I think that if people were waiting to make up their minds tonight, Newt just won the primary.
What do y’all think?
And why do you think Romney can’t just go ahead and release his stupid tax returns? All his responses on that are so lame.
Mind you, I don’t think Gingrich should win this. It’s just looking more like he might…
The stakes are huge, with Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich running neck-and-neck in the polls.
Let’s see what happens with the Final Four…
Meant to post about this yesterday, but there’s just so much going on…
You know the Democratic position on the Obama Administration’s rejection of a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. And you know the Republican position.
But what, I’m sure you’re wondering, is the Energy Party position? It’s not all that complicated. You can break it down into three elements. The Energy Party:
See how matter-of-fact things can be when you’re not blinded by the ideology of either the left or the right, and you don’t care whether Democrats or Republicans have the upper hand?
The Perry team is apparently going along with him in backing Newt Gingrich now. The Gingrich campaign is touting this new endorsement, from SC House Speaker Bobby Harrell. Harrell said:
“Cathy and I make these decisions together. We believe Newt Gingrich is the right choice for South Carolina, and for the United States. His commitment to the conservative principles of lower taxes, smaller government, and economic development are key to restoring America to greatness. Speaker Gingrich is the only candidate with proven leadership experience, which is what we need to effect real change in Washington.”
And the SC Democrats were the ones who brought it to my attention that Katon Dawson was now pressuring Mitt Romney — in a sort of passive-aggressive manner:
At Perry’s announcement here, former South Carolina GOP Chair Katon Dawson, who had endorsed Perry, also called on Romney to “do the right thing” and make his tax returns public:
KEYES: He’s been pretty vocal about calling on Mitt Romney to release his tax returns.
DAWSON: All us politicians have to do it and eventually you do. It’s either pay me now or pay me later. That’s what’s going to happen.
KEYES: So you think Romney is going to have to release them?
DAWSON: You’re not going to run a race without having to do it. It’s going to be a continued question mark. I’m sure that Governor Romney will do the right thing.
Of course, the Democrats have been all over Romney in recent weeks, convinced he will be the nominee. If Newt pulls off an upset, he can expect to have a lot of attention lavished on him.
I think history was made today. In my memory, anyway, The State has never had occasion to endorse a second choice, in a second editorial, before the actual vote. That’s because an endorsed candidate has never dropped out between the endorsement and the vote.
(We had one or two occasions over the years when a state primary candidate didn’t make it into a runoff, but that was very rare, and in any case is entirely different, since that happened after a public vote.)
Fortunately for The State, the second editorial was easier to arrive at, since the editors had already clearly said in their Jon Huntsman endorsement that Mitt Romney was their second choice — in fact, the only other choice to be seriously considered.
And so it was that the paper endorsed Gov. Romney today. Here’s the critical point in the piece:
But we take comfort in the fact that Mr. Romney always has been less interested in philosophy than in problem-solving. As The Washington Post summarized the views of his friends: “obeisance to ideology would impose a rigidity that would inhibit Romney’s real talent, which is forging new ways to fix old problems.”
In other words, the thing that makes the most extreme Republicans despise him is the one characteristic the editorial board values most.
The endorsement went on to express the hope that Romney would start acting more like that on the campaign trail sooner, rather than waiting for the fall campaign. The paper’s main beef with him, and the reason it preferred Huntsman, was his penchant for stooping to conquer and pandering to ideology.
My favorite part of the endorsement, though, wasn’t the endorsement. It was Cindi’s accompanying column. In it, she did something I’ve done a lot over the years — provide insight into how endorsements are arrived at. While questions about some burning issues of the day are asked, they are only sometimes the core of the process. The really critical questions tend to be the ones meant to discern how the candidate understands the job, and would approach decision-making. You can pick up on that in the column.
But here’s my favorite passage:
Finally, I got this: “It’s not a change, but there are positions I have that are not popular with the conservative base in our party. The most obvious is the health-care plan in Massachusetts. Many advisors told me I needed to abandon my conviction that it was the right thing … and that I should say it was a mistake. … Like you, I’m willing to change my mind if presented with facts that show I’m wrong, but with regard to the health-care plan, I’m steadfast.”
I’d like to hear him stand fast behind what he did for healthcare a bit more boldly. To me, it’s his main relevant accomplishment. His work at Bain, and salvaging a sporting event, seem far less relevant to me.
Too bad that the portion of the electorate that he’s trying hardest to appeal to hates Obamacare too much. It prevents him from putting his best foot forward.
Based on the emails I get, one of the best-organized lobbies in South Carolina is the one that promotes the arts. Of course, they need to be if their favored programs are to survive, since it appears that each year that Nikki Haley is governor is going to be a battle for existence for the state Arts Commission and related recipients of state funding.
Following up on the governor’s State of the State address last night (which I missed — anyone have anything to share about that?), they’ve sent out the following release. There will be many more, of last year is any guide:
STATE ARTS FUNDING:
Governor Nikki Haley has now given her State of the State Address and presented her Executive Budget. She has once again recommended NO state appropriations for the South Carolina Arts Commission. However, the agency will continue to move through the budget process which is now in the S.C. House.
Sub-committees of the House Ways & Means (HWM) Committee – the budget writing committee – are holding budget hearings from the various agencies and will later make recommendations for state agency funding in their own version of the state budget. The Arts Commission is scheduled for a budget hearing on Thursday afternoon, January 26th. Their HWM sub-committee consists of:
Rep. Chip Limehouse (Charleston, Berkeley) 803-7342977 ChipLimehouse@schouse.gov
Rep. Joe Neal (Richland, Sumter) 803-734-2804 JoeNeal@schouse.gov
Rep. B.R. Skelton (Pickens) 803-734-3036 BRSkelton@schouse.gov
Rep. Garry Smith (Greenville) 803-734-3141 GarrySmith@schouse.gov
Arts supporters should continue to thank their legislators for their past support and request that they continue to support state funding for the Arts Commission – especially if your Representative serves on the above Subcommittee. Don’t forget that many legislators have their own web site, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts. The state’s web site has been redesigned making it easier to locate and contact your legislator, follow the House and Senate meeting calendars and legislation at: www.scstatehouse.gov
ARTS EDUCATION FUNDING:
There is some GOOD news regarding arts education funding within the Governor’s Executive Budget. Governor Haley has reinstated approximately $1.2 million for the Arts Curricula Innovation Grants Program within the Department of Education’s budget, which Superintendent Mick Zais recommended for elimination.
Arts advocates should thank the Governor for her support of these critical funds that are not only used for initiatives that support innovative arts education programs that improve student achievement, but provide quality professional development for arts and classroom teachers.
Governor Nikki Haley
Office of the Governor 1205 Pendleton Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Ph: 803-734-2100
Fx: 803-734-5167
www.Twitter.com/scgovoffice
Email at: www.governor.sc.gov/Pages/sendMessage.aspx
SCAA’s ARTS ADVOCACY DAY is Tuesday, February 7th!
Join us at the Statehouse in support of continued state funding for the arts and arts education. Attend the Legislative Appreciation Luncheon in honor of the Legislative Arts Caucus. Join your legislators over lunch and be informed about the latest issues affecting the arts in our schools and in our communities. Reservations are a must and please consider being an “underwriter” of the event! Registration information can be found below. A form is also attached for your convenience.
Of course, all were conducted before the “open marriage” bombshell. Polls are always a moving target, but this target is moving more than any I’ve ever seen.
Here’s what we’re looking at:
Public Policy polling has Gingrich leading Romney 34 percent to 28 percent. This was the first night of three nights of tracking. Can’t wait to see tomorrow’s.
Rasmussen has Gingrich at 33 to Romney’s 31.
In an American Research Group poll, Gingrich has 33 percent compared to Romney’s 32.
Those last two, of course, are statistical dead heats.
This is wild stuff. The stakes in tonight’s debate are HUGE.
Rick Perry speaking in Columbia last week.
Here’s what Rick Perry had to say this morning (the prepared remarks, anyway):
NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. – Below is the text of Gov. Perry’s speech today.
*NOTE: Gov. Perry sometimes deviates from prepared remarks.
Thank you. As I have stated numerous times on the campaign trail, this campaign has never been about the candidates.I ran for President because I love America, our people and our freedom.But the mission is greater than the man.As I have traveled across this great country: from New Hampshire to California, from Iowa to Florida, and to numerous states in between, I have discovered a tremendous purpose and resiliency in our people.They have never lost hope despite current circumstances.They haven’t stopped believing in the promise of America or the American Dream.Americans are down, but we can never be counted out. We are too great a people.What is broken in America is not our people, but our politics.And what we need is a Washington that is humbler, with a federal government that is smaller so our people can live freer.I entered this campaign offering a unique perspective: a governor who has led a large state leading the nation in job creation, an executive leader who has implemented conservative policies, a son of tenant farmers born with little more than a good name, but who has experienced the great possibilities of freedom.But I have never believed that the cause of conservatism is embodied by any one individual.Our party, and the conservative philosophy, transcends any one individual.It is a movement of ideas that are greater than any one of us, and that will live beyond our years.As a former Air Force pilot, I know we can’t lose track of the ultimate objective in carrying out our mission, and that objective is not only to defeat President Obama, but to replace him with a conservative leader who will bring about real change.Our country is hurting with more than 13 million unemployed, nearly 50 million on food stamps and a debt of more than $15 trillion and growing.We need bold, conservative leadership that will take on the entrenched interests and give the American People their country back.I have always believed the mission is greater than the man.As I have contemplated the future of this campaign, I have come to the conclusion that there is no viable path to victory for my candidacy in 2012.Therefore, today I am suspending my campaign and endorsing Newt Gingrich for president.I believe Newt is a conservative visionary who can transform our country.We have had our differences, which campaigns inevitably bring out. And Newt is not perfect, but who among us is?The fact is, there is forgiveness for those who seek God and I believe in the power of redemption, for it is a central tenet of my own Christian faith.And I have no question Newt Gingrich has the heart of a conservative reformer, the ability to rally and captivate the conservative movement and the courage to tell the Washington interests to take a hike if it’s what is best for the country.As a Texan, I have never shied away from a good fight, especially when the cause was right.But as someone who has always admired a great Texas forefather — Sam Houston — I know when it is time for a “strategic retreat.”So I will leave the trail, return home to Texas and wind down my 2012 campaign organization. And I will do so with pride knowing I gave myself fully to a cause worthy of our country.And as I head home, I do so with the love of my life by my side, a woman who makes every day a good one when she is by my side, my wife Anita.Thank you Anita for all you have done.I also want to thank my son Griffin, my daughter Sydney, and my daughter-in-law Meredith for standing with us in this great effort.With a good wife, three wonderful children, and a loving God in my life, things will be good no matter what the future holds.I’m proud of the policies we put forward to the American people and believe they provide the right path forward for our party and our nation: overhauling Washington and returning power to state and local governments and to the people, creating energy jobs and energy security, cutting spending and eliminating unnecessary federal agencies and cutting taxes to a flat, fair 20 percent.And I will continue to fight for these conservative reforms because the future of our country is at stake and the road we are traveling today – President Obama’s road – endangers our future.I want to thank some wonderful individuals who have stood by my side in this state: Katon Dawson, Ambassador Wilkins, and a strong and good man serving you in Congress, Mick Mulvaney.I want to thank all my supporters from across the country, in particular Governor Bobby Jindal, Steve Forbes and Governor Sam Brownback, as well as Senator Jim Inhofe, Congresswoman Candice Miller and Congressman Sam Graves.And I want to say a special thanks to three distinguished veterans who have joined me on the campaign trail: Medal of Honor awardee and Navy SEAL Mike Thornton, Navy Cross recipient Marcus Luttrell and Purple Heart recipient, Marine Captain Dan Moran.I began this race with a sense of calling.I felt led into this arena to fight for the future of this country.I feel no different today than I did then, knowing a calling never guarantees a particular destination, but a journey that tests one’s faith and character.So now the journey leads us back to Texas, neither discouraged nor disenchanted, but instead rewarded for the experience and resolute to remain in the arena and in the service of a great nation.Our country needs bold leadership and a real transformation.We must rise to the occasion and elect a conservative champion to put our nation back on the right track.And this I know, I am not done fighting for the cause of conservatism. In fact I have only begun to fight.Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.
I wonder if he knew, when he made this decision, about what the ex-wife is saying? And whether he’s re-evaluating now?
Man-oh-man — has a woman scorned EVER had an opportunity like this?
Just as he’s picking up the Big Mo, she torpedoes him by the simple expedient of telling what she knows about what he’s really like.
And there’s no defense against that, if you’re Newt Gingrich. I mean, when it comes to temperament and character, how many strikes does this guy already have against him? And how many does he get?
OK, never mind that stuff about Gingrich’s big mo.
The ex-wife has dropped the big one:
Marianne Gingrich, Newt’s ex-wife, says he wanted ‘open marriage’
Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich in 1999 asked his second wife for an “open marriage” or a divorce at the same time he was giving speeches around the country on family and religious values, his former wife, Marianne, told The Washington Post on Thursday.
Marianne Gingrich said she first heard from the former speaker about the divorce request as she was waiting in the home of her mother on May 11, 1999, her mother’s 84th birthday. Over the phone, as Marianne was having dinner with her mother, Gingrich said, “I want a divorce.”
Shocked, Marianne replied: “Is there anybody else?” she recalled. “He was quiet. Within two seconds, when he didn’t immediately answer, I knew.”
The next day, Gingrich gave a speech titled “The Demise of American Culture” to the Republican Women Leaders Forum in Erie, Pa., extolling the virtues of the founding fathers and criticizing liberal politicians for supporting tax increases, saying that they hurt families and children….
I don’t care how many endorsements he gets. South Carolina’s not going with this guy. But hey, the way things are swinging back and forth, check with me again in five minutes.
It shouldn’t be a big deal — we all know that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum basically tied in Iowa.
But now we know that technically, Santorum won.
Why is this meaningful? Because it changes the narrative.
Before, Romney was the guy who’d won both Iowa and New Hampshire, and was inevitable in South Carolina.
Now, he’s the guy who only won in the state next to his home state (and one dominated by Boston media), and looks like he’s being overtaken by Gingrich in South Carolina.
Makes him look like a whole other guy, doesn’t it?
Whoa. Wow. Everything’s shifting on us. Boy, am I glad I started hedging my predictions in recent media interviews. (And I wish I’d hedged them even more during an interview with a Virginia radio station at 7:30 this morning.)
Newt Gingrich has major mo in South Carolina, just hours away from a debate that may be the highest-stakes encounter we’ve seen here in many a year.
This morning’s developments:
OK, that last one’s weak, but in light of the first two — wow. This is happening fast.
He’s turning us into a Newt! The question is, will we get better?
Will the Gingrich mo subside sufficiently for South Carolinians to do what they’ve always done since 1980 — settle down and go with the eventual nominee? Because even if history is made and South Carolina goes with an insurgent, Romney still seems almost certain to be that nominee. Gingrich creating some last minute excitement with a touchdown in SC doesn’t mean that over the coming weeks and months, when they sober up, Republicans won’t go, “Whoa! Wait a second! This is Newt Gingrich we’re talking here…”
Here’s an ad the Gingrich campaign unleashed after midnight. The release that went with it:
Atlanta, GA – The polls in South Carolina are tightening and Mitt Romney’s attacks against Newt Gingrich are getting more desperate and more dishonest.
We’ve seen this play out before. The last time Mitt Romney ran for president, he ran equally dishonest and desperate attacks against John McCain and Mike Huckabee when he fell behind in the polls.
To remind voters of Mitt Romney’s history of launching desperate and dishonest attacks against his rivals, Newt 2012 released a new web ad, “Desperate.”
The ad features clips of John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson remarking on Mitt Romney’s desperate attacks against them as well as his multiple positions on multiple issues.
Watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHapuEmt2xw
And turn about being fair play, below is an ad that Romney put out yesterday.
Wait! I forget — which one’s desperate, and which one’s unreliable?
When Cindi Scoppe joined the editorial board in 1997, I discovered that all of a sudden I didn’t have to write a lot of the state politics editorials that I would have written in the past — because, after the briefest of conversations, she wrote them they way I would have. This freed me up for important stuff — like blogging.
That did not change when I left the paper. I don’t have to write yet another piece urging every thoughtful, conscientious South Carolinian to vote in Saturday’s primary, because she’s already done it, using more or less the very words I would have used. Excerpts:
If you care who our next president is, vote Saturday
Saturday’s Republican presidential primary is our speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace moment.Sure, we get to vote in November. But, at the risk of committing civic heresy, how you and I vote then isn’t going to matter. Yes, yes, everyone who’s paying attention and cares about our republic needs to vote, simply because it’s our duty to do so. But we all know that the Republican candidate is going to carry our state. And all of our Electoral College votes are going to him, whether he wins by a landslide or just eight votes.
So if our vote in November isn’t going to make any difference, and the Democratic nominee already has been chosen by default, then our only opportunity to participate in the election of the next president is to vote on Saturday.
This idea makes some partisans nervous. Indignant, even.
Some Upstate Republicans are so opposed to our open primaries that they sued their state in federal court, arguing that South Carolina is violating their right to freedom of assembly by allowing people who won’t take a blood oath to the party to sully their primary; they worry that independents will stymie their efforts to wrest party control from the reasonable officials they dismiss as Republicans in name only…
Such paranoia is not merely a Republican affliction. In 2004 the state Democratic Party announced it would require voters to sign a loyalty oath to vote in its presidential primary, but wisely backed down before primary day. The only reason we won’t hear from paranoid Democrats this year is that they don’t have a presidential primary to keep pure…
(T)he candidates who do better in open primaries tend to be the ones who can appeal to the sensible center of our nation — that is, the ones the partisans would be better off nominating if they want to win the general election. But the partisans are right about one thing: People who look at the world the way they do shouldn’t vote in the other party’s primary…
And she is. She is having a high old time stumping for Mitt Romney. That’s because there are national news TV cameras on him all the time. And when she’s on the podium with him, guess what — she’s on national TV, too! Which is the end-all and be-all for her.
So let’s be happy for her.
Of course, it’s not doing Mitt Romney a bit of good. I wonder if he knows that? I wonder if he’s thinking, Here I am, stuck on the stage with her again, and she’s introducing me and introducing me and introducing me, and how much longer do I have to keep this phony grin on my face, the one I’ve patented, the one in which my teeth are smiling but my eyes look like I’m frightened?
Or, is he thinking, She’s the governor! Of this critical state! Her standing up with me here is good, right? Right!
Well, he doesn’t have to trust his gut any more, because the numbers are in:
The poll found 89 percent of likely primary voters knew Haley had endorsed Romney. Of those who did know of Haley’s endorsement, the overwhelming majority — 71 percent — said it made no difference in who they support. Of the rest, 21 percent said Haley’s endorsement made them less likely to vote for Romney; only 8 percent said it made them more likely to vote for the former Massachusetts governor…
So what’re you gonna do, Mitt? You’re kinda stuck, huh?
Here’s what he’s gonna do: Keep grinning that ungrin or his, and keep telling himself he’s far enough ahead in the polls that it doesn’t matter.
My last post was about the epidemic of paranoia that is libertarianism.
Now, as a treat to the other side, I give you an example of communitarian neurosis. It’s a funny op-ed piece from The Wall Street Journal today by Rick Moranis (of “Great White North,” “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids,” “Ghostbusters” fame):
This morning, while I was grinding my blend of French, Colombian and Italian coffee beans, it occurred to me that I could be doing harm to the coffee shop and diner businesses in my neighborhood by making my own coffee at home. Might I have a responsibility and obligation to consume their product, either within their premises or brought right to my door by one of their speedy, undocumented-alien delivery men?
I also wondered whether still using my old, reliable German-brand coffee grinder, manufactured in China, might be an unpatriotic betrayal of American kitchen-appliance makers by choosing not to buy their Chinese-made grinder.
As I poured some house-brand almond milk into my homemade granola, I thought about the depressed demand and earnings on the higher-priced product manufacturers that I wasn’t patronizing, their resulting order and production declines, and the backlogged inventories and possible layoffs at their factories.
How much of this country’s economy am I personally destroying by my consumption preferences? I honestly never intended to do so much harm…
Yes, Rick, I’ve been there, brother! Now take off, you hoser…
It always stumps me when libertarians say things like this:
SPARTANBURG — Madison Evans cupped her cell phone with her sparkly blue fingernails and shot photos of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas during a campaign stop here Tuesday.
“It’s the first time I’ve seen him, and it’s awesome,” said Evans, a 20-year-old Greenville waitress, subtly bouncing on her tiptoes with excitement.
“We young people are awake,” said Evans, who posts articles about the long-shot Republican presidential candidate on Facebook daily. “We are all a big family when it comes to Paul. He’s talking about peace. He’s talking about giving us back our rights that have been stripped from us.”
Let’s run that last bit again:
He’s talking about giving us back our rights that have been stripped from us.
Say what? I have no idea what she’s talking about. What rights? What happened? Who’s bothering you now, dear?
This is why I’m not a libertarian. These things that bother them so much are not even visible to me. I don’t feel harried, picked on, bullied. Government in no way threatens me. I marvel at these people (the Paulistas) who think it threatens THEM. People who don’t get it that they are the government, who instead see as something OUT THERE menacing them.
I ask again, what rights that have been stripped from you? What is that you used to have, and don’t have now? To me, that sort of statement demands explication, but to Paulistas, it’s just an article of faith. They don’t have to explain, because they all FEEL it. They are put-upon, picked on, by the big, bad “they” out there.
And I don’t know what the stimulus is that provokes that response.
Last night it occurred to me that I wrote out a lengthy opening statement for the panel discussion down in Key West over the weekend, and never used it. And I hate writing stuff without it going to some purpose…
As I told y’all previously, I had written out this whole argument about why Romney was inevitable in SC, and then got the jitters after seeing Gingrich gaining in the polls, and scrapped the whole thing. I decided to wing it instead, which in the end worked much better. I don’t speak well from notes.
So while I have no idea at this point what I actually said, I can at least share with you what I was gonna say. I still believe most of it, including the fact that Romney’s gonna win.
Here it is:
Senate Presidents’ Forum
January 14, 2012
Brad Warthen opening remarks
My home state, South Carolina, is an awkward size by comparison with its aspirations.
In 1860, hearing that his native state and mine had just seceded from the union, James L. Petigru famously said, “South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum.” Often in its history, including quite recently, the state has seemed to be trying to be one or the other, and sometimes both at the same time.
We are… interesting.
Jon Stewart adores us, and Stephen Colbert is very proud to be a native of the Palmetto State. But it’s not just that we’re funny. For my part, I started blogging six years ago because there just wasn’t room on a daily editorial page to say everything that needed to be said about our politics. Now that I’m not with the paper, I still blog, and the only challenge is that I never have enough time to write about it all.
Now, all of that said and fully acknowledged, I want to say this: We’re not really as crazy as y’all think we are.
The last few days, I keep reading and hearing about how NOW it’s gonna get down and dirty and wild and woolly and all sorts of overdone hyperboles. Because supposedly, South Carolina is where civility and decorum and all rationality end. In the last few days, I’ve seen the word “dirty” used to describe South Carolina politics in website headlines from CNN, NPR, CBS, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Time magazine. Huffington Post, to be different, used the phrase “bloody mess.”
And indeed, it will be interesting. This is last-ditch time. The end of the line for the also-rans from Iowa and New Hampshire, if they can’t put a serious dent in the Romney juggernaut. If Romney wins in South Carolina as big as he did in New Hampshire, I’m going to feel sorry for the folks down here in Florida, spending all that money on a foregone conclusion.
And yes, it’s possible that something unseemly will happen. You know the stories. In 2000, someone accused John McCain of fathering an illegitimate child of mixed race (something Strom Thurmond actually did, by the way, but that was a long time ago). Then there were those Christmas cards that went out in 2007 with pictures of the Romney family and controversial quotations from the Book of Mormon. These things have a way of happening in South Carolina, even though Lee Atwater is long gone.
But… when all is said and done, when the last skull has been cracked and the barroom brawl is over, you know what you’re going to have? A coronation of the official, duly-appointed Establishment candidate.
That’s what we do in South Carolina. Very early in the process, and often with little regard to what has happened in Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina annoints a candidate, and then the Republican Party goes ahead and nominates that guy. It’s been happening ever since 1980. Ronald Reagan wasn’t the establishment candidate when the process started in Iowa – George H.W. Bush won, in fact. But it was his turn, after 1976. And ever since then, there has been this moment, every four years, when South Carolina Republicans all settle down and pick the most palatable, most presentable candidate. The one that other Republicans across the country will eventually embrace as inevitable.
The respectable candidate. The one whose turn it is.
This has happened every presidential election for that last 32 years. You can set your clock by it. Or your calendar, at least.
Now, that said, I was afraid that the pattern was going to be broken this year.
After the loss in 2008 – when many, such as our own Jim DeMint, were convinced that the GOP lost because it wasn’t conservative enough – South Carolina Republicans have spent some time wandering in the wilderness.
And the definition of conservative was rapidly changing. This had happened before. In 1992, Bob Inglis seemingly came out of nowhere to unseat incumbent congresswoman Liz Patterson, which marked the rise to power of religious conservatives in the state party. That marked a shift from the state GOP being dominated by economic-development types such as Carroll Campbell to the values faction.
Less than a generation later, in 2010, Bob Inglis would be CRUSHED by a Tea Party candidate, for the sin of not being conservative enough. Which, if you know Bob Inglis, is rather startling.
That wasn’t the most startling thing that happened that year. The most startling thing was that a little-known, untested legislative back-bencher won the Republican nomination for governor over several far more established candidates.
The nation is amazed that an Indian-American woman is South Carolina’s governor. South Carolina is more amazed that Nikki Haley came out of nowhere to run right over Henry McMaster and Gresham Barrett.
That Republicans would pick her so recently made it seem very difficult to predict what would happen next in Republican politics in South Carolina.
That uncertainty continued, with regard to the presidential primary, until a month ago. As late as Dec. 14, one month ago today, I wrote on my blog that I had no idea what was going to happen. There were a number of things that were odd about this year, aside from not being able to gauge what sort of sway the Tea Party still held:
— As measured by traffic on my blog, interest in the primary had peaked in August, when I had more than a quarter of a million page views. That was the month when Rick Perry announced in Charleston, and initially there was a lot of excitement about him. But over the next couple of months, as he faded, my traffic dropped off. That was in contrast to what happened four years earlier, when blog traffic increased steadily leading up to the primary itself.
— During the last few months, likely primary voters staggered in confusion from Perry to Herman Cain to Newt Gingrich, according to polls. There was such a lack of a discernible pattern that I began to think that maybe South Carolina was so unsettled that maybe it wasn’t going to go with the establishment candidate this time, the candidate whose turn it was. And if that happened, we probably weren’t going to pick the eventual nominee. And that meant that four years from now, the nation wasn’t going to be nearly as interested in South Carolina as it customarily is.
But then, over the holidays, things started to shift. It wasn’t a change in the polls that first made up my mind about what was going to happen. Nor was it the results in Iowa or New Hampshire.
I had been getting a feeling, nothing more, that the stars were lining up for Romney. But I really figured out what was going to happen on Dec. 31, when I read that Warren Tompkins had decided to support Romney – for free. Warren is sort of the gold standard of political consultants in South Carolina. All the other politicos who usually pick the winner had committed to other candidates early on – a surprising number of them [McMaster, Courson, Campbell, Alan Wilson] for Huntsman, and some [Harrell, Wilkins] for Perry.
But Warren waited until he was sure. Until he was seeing what I was seeing, and a lot of stuff that would be invisible to me. That was it. What happened over the next couple of weeks in polls, and in Iowa and New Hampshire, just confirmed what I already knew, which is that Warren had called it.
Nothing this side of the grave is certain. And in fact, Newt Gingrich has been rising fairly quickly in polls released the last couple of days. American Research Group has him within striking distance, and Rasmussen not far behind that. So maybe all that superPAC money is paying off.
But I think Romney pretty much has it sewn up. Maybe Gingrich will win the coveted second spot. Or maybe someone else will.
But you know what? I don’t think it matters much who’s in second. Because after South Carolina, Romney will have it sewn up.
I’m doing a number of interviews these days. I was interviewed by Canadian public radio yesterday, and taped a segment for Jeff Greenfield’s show on PBS (to air Friday). Then I had a couple of beers last night with E.J. Dionne. This morning, before I left the house, I spoke with Tom Finneran (former speaker of the Massachusetts House) on his Boston radio show.
When I got in, I was interviewed by email, which is a twist. Karin Henriksson of the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet asked me two questions:
– how has the dynamics in the state changed compared to four years ago (I was here then, too)?– what would surprise you the most on Saturday night after the votes are counted?
Here’s how I answered:
Question 1: This is the complicated one. After 2008, the GOP in South Carolina — and elsewhere as well, but I know SC best — was traumatized. Sen. Jim DeMint and others on the right said the party had lost the White House because, in nominating McCain, it had failed to be right-wing enough. This was the start of DeMint’s rise as a national power on the far right of the party. Then, in 2010, Nikki Haley — a small-time back-bencher — rode a populist, Tea Party, Sarah Palin-flavored tsunami right over more establishment Republicans to become governor. Ever since then, observers — and the GOP itself — have been left to wonder what it means to be Republican in this state. As 2011 arrived, many of the Republicans who usually backed the winner in SC lined up behind Jon Huntsman, while others went to Rick Perry. Almost none of them backed Romney. And throughout the last few months, we saw the GOP electorate bounce from Perry to Cain to Gingrich, and then, reluctantly, start to settle for Romney.
So… while the electorate that will vote Saturday is different from four years ago, it is expected to do what it usually does: Back the closest thing to an Establishment candidate, the candidate whose turn it is.
Question 2: What would surprise me most? A win by Rick Perry. Which is ironic, since several months ago he looked like the perfect candidate for South Carolina, like he was assembled according to a South Carolina recipe. But now he’s farther from the nomination than anyone still in it.
So what do y’all think? What would surprise you the most?
OK, so that doesn’t quite work, poetically speaking. What’s MTV? Is that a dactyl, or what?
My alternative idea for a headline was “Money for SOPA, money for dopa.” Which do you like better?
Anyway, I’m pretty ticked at somebody, I’m just not sure who, for the fact that I can’t use Wikipedia today. At least Google’s working (having opted for a purely symbolic “blackout”), but what good is it when the best source it keeps sending me to is Wikipedia?
Just a moment ago, trying to look up “dactyl,” I of course clicked on the first thing Google gave me, and for a split second saw the Wikipedia entry on “dactyl” before I got the above brick wall.
This would be OK, if I could just tell myself that Wikipedia isn’t available today, and not try to use it today. But I could hold my breath that long more easily. Using Wikipedia is an autonomic response. I think. I mean, I think that’s the term, but I can’t frickin’ check on Wiki!
At whom am I ticked? Jimmy Wales? Or the gigantic coalition of old-media companies lined up in favor of SOPA? For the last two days, I’ve been hearing in-depth reports on NPR from both sides, and I’ve heard all sorts of claims, but one thing I haven’t heard is an explanation of what on Earth the legislation does. This is the simplest explanation I’ve found:
Under the current wording of the measures, the Attorney General would have the power to order ISPs [internet service prividers] to block access to foreign-based sites suspected of trafficking in pirated and counterfeit goods; order search engines to delist the sites from their indexes; ban advertising on suspected sites; and block payment services from processing transactions for accused sites.
If the same standards were applied to U.S.-based sites, Wikipedia, Tumblr, WordPress, Blogger, Google and Wired could all find themselves blocked.
Such requests would need to be reviewed and approved by a judge. But accused sites would get little notice of a pending action in U.S. courts against them, and, once blacklisted, have little effective means of appeal.
But then, I heard advocates of the legislation this morning on The Takeaway (they were being interviewed by a woman who belongs to one of the associations backing SOPA, by the way) insist that it wouldn’t do that, that it had been amended to remove all objectionable characteristics, and that they’d be happy to have it amended further, etc., etc.
I just don’t know. But I do know this: Today, I’m inclined to cast my vote on Saturday for whichever candidate convinces me that he would keep Wikipedia up and running. SOPA or no SOPA, I don’t care.
(At this point, imagine Sting’s voice fading out, repeating “I want my, I want my…” At least I think it’s Sting. How am I suppose to check?)
