Street Journal to line a bird cage. I’d be afraid the bird would catch some type of disease.
At least The Daily Beast — not otherwise a source that I read regularly — has noted on Oct. 16 in a column by John Avlon that Ms. Haley is not all that Newsweek and Time say she is. It would be nice if other national media decided to do their homework as well.
Yeah, I hope those who still believe in the great liberal media conspiracy are taking note. The Beast has swallowed Nikki’s shallow self-description hook, line and sinker. A narrative that not a single journalist, however lame, in South Carolina believes is not even questioned, however slightly, on the national level.
And Bud — you’re citing an OPINION piece.
The WSJ is a wonderful newspaper. It and the NYT both do a great job. I can’t get the NYT where I live, so I just get the WSJ, and don’t know what I’d do without it. It’s wonderfully written, and there’s something you can really dig into on every page.
As for the Opinion pages — ever read the daily book review you find there? I try to read it every day, and over time it really keeps me up on the latest books. I tend to be a reader of old dead white guys for the most part, so it’s a novelty to me to go into Barnes & Noble and be familiar with every book on the “New Arrivals” shelf — thanks to the WSJ…
I never respond to this kind of thing, but I am curious about Tom Fillinger’s comment that I often have to retract statements because they aren’t true. Wonder if he could give some examples of statements I have retracted because they weren’t true. (Not to say I haven’t sometimes wished I’d kept my mouth shut!)
Carol, I’d be interested to see some examples myself. Tom?
Brad, the Time article you labeled an “abomination” was also just an opinion piece. So if it’s an opinion in a magazine you don’t like it’s an abomination. If it’s in one of your chosen newspapers it’s just an opinion piece, nothing more. Sorry, that explaination doesn’t satisfy me. The WSJ is crap.
@ Maude and Phillip–Yeah, it’s like “Joe means Jobs” because he’s clearly done such a great job so far bringing jobs to our state!