Monthly Archives: January 2012

What Romney said about NLRB was technically wrong, but his message was accurate

3 Replies

Late last week the Obama re-election campaign brought to my attention a PolitiFact piece that said something Mitt Romney said about Obama’s NLRB was untrue.

And it was, technically. But what he was trying to say was essentially true.

Politifact described the Romney ad this way:

In the ad, Romney stands in front of workers on a factory floor and says that “the National Labor Relations Board, now stacked with union stooges selected by the president, says to a free enterprise like Boeing, ‘you can’t build a factory in South Carolina because South Carolina is a right-to-work state.’”

Here is Politifact’s ruling (and go ahead and read the entire explication that precedes it):

The Romney ad claimed that the NLRB told Boeing that it “can’t build a factory in South Carolina because South Carolina is a right-to-work state.”

The NLRB’s complaint started a legal process that could ultimately have resulted in a factory closure, but the NLRB as a whole didn’t tell Boeing anything. What’s more, the legal basis for the action centered on whether Boeing was punishing the union for staging strikes, not that Boeing had opened a factory in a right-to-work state. We rate the statement False.

Bottom line, Boeing had said it wanted to get away from all those strikes, and that’s that got it into trouble. Well, one good way to get away from strikes is to go to a “right-to-work” state, where you are less likely to be dealing with a union.

So… as an editor, if someone had written for publication the words spoken in the Romney ad, I wouldn’t have allowed it. I’d have reworded it. But I would have understood what he was saying.

Here’s a shocker for you: People whom Romney has supported are supporting him in return

5 Replies

I have always, according to everyone else, underestimated the role of money in politics. It bores me, so I don’t attach the importance to it that everyone says I should.

But for all you folks who are so much more world-wise than I, here’s a tidbit to gnaw on:

Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC and its affiliates states have lavished close to $1.3 million in campaign donations to federal, state and local GOP politicians, almost all since 2010. His recipients include officials in the major upcoming primary states of New Hampshire and South Carolina, and in three southern Super Tuesday states where he was trounced four years ago.

In New Hampshire, a U.S. senator, a congressman, 10 state senators and three executive councilors shared $26,000 in donations from Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC in 2010 and 2011 combined. All 15 have showered Romney with endorsements leading up to Tuesday’s primary

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley came out for Romney last month – a year after his Free and Strong America PACs funneled $36,000 to the Tea Party darling’s 2010 election bid. And 19 state and Washington, D.C., lawmakers in three Super Tuesday states – Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia — are backing Romney after his PAC poured a total of $125,500 into their coffers for elections held in 2009 and 2010.

Make of that what you will. Me, I’m like, Yeah, I knew that they were supporting each other. So what do I care about the money? But that’s me. I’m cynical about cynicism; I think it’s all overblown.

It’s as over as it can get without being over

2 Replies

How’s that for hedging, Yogi Berra style? Hey, I’m not going to get caught out on a limb again like I did with my prediction, the day he announced, that Rick Perry was going to win it all (all, that is, except the presidency). Hey, how was I to know he suffered from chronic brain freeze? (OK, actually, I hedged that prediction, too — but nobody remembers that.)

This time, I’ve been more cautious. All during the holidays, I kept getting these vibes that made me feel like this year was not as freaky as I thought it was, and that things were starting to take their customary shape.

All during the fall, even very late fall, I was puzzled. I didn’t know what to tell people who asked me how the GOP presidential nomination process was going in South Carolina. Likely Republican voters were just jumping from candidate to candidate like restless frogs moving from one lily pad to the next.

I knew that the party nationally, and in SC particularly, had been having an identity crisis ever since 2008. The usual patterns didn’t apply, as we saw with the victory of Nikki Haley over more normal Republicans. It didn’t look like the Tea Party was going to be that much of a factor this time, but it was hard to say.

I even started to believe that this time, for once, South Carolina might not go for the eventual nominee. Which would greatly reduce the SC Mystique in the national party.

But then, things shook out to the point that the familiar pattern asserted itself. After all that running around and flirting, SC Republicans started flocking to Mitt Romney. The pattern here has been to go for the establishment guy, and this year that guy was Romney. Last time, he was the Last Conservative Hope for the right, the last chance to stop the establishment candidate of 2008, John McCain — who, for his part, had been the outsider candidate in the previous contested GOP primary, in 2000.

I heard the pattern described well on NPR Friday:

You know, one thing about this race – for all its weirdness and twists and turns – it still is following the traditional form for a Republican primary. There is an establishment candidate. There are some conservative alternatives. Usually the establishment guy wins; that seems what’s like what’s happening this time.

And the guy who came in second last time – because the Republicans are still a hierarchical party, despite the Tea Party – is first this time. It happened with McCain. It looks like it’s happening with Romney. And the other thing, it looks like Republicans, as Bill Clinton used to say, fall in line instead of falling in love. Yes, Romney has weaknesses but they haven’t – conservatives have not been able to find an alternative.

Yup. And that’s what’s about to happen in the Palmetto State — whatever happens in Iowa and New Hampshire, SC is the place that says, “Y’all settle down, now — here’s your nominee.”

I’m late in writing this. I should have said it on the last day of 2011, when I read that Warren Tompkins had jumped aboard the Romney bandwagon.

All the other GOP establishment types had declared themselves early — Alan Wilson, Henry McMaster, Mike Campbell and John Courson for Huntsman, Bobby Harrell for Perry, etc. — but Warren had hung back. Warren is the Tessio of GOP endorsers in SC — he’s the smart one, who backs the most likely horse.

When I saw he’d made that move, I said to myself, Self, Warren is seeing the same stuff you’re seeing — and then some.

But I didn’t utter the words “It’s over” until Friday, when I said in a Tweet responding to the latest poll numbers:

It’s over. Unless, of course, it isn’t.“@postandcourier: SC GOP voters like Romney best,… CNN/Time poll says. #scpolhttp://ow.ly/8kBBS”

Notice the hedge. I’m being smart. I want people to call the “Tessio of SC bloggers.” No, wait — he got whacked. How about, “The Clemenza of SC bloggers.” That would be more like it.

Today, I’ve been talking to a number of SC Republicans to get their thoughts on the race. I started my day over breakfast with an activist who has not declared for a candidate, even though he sees the writing on the wall. His first words to me were, “It is so over.”

I’m inclined to agree.

Born to rule, that’s me (Can a quiz be wrong?)

18 Replies

First, I think this quiz is fixed. Wes Wolfe Tweeted out that he’d taken a “which Downton Abbey character are you” quiz, and turned out to be “Robert, Earl of Grantham.”

So I took it — there are only seven questions, all multiple choice — and sure enough, I, too, am the lord of the manor.

Of course, as I was taking it, I was deliberately (but honestly, except when the questions were too silly to have an honest answer) answering the questions that I knew would take me in that direction — with one or two exceptions. In response to the question, “I have a whole weekend to myself! I’m going to…,” I did not answer “Attend a jolly good foxhunt, followed by billiards and cigars.” That’s because I enjoyed the answer, “What’s a ‘weekend’?” so much. I knew that another character said that — the old lady who is clueless how the world works outside of Downton.

But even when I turned away from that path, I still ended up being the earl. For instance, on “My favorite movie is…,” the honest answer for me was “The Godfather.” So I said that, knowing that the best answer for the earl was “Henry V” — which would have been my second choice. I ended up being the earl anyway. And when I went back and tried it again, answering “Henry V” this time, I was still the earl.

I have a theory that the thing is rigged. Would anyone, taking this, end up being one of the downstairs characters? I doubt it, unless they were trying.

If you take it, let me know where you end up.

The Boston Globe’s endorsement of Huntsman

27 Replies

Huntsman in South Carolina in August.

The Boston Globe‘s endorsement of Jon Huntsman was strong, particularly in the way the paper set the scene and explained what was at stake (something most of the candidates have failed to do):

DISSATISFACTION WITH the economy, expressed in spasms of anger toward Wall Street and Washington; the dashed hopes of many who believed that Barack Obama’s election would create a new spirit of unity; and genuine uncertainty about Democratic health care reform – all of these have created an historic opportunity for the Republican Party. Just three years removed from a Republican administration that was roundly judged a failure, the party has a chance to renew itself – to blaze a path to bipartisan action on the budget, to introduce market-based solutions to health costs, and to construct a post-Iraq War network of alliances to promote global economic strength, knowing that true security comes from both peace and prosperity.

So far, Republican presidential contenders have shown little awareness of this opportunity. Far from promoting bipartisan unity, the GOP candidates have even abandoned Ronald Reagan’s “11th commandment” (“Though shalt not speak ill of another Republican”), shattering the party’s customary internal unity in an electric storm of name-calling and accusations. Rather than compare creative policy solutions, the candidates have vied for meaningless titles like “true conservative.’’ Rather than outline a vision for a safer world, they’ve signaled a return to Bush-era posturing and disdain for allies who don’t blindly serve American interests…

Then, there is the reasoning presented for Huntsman himself:

With a strong record as governor of Utah and US ambassador to China, arguably the most important overseas diplomatic post, Huntsman’s credentials match those of anyone in the field. He would be the best candidate to seize this moment in GOP history, and the best-prepared to be president.

Huntsman governed Utah as a clear conservative who nonetheless put the interests of his state ahead of ideology. He delighted right-wing supporters by replacing a graduated state income tax with a flat tax. Strong economic growth put Utah in the top five in job creation during Huntsman’s tenure, while he gave tax credits to companies developing solar energy. He offered a sweeping school choice plan, and joined the Western Climate Initiative, which set goals for reducing greenhouse gases.

When the national economy fell into recession, some Republican governors made a show of rejecting federal stimulus money on ideological grounds; sensibly, Huntsman took the money. While he endorsed the notion of a federal stimulus, he also offered a credible critique of the way the Democratic Congress had structured the plan. Then, when Obama offered him the post of ambassador to China, Huntsman accepted. Other Republicans, such as New Hampshire’s Judd Gregg, couldn’t bring themselves to accept entreaties from a Democratic president. Huntsman did. It attests to his sincerity when he vows to lead in a bipartisan spirit.

Serving as ambassador to China, the largest economic and military competitor to the United States, is a deeply meaningful credential. Notably, Huntsman’s nuanced foreign-policy vision of economic and strategic alliances stems from his time in Beijing. While other candidates point toward Cold War-style rejection and isolation of China, Huntsman promises deeper engagement. But he had the courage as ambassador to walk among protesters, drawing the ire of repressive Chinese authorities…

Now watch as Republican partisans dismiss the endorsement as worthless because it came from a “liberal newspaper.” Which to an intelligent person should be irrelevant, of course — either the endorsement shows wisdom or it does not. This one does, and that fact that partisans will dismiss it is further testimony, as if we needed any, to the distortions partisanship causes to the human mind.

A person free of such handicaps, an person with a penetrating, unfettered mind, can see that Huntsman has presented himself as the most serious, least desperate candidate. Even in small things: The Huntsman ad that I embedded here on the blog a few days ago shows a perspicacity, a discernment, a seriousness that no other candidate has either been able, or has dared, to show. A 30-second ad is a pathetic thing upon which to judge a candidate. But the tragedy of this nation is that so many voters base their judgments on so little. And it says a lot about Huntsman that he can pack more meaning into such a medium.

As The Globe says, Romney comes next in this regard, but his desperation to pander, to stoop to conquer, means he falls far short of Huntsman. And of course, The Globe knows Romney far better than I do.

‘Tinker Tailor’ eminently worth seeing, although of course I have my pedantic objections

8 Replies

Well, I finally got to see the film I’d awaited for a year, and which opened in Britain in September, and in other parts of this country in December. Thanks to the Nickelodeon  for bringing it here (you can still see it there through Thursday).

And the verdict? It was good, very good. You should definitely see it, whether you’ve read the book or not, and whether or not you, like me, own the 1979 TV series on DVD.

Was it as good as that, the Alec Guinness version? No. Still, that leaves a lot of room to be very good indeed. (The series was one of the best things ever made for television.)

The film was slicker, certainly, with more impressive production values. But that’s to be expected. Everything I had read about the film’s effective evocation of mood was true. I don’t know what sort of process the film was run through, but it seemed to have been subjected to something akin to what was done with “Saving Private Ryan.” Only there is a rustiness to the scenes, rather than the greenish cast.

And Gary Oldman is wonderful, as usual. Afterward, my wife was asking where she had seen him before. She couldn’t recall. Was it just that the actor is such a chameleon? Yes, he is (as you can see here and here and here and here and here). Which makes him perfect to portray the forgettable, unremarkable George Smiley. In his own way, perhaps even as good as Guinness.

On the whole, a very good job was done in spite of not having the six hours that the TV series had to do it in.

That said, I have a number of objections, and they are mostly of the pedantic, fanboy sort. They have to do with inexplicable changes in the stories, and the characters — changes that are not excused by the demands of brevity or limitations of the medium. Changes that in some cases unnecessarily complicate the story, even making it less credible.

I’ll warn you now with a SPOILER ALERT, but ask you to return and review my list after you’ve seen the film:

  • Why on Earth does Control send Jim Prideaux to Budapest, rather than Czechoslovakia? Why make the alleged contact Hungarian? A totally gratuitous change. No harm, but unnecessary. As I viewed the scenery, I wondered whether it was easier to get establishing shots of Budapest that looked as they did in the 70s. But so what? The action, in the book (and the TV series), took place near a cabin out in the woods. There was NO need for an establishing shot, as the locale was generic. It could have been shot anywhere.
  • Why, indeed, was Jim shot in an urban setting? Just so we could be horrified by the unnecessary death of a particularly vulnerable innocent bystander — an incident completely missing from the original story?
  • Why did Colin Firth get so little to do in the film? I had assumed that he signed on because the role of Bill Haydon was such a meaty one. Haydon was not only the critical character in the story, he was a particularly charismatic and tragic figure, the hero to a generation of intelligence officers, a flamboyant and brilliant presence, a source of cuttingly ironic remarks, the cynosure of regard by all. And yet, except for a couple of obligatory scenes, he is hardly drawn for the audience at all. (This is one thing that perhaps could be explained by the need for brevity, of course, although it’s an insufficient excuse.)
  • Given that there is so little time to explain what must be explained, why is a scene added that does nothing but tell us that one of the characters is gay? A character who, by the way, is not gay — to the extent that one respects the book. (Another key character was bisexual — which is accurately touched upon in the film.) Peter Guillam is perhaps the closest to a “James Bond” type you find in the novel — a relatively uncomplicated tough guy (head of the department of tough guys, Scalphunters) with a penchant for fast cars and beautiful young women (something you see more clearly explicated in later books). Why do this? It advanced the story in no way.
  • For that matter, why was Guillam not portrayed as Smiley’s close friend? The first thing we hear him say to George is to address him as “Mr. Smiley.” In the book, Peter takes George out drinking after Smiley is fired. In this film, George’s sacking is portrayed as a long walk out of the building with Control, who was close to no one. Peter is just one of the people who watch him go. This is no minor detail. In the film, you are left to wonder why Peter is the one person still at the Circus whom George trusts. In the book, you knew why. He was like a Watson to George’s Holmes.
  • You are particularly left to wonder about that because, in the film, Peter is not that critical to setting the action in motion as he was in the book. And THIS is the biggest unnecessary flaw in the production, one that actually matters. For some bizarre reason, we are asked to believe that a mere phone call from low-level Scalphunter Ricki Tarr to senior bureaucrat Oliver Lacon (one of the few in Whitehall with keys to the secret kingdom) causes Lacon to contact George and launch him on his hunt for the mole. (Lacon hadn’t believed Control when he had alleged the same thing; it is utterly incredible that he would take such extraordinary steps on the word of the mercurial, untrusted Tarr.) We are halfway through the film when Tarr emerges from hiding to tell Smiley his story. This is completely absurd. In the book and series, Tarr contacts his boss, Guillam, who then contacts Lacon (because he is senior enough to do so and be heard), and his detailed story is what convinces Lacon, Guillam and Smiley that there is a mole at the Circus. Without that, there is no credible basis for the investigation that is the plot of this story.
  • A side casualty of this strange twist is that what should be the tensest scene in the film is missing something critical. When Percy Alleline calls Guillam on the carpet and accuses him of consorting with Tarr (officially regarded as a defector), Peter lies masterfully in the original. In this film, he doesn’t have to lie, because he has not seen Tarr.
  • Yesterday I mentioned that an unlikely actor was chosen to portray Jerry Westerby. Having seen the film, I wonder why the character was even given that name. In the film, they essentially call Sam Collins “Jerry Westerby.” I understand combining characters in movies, but this isn’t a combination; it’s a substitution. The part the character plays in the story is in every detail Sam Collins, and he in no way does or says anything that Westerby did or would have. Strange. Now that they have confused things to this extent, it will be even harder to make a sequel out of the next book in the series, in which Westerby is the title character.
  • Then there is all the gratuitous depiction of violence, twisting credibility in order to show blood. Pure Hollywood, I suppose. There’s quite a list, starting with the nursing mother who is accidentally shot in Budapest. Tufty Thesinger is brutally murdered in his office (which is also in the wrong country, by the way — why Istanbul, instead of Lisbon?). So is Boris. Tarr actually sees the brutally beaten Irina carried onto a ship on a stretcher (in the book, he persuaded a witness to tell him of seeing a woman placed on a plane). Irina is shot, shockingly, in front of Jim Prideaux during his interrogation, instead of being eliminated far from anyone’s view in a cell at Dzerzhinsky Square (in the book, Prideaux would never have met Irina, or known she existed). Then there was the implied violence of Toby Esterhase being threatened with immediate extradition — the realization of what he had done should have been enough, as it was in the book and series, to turn him.
  • Speaking of violence, there is the completely unnecessary change in how the mole Gerald meets his end. Is it really that much more appealing to movie audiences to see a man killed at long distance with a rifle than to get his neck broken with his killer’s bare hands? I wouldn’t complain, except that it makes the mole’s last-second recognition of his killer (which is important to the arcs of the characters) a little harder to believe.

One tiny, last detail — in the TV series, they at least showed George Smiley living on Bywater Street. In the film, it was somewhere else. Probably no one but me would be bothered by that. And it’s forgivable. Perhaps the neighbors wouldn’t allow it; I don’t know.

But other than all that, it was great. Don’t mind me. Just go see it. In fact, if you are a le Carre fan you must see it; excuses will not be tolerated. I look forward to discussing it with you.

I’m going to see Tinker, Tailor!

5 Replies

Smiley and Control, before they were sacked.

… just as soon as I finish typing this.

I’m pumped about it — and very appreciative to the folks at Nickelodeon for bringing it here in spite of Hollywood’s insulting decision not to send the film to South Carolina for standard commercial release.

I’m wondering whether I’ll like it. Gary Oldman is awesome, but how will he stack up against Alec Guinness, who so embodied the character that le Carre said he didn’t feel that he owned him any more?

Colin Firth as Bill Haydon is intriguing. But I really wonder about the decision to cast Toby Jones as Percy Alleline. When I saw Jones was cast, I assumed it was as Toby Esterhase — not because of the coincidence of given names, but because of physical similarity (“tiny Toby,” as he was called in the book). And I’m sorry, but Benedict Cumberbatch isn’t nearly tough enough, or old enough, for Peter Guillam.

I also think it strange that the filmmakers cast Stephen Graham in the minor part of Jerry Westerby. I think Graham is a fine character actor — I enjoyed him in “Band of Brothers” and “Snatch” — but Westerby is supposed to be an upper-class leading-man type. He’s the dashing sort who calls everybody “old boy.” More to the point, he is the title character of the next book in the series, The Honourable Schoolboy, and that tells me that the powers that be on this project are probably not thinking series. Which is disappointing.

Or will be, if the movie is as good as I hope it will be.

All right, I’m off!

Gingrich insists: Employment glass is half empty

5 Replies

I was wondering this morning how the GOP field was going to react to the awful news — from their perspective — that the unemployment rate has dropped to the lowest level in three years.

Newt Gingrich didn’t make me wait:

Gingrich Response to December Jobs Report:
We Need a Reagan Conservative
Hanover, NH – Newt Gingrich made the following statement today in response to this morning’s report of 8.5% unemployment for the month of December 2011:

“Three full years into the Obama presidency, and there are still 1.7 million fewer Americans going to work today than there were on Obama’s Inauguration day.

“Today’s new December unemployment figure doesn’t capture the full scale of the tragedy: almost 24 million Americans still unemployed, working part-time for economic reasons, or discouraged from looking for work.

“The Obama experiment has failed, and it is time to look to proven solutions that have successfully empowered job-creators in the past.

“Ronald Reagan enacted historic income tax rate cuts, a stronger and more stable dollar, regulatory reforms, and spending controls. Three years into his recovery, Americans had created about 9.5 million jobs. When we took control of the House in 1995, we moved quickly to balance the budget, reform entitlements, and make the largest capital gains tax cut in history – three years later, 8 million more Americans were going into work every day.

“Now more than ever, America needs a Reagan conservative in the White House.”

###

Now, before you laugh too hard at his desperation to find a dark lining in a silver cloud… Newt definitely has a point. More than one, even. I can attest to the fact that there’s plenty of pain out there. Someone very close to me lost his longtime job just this week — along with most of the people in his office. And there are no statistics telling the story of the tons of people who remain profoundly underemployed, compared to the jobs they had before September 2008.

But still… Newt mentions Reagan here. Does anyone doubt that, if Reagan were in the White House now, Mr. Gingrich would be insisting, vehemently, that we embrace the good news in the report? I don’t.

I don’t know whether the policies President Obama has pursued have helped improve the economy or not, and I’m suspicious of anyone who claims to know.

But good news is good news. And Obama looks more like a two-term president than ever. And some of the candidates who did not get into this race — Huckabee, Barbour, Christie — are probably quietly congratulating themselves right now.

Haley & Loftis agree on ONE thing: Romney

1 Reply

Maybe Mitt Romney is a uniter after all, if he can get Nikki Haley and Curtis Loftis on the same team:

Friends,

This week I was honored to speak before several grassroots organizations, including groups like the Greenville Tea Party and the Lexington County GOP.  These folks took time out of their evenings to gather because they care deeply about our state and nation.

Their gracious reception reminded me well of the hard work, tenacity, and assistance these good folk have given to me during my campaign and tenure in office as your State Treasurer. Being with these heartfelt conservatives fills me with renewed energy to represent them and makes me determined to work harder and longer on their behalf.

I am impressed at the respect and deference that my brothers and sisters in the conservative movement have shown me. As State Chairman of Mitt Romney’s campaign, I can tell you that there are six qualified candidates in this race and my friend Mitt will certainly not get every vote, but the ability of the most conservative members of the movement to listen and discuss Mitt Romney is impressive, and gives me hope that our nominee, when chosen, will unite us in our efforts.

The latest poll, released today, shows Governor Romney in the lead here in South Carolina. This reaffirms my heartfelt conviction that most voters believe that Mitt is the man to send Barack Obama back to Chicago.

Be Well,

Curtis M. Loftis, Jr.

Last seen at each other’s throats over… oh, I forget what it was about, but it was bitter — the gov and treas have come together over Mitt. Now if they can just get their aforementioned Tea Party friends to go along…

Is it possible that Perry has dumbed his message down even MORE, just for li’l ol’ SC?

13 Replies

OK, so Rick Perry, who was not just on the ropes, but collapsed in his corner — his corner man’s arm cocked back ready to chuck the towel into the ring — before deciding to make one last comeback in South Carolina, has come up with a TV ad just for us.

Everything’s riding on this, mind you…

And here it is, in its entirety:

“Values” Script:


Gov. Perry: “As the son of tenant farmers from the West Texas town of Paint Creek, I learned the values of hard work, faith and family.


“I took those values with me when I served our country as a pilot in the Air Force. I returned home to farm and ranch with my father and married my high school sweetheart. The values I learned served me well as Governor of Texas, and will continue to guide me as President.


“I’m Rick Perry and I approve this message.”

Or, to be even briefer, Ah’m a regler feller, vote fer me.

Yep. The guy who has lowered trite saynothingism to the crudest of art forms, who has spent a fortune boring us in Iowa, has dumbed it down even more. Just for us.

Do you feel insulted? I feel insulted. I feel more insulted than I’ve felt since “Tinker, Tailor” didn’t come to Columbia as a mainstream commercial release (although I do hope to get to Nickelodeon this weekend).

Come, on Rick — show me there’s something there! Give me something to agree with, or disagree with. I mean, really — do you think South Carolinians are so dumb that they haven’t even absorbed the fact that you’re running as a good ol’ Southern boy?

Time’s a wastin’, boy. If you’ve got something to tell us, tell us. Otherwise, run along on home.

OK, now, THIS really goes over the top

11 Replies

I told you that last post wasn’t about Nikki Haley. Well, this one is. Or rather, about the national media and Nikki.

I was almost done with the previous post before I clicked on the link from HuffPost to the Marie Claire piece to which it refers…

… and found myself confronted by what may be the most swooning, fawning coverage of Nikki Haley I’ve seen from national media yet.

Or at least in a while.

Wow.

I take it this breathless approach is sort of the style of this mag, but still… I, for one, am taken aback.

Good thing for Romney Joan Jett’s not running

16 Replies

Doug and Steven, if you’re counting, this post is not really about Nikki Haley. It’s about women. It’s about me having trouble figuring them out. Or having trouble figuring out how the world reacts to them. Or something…

HuffPost calls our attention to the following:

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R), in an interview in Marie Claire published Wednesday, discussed what lessons she has learned.

She named her role models. “Mine are my mother, Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Martina Navratilova, Gabby Giffords. And Joan Jett. I tell you, Joan Jett is my idol. I would just love to meet her!”

Joan Jett’s pretty cool, I guess. Although I have to confess that I continue to get her confused with Pat Benatar. (Hey, gimme a break. By that time, I was an adult with a wife and kids and very busy running a newsroom.) And I’m sure the phrase “my mother and Margaret Thatcher” would fall easily from many Tory lips.

But you know, I’ll never get this chick thing about admiring people just because they share one’s gender.

I mean, really — Hillary Clinton coming right after the Iron Lady. I can see that they have a lot in common, but then I’m not a Democrat or a Republican.

Think of it this way: If Romney or Santorum or any of the guys running for president were asked to name his role models, and he named six, and one of them was Bill Clinton and another was a Democratic member of Congress, don’t you think he’d get in trouble with his base?

But if a woman does that, we don’t bat an eye. Because the gender bond is just supposed to be so profound that such differences don’t matter. In a way, that’s really cool (I certainly admire people from across the political spectrum). And good for Gov. Haley for being broad-minded. But in another way, it’s… I don’t know… either we’re condescending to women by not expecting consistency (like the Jack Nicholson character saying that to create female characters, “I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability“), or we’re being unfair to men. One or the other. Whatever it is, it ain’t equality.

Not being a feminist, I’ve got no objection, in principle, to double standards. Boys and girls are different, in important ways. But this is one difference that puzzles me.

Virtual Front Page, Thursday, January 5, 2012

7 Replies

Hang on a sec while I whip together a page here….

  1. Obama plans a leaner, cheaper military (WashPost) — I’m hearing the voice of Johnny Dangerously here: Because if we don’t do it, there’s a Chinese gang out there that’ll do it cheaper, and leaner…
  2. Bombs targeting Iraqi Shiites kill 72 (WashPost) — Later in the day, the NYT leads with this: Embrace of Militia Opens New Fault Lines in Iraq
  3. Manufacturing Is Surprising Bright Spot in U.S. Economy (NYT) — Surprising or not, I’ll take all the bright spots you’ve got.
  4. Death penalty sought for Mubarak (BBC) — That pretty much says what the story is about.
  5. Romney rips Obama as crony capitalist (thestate.com) — I figure we’re at the point I should start playing up what these guys say when they’re here, even if it’s not particularly remarkable on its face. This was in Charleston. John McCain and Nikki Haley were with him.
  6. Jon Huntsman, the forgotten man (The Guardian) — So I’ve got to ask: If a British newspaper notices him, how come people over here don’t?

Yeah, we know. That’s why we can’t afford basic government services. Not news.

31 Replies

The SC Senate Republican Caucus is bragging on how terrific it is that people hardly have to pay any taxes to support state government in South Carolina. Great job they’re doin’ ain’t it?

The thing is, that’s not news to anyone except the out-of-touch people who go around complaining about how high taxes are in SC, based on nothing. (And really believe it, too.) Actually, last I heard we were the lowest, not second-lowest.

Here’s the best part — this was sent out as a fund-raiser. The email that brought it to my attention gave me a choice of two things to click on: “View full image,” or “Donate now.” Because, you know, I’m supposed to be so thrilled that state taxes are so low, so eager to donate to elect people to make my taxes even lower, that I might not even have the patience to go look at the full image before I write my check.

I will never understand the mentality that will cause someone to shell out money — sometimes millions, in the case of a guy like Howard Rich — in order to avoid paying the same money in taxes. I mean, if I were so in love with my money that I passionately hated paying taxes, I wouldn’t want to pay it to politicians, either. Why would anyone hate the idea of his money being spent on public services so much that he’d rather it go to enrich political consultants?

But that odd world view exists. No doubt about it. Which is why pitches like this work — against all logic.

“Chuckles!” Where you been at, man?

6 Replies

That's "Chuckles" Gidley in the background, during a 2006 editorial board meeting. See how he got his name?

I was delighted to see this passage in the paper this morning:

Santorum will boast of his focus on the Iranian threat to peace while other lawmakers were fixated on Iraq. He will brag that during his 12 years in the U.S. Senate, he never voted for a tax increase and pushed for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
And he will note he did those things while representing Pennsylvania, a sometimes liberal state, without “giving up his conservative principles,” according to Hogan Gidley, Santorum’s national spokesman.“He did not have to morph and change himself to win elections,” Gidley said, a not-so-subtle jab at GOP front-runner Mitt Romney’s record while governor of Massachusetts.
Hogan Gidley! Chuckles! Where you been at, man?

My calling him “Chuckles” dates from when he was handling Karen Floyd’s campaign for state superintendent of education. I’ve seldom had a campaign aide glower at me in quite that way before. Karen hated the camera, but at least she smiled for it now and then.

All in good fun. Chuckles likes his nickname. At least, I think he does. Of course, I once forgot that he was executive director of the state Republican Party, so I might have forgotten his opinion of the nickname, too…

Welcome, Palmetto Public Record

11 Replies

It’s a new year, and time to spruce up my blogroll, tossing out any who haven’t posted in ages.

And I’ll be adding one, “Palmetto Public Record,” which has chosen an interesting time to launch.

It apparently is the work of one Logan Smith, who describes himself thusly:

Palmetto Public Record founding editor Logan Smith has been covering South Carolina politics for over half a decade as a reporter and online producer for WIS-TV in Columbia. A graduate of the University of South Carolina with a degree in Electronic Journalism, Logan also reported on the State House for the School of Journalism’s Carolina News program. When Logan isn’t glued to a computer screen or wandering around the Capitol complex, you can usually find him running or cycling on the streets of Columbia.

Sounds like a member of Boyd Brown’s generation. A major in “Electronic Journalism?” Do tell. When I started out, we were still using Linotype machines.

Here’s hoping Logan is made as welcome as I was by the nascent SC blogging community, back when I started in 2005.

I haven’t seen any ads on his site yet, so I can with an unconflicted mind offer him the same blessing as the Godfather did Sollozzo: “I know you’ll do very well; and good luck to you… as your interests don’t conflict with my interests.”

Why stump for Romney in NH, rather than SC?

25 Replies

Speaking of releases from the SC Democrats, they just put out the above video, with this comment from Dick Harpootlian:

Instead of rolling up her sleeves and getting to work on South Carolina’s problems with jobs, education, and taxes, Nikki Haley is jetting to New Hampshire to play politics and mingle with the national press and pundits. It’s clear Nikki Haley is already done with all of us here in South Carolina and is planning her national political career. I hope she’ll bring us back a t-shirt that says “Nikki went to New Hampshire and all I got was this lousy tee shirt (and a lousy Governor).”

Aw, come on, Dick! The T-shirt gag has been done to death, and you just used it awkwardly to boot.

Anyway, the conclusion I draw from the video is that the Dems are driving to drive a wedge between our governor and her Tea Party fans, who are already less than enchanted with her over her support of Mitt Romney.

Beyond that, I find myself wondering — if she wants to campaign for Romney, why doesn’t she do it right here at home, with our primary coming up on the 21st?

Could it be because she’s worn out her welcome with many of the voters Romney needs to charm down here, while she still continues to get a free ride, and hagiographic coverage, from the national media — thereby making her more valuable far from home?

I don’t know. I doubt Mitt is that hip to the situation in SC. But it would be interesting if that’s what his campaign is thinking.

Just watch your language this time, young man! Boyd Brown, 25, to respond to State of the State

4 Replies

Coming up to bat for the Democrats -- Boyd Brown.

This just in from the SC Democratic Party:

Columbia, SC — This morning, the South Carolina Democratic Party announced that State Representative Boyd Brown of Winnsboro will deliver the Democratic response to Nikki Haley’s 2012 State of the State address.

Wonder why someone this young (he turned 25 right after I took the picture above) and inexperienced has been chosen? There is a clue in what Chairman Dick Harpootlian has to say about Boyd: “Whatever he says in his response, I’m certain it will be straightforward and hard-hitting.”

That’s what Dick likes. The fact that he didn’t think another young man (although much older than Boyd), Vincent Sheheen, would be hard-hitting enough is what sent him looking for an alternative in the run-up to the 2010 gubernatorial election.

For his part, Boyd seems eager to oblige, saying:

For years, South Carolina Democrats have taken a passive role in holding the Republican leadership in South Carolina responsible, those days are over. I will not rest until the Nikki Haley-culture of corruption, lies and scandal have been swept out of the corridors of the Statehouse. South Carolina families deserve better than what they have been given, and that truth-telling starts now. I hope you’ll tune in to our Party’s response.

Yeah, well… you just watch your language this time, young man… ya hear?

Virtual Front Page, Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2012

9 Replies

I’ve told you about a lot of this already, but just to take a moment to prioritize things:

  1. EU agrees to Iran oil embargo (The Guardian) — Seems like a fairly significant development, even though no one else is leading with it at this hour. There are caveats, of course — an agreement “in principle.”
  2. McCain Backs Romney After Santorum’s Surge in Iowa (NYT) — This puts Santorum roughly in the Romney position of four years ago — as the “conservative” alternative to the more mainstream candidate.
  3. Bachmann exits race as she entered it (WashPost) — I think the headline means, “by babbling in an eccentric manner about Obamacare.”
  4. US weapons ‘wish list’ revealed (BBC) — It includes lasers and heat beams, so you know it was really compiled by red-blooded Americans. Yeah, boy…
  5. Kodak Preps for Chapter 11 (WSJ) — Come to think of it, I haven’t bought any film in a while.
  6. LA bishop with secret family quits (BBC) — I guess he was confused by the “Father” title.

Ex-GOP candidate boasts of high ACLU rating. No, really.

4 Replies

Seeing as how I’m old enough to remember the epithet, “card-carrying member of the ACLU,” I was a bit taken aback by this release from erstwhile GOP presidential candidate wannabe Gary Johnson:

GOVERNOR GARY JOHNSON TOPS OBAMA, PAUL ON ACLU CONSTITUTIONAL REPORT CARD
Liberty Watch Scorecard

January 3, 2012, Santa Fe, NM — Former New Mexico Governor and presidential candidate Gary Johnson ranks highest of all major presidential candidates in a “Liberty Watch” report card just released by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU report ranked candidates according to their positions on issues of civil liberties and adherence to the Constitution.
Johnson ranked higher than both President Obama and Texas Congressman Ron Paul in the ACLU Liberty Watch ratings. The report card included candidates’ positions on issues ranging from immigration to gay rights to a woman’s right to choose.
On the ACLU Liberty Watch website, ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said, “Republican-turned-Libertarian Gary Johnson scored even better than Paul, Huntsman and Obama, earning four and three torches on most major issues. They stand in stark contrast to the other major GOP candidates, three of whom — Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum — didn’t earn a single torch in any of the seven major categories.”
The full Liberty Watch Report Card can be viewed at www.aclulibertywatch.org.

There’s an explanation. It seems that over the holidays when I wasn’t paying attention (OK, I admit I never was actually paying attention to Gov. Johnson, but last week I was like in negative Johnson-attention mode), the candidate gave up on running as a Republican, and is now seeking the Libertarian Party nod.

Which explains a lot.

Before, he was a Republican. Now, he’s more down on the two-party system than… well,  than an UnPartisan. Dig the fund-raising pitch on his site:

Everybody says they want a viable alternative to America’s two-party chokehold.
Everybody — Meet Gary Johnson.
The two-party is over.
See what I mean?