Vincent Sheheen in 2010 with his dad, Fred, and the last Democratic candidate for governor to do better than he did.
I was shocked, shocked, to see that Governing magazine named Sen. Vincent Sheheen one of its 12 legislators to watch in 2012:
Sen. Vincent Sheheen exceeded all expectations in his 2010 race for governor. Running in a strongly Republican state in a strongly Republican year, he lost to Nikki Haley — who attracted considerable national media attention — by just four percentage points. An effective legislator, he had sponsored 18 bills that became state law prior to his gubernatorial campaign.
Sheheen, whose father was a state education commissioner, served as a city prosecutor and a state representative before winning election to the Senate in 2004. “Sheheen represents the pragmatic tradition of South Carolina found in dynamic leaders such as former U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings and former U.S. Secretary of Education Dick Riley,” says Andy Brack, publisher and columnist of StatehouseReport.com.
He is widely expected to run again for higher office. “Sheheen remains a public critic of Gov. Haley, which may help explain her rather extensive out-of-state fundraising during her first year in office,” says Jack Bass, a College of Charleston political scientist.
Why was I shocked? Because I thought it was some sort of physical law of the universe that national media were incapable of acknowledging Vincent’s existence.
Over and over, we heard (and still hear) about the terribly exciting miracle of the Indian-American woman who won the GOP nomination in our state, and then went on to be elected by the skin of her teeth, garnering a small percentage of the vote than any other statewide Republican in a huge year for Republicans.
Not once did I see even a hint of that sort of interest in the first Lebanese-American Catholic nominee in state history — who did better than any Democrat since Jim Hodges won, by hitching his star to a state lottery, in 1998.
Until now.
Related Posts
No kidding…
“…the first Lebanese-American Catholic nominee…”
Brad, does Vincent approve of your calling him a “hyphenated” American? Assuming yes, that could be very telling, and pride probably has less to do with it than political pandering, which though necessary has yet to be sufficient.
Catholic? So am I, but it continues to be a general blemish for some S.C. voters (Have you noticed the denomination of churches on most corners of Columbia?)
“…who did better than any ‘Democrat’ since Jim Hodges…” They have all been just another lawyer, as far back as old Strom (former Dem), I hear.
Finally, “hitching his star to a state lottery, in 1998.” For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, 26.9 percent of every lottery dollar earned was transferred to the Education Lottery Account for the General Assembly to appropriate to support education programs for students of all ages in South Carolina. Only 27%! Where did the rest go (only 1% was for advertising)? Is Vincent proud of the bridges?
I guess you didn’t have the space to include the last paragraph that said he has remained a vocal critic of Haley. That was his entire platform last time around.
Juan, first, the lottery is one of the worst ideas to infest SC politics in the past generation — which is why I so vehemently opposed Jim Hodges’ candidacy both in 1998 and 2002. For those who forget.
Second — the lottery was never supposed to yield more than about a third of its income to the state. The rest goes to prizes and administration.
Oh, as for being a hyphenated American… I don’t recall Vincent ever promoting that, or even talking about it during the campaign, although I could have missed it.
It was Nikki Haley who played up her hyphenated status, and used it to play the national media like a cheap fiddle. As you may recall, my comment at the time was that I hoped that one good thing would come out of the experience — that maybe, just maybe, Democrats would learn what an empty vessel Identity Politics can be. I kept saying, “See how little gender and ethnicity mean?”
But do you think they listened? No. That stuff has just been far too deeply ingrained in them over the past 40 years.
… which is one of a number of reasons why I am not a Democrat. I am not, and likely will never be, a feminist. And I’m one of those people who, like so many Republicans, like to cite Martin Luther King’s calls to color-blindness, which seems to irritate Democrats so.
I couldn’t agree with you more re: the lottery, Brad. People just don’t seem to realize that the state has cut education spending so that higher ed. relies more and more on lottery income, rather than being able to improve or expand programs (or anything else). It also increases the (perhaps unconscious)perception that you can get something for nothing. Finally it robs from the poorer to pay tuition for the richer. I don’t know about the rest of the democrats, but I’ve come to distrust the “color blindness” idea because all too often I’ve seen it morph into “let’s call it something else but craft the legislation to primarily affect minorities negatively.” (consider our recent voter id. legislation).
Hmmm… I don’t see the Voter ID thing as bearing upon the issue of color-blindness.
The way I see that issue, Republicans are for it because they think fewer poor minorities will vote, and Democrats are against it because they think fewer poor minorities will vote. I think the parties are in perfect agreement on this.
And I’ve never thought it was a big deal because I’ve never been persuaded by either side’s horror stories about the likely effects of the other side’s position.
“… which is one of a number of reasons why I am not a Democrat.”
I do believe if I had been drinking something I would have either had it come out of my nose or spit all over the screen reading that comment.
To put it even more bluntly the GOP is for it because they think it increases their chances of being elected. Dems are against it for the opposite reason. Given the disasterous track record of the GOP I’d say that’s a pretty scary horror story.
Well, I can’t imagine why. I didn’t say anything out of the ordinary.
Unless, of course, you are, on the basis of nothing, and with all the evidence on my side, calling me a liar.
Which you wouldn’t do, of course, since you are well acquainted by now with the blog’s civility standard.
According to what you just said, that both sides are concerned because “fewer poor minorities will vote,” does not constitute 2 positions; it constitutes a unanimous conclusion. Whether this is good or bad is what leads to disagreement. I offered it as an example precisely because the probable results are agreed on; however there is no mention in the law about possible effect on racial minorities. In this case the republicans have crafted a ‘colorblind’ law specifically designed to make it more difficult for some very poor (predominantly black) citizens to vote. Whether it would actually succeed in doing so to any large extent is questionable. I don’t think that the actual intent is questionable. That is why I distrust supposed “color-blindness” and will continue to do so while praying that this country can someday reach a point where the color of one’s skin is no more an issue than the color of one’s eyes. When our culture reaches that point, only then we can trust our laws, and our legislatures, to be truly “color-blind.”
“the first Lebanese-American Catholic nominee in state history”
Is there really someone who keeps track of this? I wonder who the first Polish-American Lutheran nominee was in this state?
People lose my interest when they start with the hyphenation, regardless if it’s nationality or last name. Make up your mind, it’s one or the other.
Steven and Juan, are y’all just putting me on, or do you really not follow what I’m saying?
We heard, and continue to hear, all this hoopla about Nikki being an Indian-American. I point out that, while going on and on and on and on about that, the national media didn’t even notice that the first Lebanese-American nominee, who also happens to be the first Catholic, was opposing her.
And instead of getting the point, y’all complain about my calling him a Lebanese-American (something that I am calling him, but have never heard him call himself, which is a marked contrast to Nikki going on and on about her ethnicity).
What’s that all about?
The Sheheens, typical political family… as bad as the Thurmond boys or the Campbell boys where each grows up expecting neighbors to hand them a seat because of their last name.
@ Brad – I’m 100% with you on opposing the lottery. It’s a tax on people who are bad at math, and puts the state in the unfair position of promoting gambling, using the poor to pay for college scholarships, and generally transferring wealth in a most regressive fashion.
I have a better idea for SC than a state lottery. Convert every lottery kiosk in the state into a sales point for micro-savings bonds. The proceeds would go towards education, infrastructure, etc and the interest could be free of SC income taxes, up to a certain amount. Fix the interest rate at 5% (unless inflation really picks up) and encourage yesterday’s lottery players to be tomorrow’s responsible savers. Make the bonds 10 or 20 year bonds, with the interest paid on redemption. Promote them like savings bonds were promoted during WW2. Register the bonds at the point of sale by name and SSN, so that the paper documents aren’t subject to theft, resale, etc.
If you had to, you could incentivize the program with some contests as well, maybe have a quarterly or annual drawing for a million dollars, with each dollar of bond outstanding providing a chance to win.
It could be a real chance for the state of SC to raise money, stop preying on poor citizens, promote the concept of thrift and saving, and also fund education and infrastructure.
It would be the right thing to do, and it makes moral and fiscal sense, so it’ll never happen.
I believe more older blacks lack birth certificates because of segregated health care back then, so it is entirely reasonable to infer that blacks will be disproportionately affected.
I am disappointed that Brad does not seem concerned about this.
Yeah, that’s it. This national magazine, the writers of which probably never heard of Bob or Fred, were impressed by Vincent’s performance as a senator just because of his last name…
Where do you GET this stuff?
@Kathryn
Can you identify one specific person who meets the following criteria:
1) Does not have an id
2) Votes regularly
3) Cannot under any circumstances or with any assistance obtain an id
I really want to just see the details on one specific person who would be harmed by this law.
He or she would have to be 100% homebound with no electricity, no involvement in any other government activity except voting.
Or, Doug, you could make one reasonable, valid argument why this isn’t the biggest waste of time ever – the whole issue either way.
If you want to control the perception that voter fraud exists, rail against vote by mail or something else like the electronic voting machines that leave no verifiable trace (that ought to interest you). Something that actually matters more than the bone-headed concept that someone would actually try to game the system by appropriating one persons vote at the polling station. That’s not the way meaningful (in the statistical sense) fraud occurs. It’s just the way partisan pickering plays out.
What exactly happens when these people without ID’s are asked to prove who they are? Ask their brother/sister who has an ID to vouch for them?
I can’t imaging how I’d make it through a single day without having a picture ID of some sort.
– I drive a car, need a driver’s license
– I sometimes carry a concealed weapon, need a concealed weapon ID
– I use a debit/credit card, need a driver’s license
– I cash a check, need a driver’s license
– I pick up a prescription, need a driver’s license
– I board an airline, need a driver’s license
– I stay at a hotel, I need a driver’s license
– I buy beer, need a driver’s license (even though I’m way older than 21)
@mark
If it isn’t a waste of time to show your id in so many other phases of life, why should voting – an act where one person who resides in a specific place can only vote one time – be worth so much effort to protect such a small number (yet to be identified in any real way) of people?
On Christmas Eve alone, I showed my id at Kohls, Target, and Nationsbank. Then I showed it the next week on our cruise out of Charleston at least five times between parking my car and actually boarding the ship.
This is about proving who you are when you go to vote. If someone feels threatened by that in this day and age, it’s not going to get any better if we just ignore the issue.
I also had to show my id to enter the Strom Thurmond building to talk to someone in the IRS office…. as did the woman in front of me who was going to the Social Security office.
You need an id to be a member of society.