Monthly Archives: February 2012

Get your No. 2 pencils ready, class — it’s time for another civics test!

63 Replies

Well, I’m appalled. The average American scored 49 percent on the latest civics quiz from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. College professors, on average, scored 55 percent.

And I’m sorry, class, but I’m not grading on a curve on this one. Everything on this test is something that every American should know. Every American who is allowed to vote, that is.

That said, I missed one of the questions — I read the multiple choices too fast. I didn’t like the answer I gave, but since I had misread the right answer, I liked it better than that one. Once my error was pointed out to me, I saw my mistake right away. So it’s something that I do know. (I’m not telling you which one it was yet, because I don’t want to give you the correct answer before you take it.)

In any case, I did score 96.97 percent, which I think would qualify as an A on anyone’s scale.

Not that I’m bragging. All but three or four of the 33 questions are ridiculously easy. I could see missing one or more, or even all, of those three or four. But miss 45 percent of them? That should be impossible for anyone who has even briefly attended college, much less professors.

And when I contemplate the average person getting 49 percent, I’m reminded of something Mrs. Whitner, the English teacher, said to a boy in my class at Bennettsville High School: “Boy, when they were handing out brains, you took a ham sandwich.” Teachers were allowed to say things to kids in those days.

And to think, we let these people vote.

Go ahead, see how you do. Don’t be intimidated by my scorn; I expect most of y’all will do well.

Here’s the test. Start now.

Yo, parties: Neither of you holds a monopoly on Truth, OK?

14 Replies

Today’s news from OFA, which stands for Obama For America (but always makes me think of that thing that Greeks say when they party):

OBAMA FOR AMERICA LAUNCHES THE TRUTH TEAM TO PROMOTE THE PRESIDENT’S ACHIEVEMENTS AND HOLD REPUBLICANS ACCOUNTABLE

Chicago, IL – Today, Obama for America announced the launch of the Truth Team, a new national effort by President Obama supporters online and on the ground to promote the President’s achievements, respond to attacks on his record and hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable.  More than a million people took action as part of the Fight the Smears initiative during the 2008 campaign; the goal of the Truth Team is to double that number, reaching two million grassroots supporters who will communicate the President’s record and fight back against attacks before the Democratic National Convention this fall.

Beginning today with events across the country and continuing through the election, the Truth Team will engage grassroots supporters to spread the truth about the President’s record and respond to Republican attacks.  The program will be housed at BarackObama.com/TruthTeam, with individual websites –KeepingHisWord.com, KeepingGOPHonest.com, and AttackWatch.com – serving as quick, comprehensive resources to help set the record straight.  Designed to put responsibility for spreading the truth in the hands of the President’s supporters, the websites contain videos and information on the President’s record, and fact checks on Republican claims about the President and themselves.  The sites also contain tools for sharing materials via Facebook, Twitter and email, and empowers supporters to take further action by volunteering, writing letters to the editor, sending postcards to undecided voters with information about the President’s record, and more.  The goal is to ensure that when Republicans attack President Obama’s record, grassroots supporters can take ownership of the campaign and share the facts with the undecided voters in their lives.

Republican Super PACs have committed to spend a half billion dollars on negative ads to defeat the President.  But from the start, the Obama for America campaign has relied on grassroots supporters to spread the truth, and today’s announcement builds on and expands that effort.

Truth Teams will be announced today in many states including Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina and Wisconsin with events being held in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia.  National supporters including the National Education Association (NEA), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and the United Steelworkers Union (USW) will be participating in this effort.

To find out more about the Truth Team, please visit: Barackobama.com/TruthTeam

I really, really don’t like this kind of stuff. Yes, tell your story; argue your case. But I detest this “truth squad” nonsense that both parties have engaged in since at least the ’80s. It says “our party is the source of truth” and “the other party speaks nothing but lies” and must be “held accountable” them. This stuff oozes from the core of the rottenest assumptions that underlie hyperpartisanship.

I expect better than this from the president. The Republicans have been painting him already (with very thin justification) as having gone back on his promise to rise above such things. The best way to give the lie to what they’re saying is to avoid stuff like this. He is rightly held to a higher standard, because he set the standard himself.

My first memory of encountering this sort of thing was in 1988, at the Democratic National Convention in Atlanta. Then-Gov. Carroll Campbell and other Republicans took turns holding press conferences at an off-site location in the city, and they called it “truth-squading.” This year, we saw practically daily press availabilities held by the Dems in an effort to grab some of the attention being devoted to the Republican primary here in SC.

Not that the Obama people aren’t providing true information, often in reply to some pretty silly nonsense on the other side. But that is often the case. I remember when Campbell appeared in Atlanta, the point was made (either by him or by Tucker Eskew or someone, I forget) that he took almost no security with him, while Lt. Gov. Nick Theodore had taken a small army with him to the convention. Which was true. You should have seen their communications center in the hotel.

But the thing that really gets me is this “truth” rhetoric that they wrap it in.

Yes, I realize each side believes that what it has to say IS the truth, while the others sit on a throne of lies. But they’re both wrong. They need to cut back on the hubris, and those of us in the middle would be more inclined to listen.

This is what I was warning about, people

50 Replies

It was Tuesday when I warned that the unnecessarily-fanned flames of several Culture War flashpoints threatened to make this into the kind of presidential election I detest — one that consists entirely of yelling about social issues (about which no one changes anyone else’s minds, which makes them ideal tools for infuriating the base and raising money to keep the pointless partisan strife going), rather than talking about issues more central to the job of president, such as foreign affairs, national security and the economy.

Now, it seems the MSM is catching up with me. This AP story was on the front page of The State this morning:

WASHINGTON — All of a sudden, abortion, contraception and gay marriage are at the center of American political discourse, with the struggling — though improving — economy pushed to the background.

Social issues don’t typically dominate the discussion in shaky economies. But they do raise emotions important to factors like voter turnout. And they can be key tools for political candidates clamoring for attention, campaign cash or just a change of subject in an election year.

“The public is reacting to what it’s hearing about,” said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center. In a political season, he said, “when the red meat is thrown out there, the politicians are going to go after it.”…

Precisely. And on the front page of The Wall Street Journal, also this morning:

In a year where the economy was supposed to dominate the November elections, the contraception backlash showed that social issues could have a powerful influence on the race. Republicans used the controversy to paint Mr. Obama as assailing religious rights—and adding another black mark against the 2010 health overhaul that spawned the policy….

Yep. That’s what I’ve been on about.

In any case, you were warned of it here first. And of course, the 137 comments on my previous post (so far) are indicative that even smart people, such as you, my readers, can’t resist rising to such bait. What hope do we have that the rest of the country will let it go, and allow us to return to more relevant (to the job of president) issues?

The state of political argument today

2 Replies

Tim brought up this hilarious classic in an earlier comment. I grabbed it and edited it down in order to share this one thought with you without your having to watch the whole thing. (If you DO want to watch the whole thing, here it is.)

I was particularly struck by this line of Michael Palin’s:

An argument is a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition.

But of course, our national politics today consist entirely of contradiction. If the fellow in the other party says it, it must be contradicted — and never, never engaged. Because polarization is the end it itself. No one is trying to achieve a new understanding by setting competing positions alongside each other and advancing a synthesis. It’s about saying “no, it isn’t” back and forth.

That’s the sort of thing I was on about back here. And on the Kulturkampf post as well.

So why are you running for the House?

15 Replies

Partisans and ideologues frequently puzzle me. Their thoughts follow patterns that take some work to figure out. Just when you think you have them figured out, they say something else that makes me go, “Huh?”

Take this curious fund-raising appeal from Chad Prosser:

The U.S. House passed 28 pro-jobs bills last year that would help get government out of the way and free up investor capital to start and expand more businesses. 28. Yet, every single one of these bills sits in the Senate waiting for a vote. While Americans wait for free-market reforms to help get the economy moving, Senate Democrats wait to vote on the very bills that will help our innovators do what they do best.

I’m a conservative reformer who understands how to get things done. I’ve created jobs in my own business. Under Gov. Mark Sanford, I brought efficiency to the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism and turned around a financially ailing State Park system, improving service while reducing the operational burden on taxpayers. Today, our state park service is one of the most self-sufficient in the nation. As a businessman, I understand the tough decisions that businesses have to make every day to survive the constant barrage of overreaching regulations and taxation from Washington.

I will take that knowledge and experience with me to Congress, where I will fight for conservative reforms that reduce government so that our economy can grow and our nation can prosper. All Americans succeed when government gets out of the way so job creators have the ability to invest in the future. Will you join with me? Donate $10 to the campaign today.

Let’s suppose you buy into this view of the world — that the anti-tax, anti-government propositions of the new, Tea-Party-flavored Republican part are inherently and indisputably “pro-job bills.” Take that as given.

What, then, is the point of running for the House? The House is already adhering to this agenda. The “problem” is in the Senate. So, run for the Senate. Oh, you say that both senators are Republican, and therefore not part of the problem? OK, then don’t run for office at all. There’s nothing you can do to change the equation. If this is your rationale for running, your campaign is pointless.

That’s the way a sensible person would look at it.

But to understand what he’s saying, you have to be one of these people who buy into today’s hyperpartisan polarization as an end in itself. Which both parties do.

The point of introducing legislation under their way of looking at things is to say that you introduced it, then to blame the other side for not passing it, and use that to enrage your base so that you can motivate them to give money so that you can keep the machine of never-ending conflict going.

The point is not to achieve a goal; it’s to keep fighting. And so it is that the country never makes progress in any direction.

Disgusting, isn’t it?

Yeah, that sounds pretty French, all right…

3 Replies

This should distract y’all from the never-ending post on Kulturkampf earlier in the week…

Don’t know if you had seen the piece in The Wall Street Journal about the (American) woman who has written a book all about how the French are better at raising children than we are.

Never mind my natural suspicion of any American who chooses to live in France rather than here. This is NOT the 1920s; it’s just not done any more. Those who do are all a lost generation, to my mind. Alice B. agrees with me.

It still seemed interesting, and my wife and I shared the info with our kids who have kids, in case they could get anything out of it. From my cursory glance, it was stuff like how the French somehow manage to keep their kids from whining and stuff like that. The downside, from what I read — basically, a huge part of the formula is that the French neglect their kids by American standards, because they’re into having time for themselves. And if I got into what I think of that, we’d get into a discussion of whether my Anglophilia has led necessarily to Francophobia, and I don’t want to go there today.

Where I want to go is here, to this revelation I read this morning in the Post:

Pamela Druckerman, the writer who set off parenting debates this week with her essay in the Wall Street Journal, “Why French Parents Are Superior,” (which was an excerpt of her newly published, “Bringing Up Bébé: One American Mother Discovers the Wisdom of French Parenting,” Penguin) has just involuntarily launched another discussion.

It turns out that in another essay a few years ago for the magazine Marie Claire, she revealed that she had planned and engaged in a threesome with her husband.

Slate’s Rachael Larimore discovered the piece called, “How I Planned a Menage A Trois.” It is filled with excruciating details about what she writes was a gift for her husband’s 40th birthday. It culminates in a paragraph that would make anyone viewing it in their own rearview mirror — let alone a writer who is now selling a parenting book — wince:

“Finally, they tire themselves out. There’s a sweet moment at the end when the three of us lie together under the covers, with the birthday boy in the middle. He’s beaming. I’ll later get a series of heartfelt thank-you notes from him, saying it was as good as he had hoped.”

Larimore revealed Thursday that Marie Claire editors had agreed, at Druckerman’s request they said, to remove the essay from the magazine’s online archives. Enough evidence of the essay existed, however, that Larimore said she came on it accidentally.

It’s not what they did; it’s that she frickin’ WROTE about it, under her real name. That’s seriously defective. If you had to get a license to have kids, one hopes she wouldn’t be issued one.

I am reminded of some wisdom I obtained from watching “Talladega Nights: The Legend of Ricky Bobby” (from now on, I’m sticking to American sources of wisdom, however low or tacky). When the French Formula 1 driver tries to join the NASCAR circuit, the other drivers heap scorn on him. He responds by telling them that France had given them “democracy, existentialism, and the Ménage à Trois.” As one of the rednecks responds, “Well that last one’s pretty cool.”

Perhaps so, perhaps not. But it certainly sounds French to me…

Midlands mayors speak optimistically of burgeoning community unity

5 Replies

The panel laughs after moderator Bob Bouyea asked what should be done about traffic on I-126 and other paths into Columbia, and Steve Benjamin replied, "Everybody could live downtown."

This morning — very early this morning — I attended the latest “Power Breakfast” sponsored by the Columbia Regional Business Report. So did a lot of other people, packed into a ballroom at Embassy Suites.

I’d like particularly to thank the friends who joined us at the ADCO table, right up front:

We were there to listen to four mayors — Steve Benjamin of Columbia, Randy Halfacre of Lexington, Elise Partin of Cayce, and Hardy King of Irmo — talk about metro issues.

Here was the dominant theme: Regional cooperation.

You may note that that was the main theme at last year’s panel. You’d be right. But last year it was more about something to be grasped at. This year there was more of a sense of something achieved.

A lot of this arose from the experience of landing Amazon. One hears that a lot among folks who work in local government, and economic development, in the Midlands. Which is interesting. It started out as such a divisive controversy, in the Legislature, with the governor not helping a bit and lawmakers at each other’s throats. I had my own ambivalence about the deal at the time, but those who are dedicated to bringing jobs to the community were undivided in their minds, and undivided in the collective sense.

It seems to have been a rallying, bonding experience that carries over into many other areas.

Time and again this morning, we heard expressions of comradeship, a sense of all being in this together, that swept aside the political boundaries that have been an excuse to get nothing done in the past. We heard it a little less from Hardy King, who tended to answer questions entirely from an Irmo perspective, but he’s new, and hasn’t been through the same bonding experiences as the other.

Last year, the mayors were still stinging over the failure to come together effectively over the Southwest Airlines matter. This year, there was more reason to celebrate — and not just Amazon, but Nephron and other economic development wins for the whole community.

A lot of other issues were discussed — Ms. Partin mentioned the 12,000-year history park in her city, Mr. Benjamin said with regard to mass transit that “It’s hard to get Southerners out of their cars,” Mr. King spoke of his town’s 0 percent property tax rate, and Mr. Halfacre told us about what his citizens ask about almost as much as they ask for traffic relief: sidewalks.

But I’ve been away from home 12 hours now, and I hear my dinner calling.

Taking a risk with a mustard seed

23 Replies

I don’t often get releases like this one, so I thought I’d share it:

11 Trinity Youth Transform $1,100 into More Than $60,000

In Just 90 Days, through the Kingdom Assignment, Students Raise Money to Further the Kingdom of God

Thursday, February 9, 2012, Columbia, SC Trinity Cathedral’s Episcopal Youth Community (EYC) is making a big impact in their parish and in our community. In November of 2011, Canon Brian Silldorff challenged 11 members of EYC to participate in the Kingdom Assignment. The result? More than $60,000 to fund an array of projects, both sacred and secular.

The Kingdom Assignment is an international project dedicated to stewardship of God’s Kingdom that started some ten years ago in Lake City, California. You can read more about the Kingdom Assignment on their website, www.kingdomassignment.org.

After teaching a Sunday school lesson about the Parable of the Talents, Silldorff challenged eleven youth to participate in the Kingdom Assignment and entrusted them with $1,100 and offered just three rules: 1. The money belongs to God and is entrusted to you. 2. You have 90 days to further the kingdom of God with your talent and treasure. 3. You must report back in 90 days about your project and its success.

It’s now 90 days later and the Kingdom Assignment project will culminate during Youth Sunday School on Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 10:15am in the Workshop. Students, adults, and those impacted by the project will be present along with parishioners and the media to celebrate the impact and reach of more than $60,000.

You are invited to join in the celebration and share in the success. Please email Brian Silldorff if you plan to attend as space is the Workshop is limited. The Worskshop is located on the ground floor of the Trinity Center for Mission and Ministry located at 1123 Marion Street, Columbia, SC 29201.

Way to go, kids! I’m proud of you. Even though you’re not Roman. At least you’re catholic. You know, my cousin is one of y’all’s priests.

This reminds me of the best sermon I ever heard from my own pastor, Msgr. Lehocky. It was so long ago, he probably doesn’t remember it, but I do — the main points, anyway.

I’d always had trouble with that parable — you know, the Capitalist Parable:

14`The kingdom of heaven will be like the time a man went to a country far away. He called his servants and put them in charge of his money.

15He gave five bags of money to one servant. He gave two bags of money to another servant. He gave one bag of money to another servant. He gave to each one what he was able to be in charge of. Then he went away.

16`Right away the servant who had five bags of money began to buy and sell things with it. He made five bags of money more than he had at first.

17`The servant who had two bags of money did the same thing as the one who had five bags. He also made two bags of money more than he had at first.

18But the man who had only one bag of money dug a hole in the ground. And he hid his master’s money in the ground.

19`After a long time, the master of those servants came home. He asked what they had done with his money.

20The servant who had been given five bags of money brought five bags more to his master. He said, “Sir, you gave me five bags of money. See, I have made five bags more money.”

21`His master said, “You have done well. You are a good servant. I can trust you. You have taken good care of a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Come, have a good time with your master.”

22`The servant who had been given two bags of money came and said to his master, “Sir, you gave me two bags of money. I have made two bags more money.”

23His master said, “You have done well. You are a good servant. I can trust you. You have taken good care of a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Come, have a good time with your master.”

24`The servant who had been given one bag of money came and said, “Sir, I knew that you were a hard man. You cut grain where you did not plant. You pick fruit where you put nothing in.

25I was afraid. So I went and hid your money in the ground. Here is your money.”

26`His master answered him, “You are a bad and lazy servant. You knew that I cut grain where I did not plant. You knew that I pick fruit where I put nothing in.

27You should have put my money in the bank. Then when I came home, I would have had my money with interest on it.

28So take the money away from him. Give it to the one who has ten bags.

29Anyone who has some will get more, and he will have plenty. But he who does not get anything, even the little that he has will be taken away from him.

30Take this good-for-nothing servant! Put him out in the dark place outside. People there will cry and make a noise with their teeth.” ‘

Not that I have anything against capitalism; I don’t. I just didn’t like it that Jesus was suggesting that the third servant had done something wrong. I mean, if someone else asks you to hold his property, shouldn’t you take every precaution to preserve it and have it ready to give back to him? Doesn’t basic honesty require that? Capitalism is a fine thing, with your own money. But do you have the right to take a risk with someone else’s, without specific (preferably written) authorization?

The risk part was what got me; that’s what seemed wrong. It was too easy to fail.

Father Lehocky urged us to look at it in a whole new way. He said people who play it safe are wasting the talents or other gifts they are entrusted with. OK, I sort of got that, but what if they fail? What if they do?, he said. Failing is part of life. You can fail big-time, and by doing so advance the cause of God. Look at Jesus himself. Was there ever a bigger failure? Look at the way he died. Charged as a criminal, whipped nearly to death, stripped naked and nailed up on a gibbet like an animal for the unfeeling community to watch his death-agonies. Abandoned by his friends, who ran like scalded dogs before the bully boys and denied even knowing him. Not a word he’d said had ever even been written down. All over, all done with, all for nothing. He’d taken a risk, and failed spectacularly, by every standard the world had for judging such things.

Except that he hadn’t, as it turned out. He’d really started something. The risk he’d taken had paid off in a way no ordinary mortal would have predicted.

That sermon made me think differently about my life and how it should be lived. It made me look at failure in a new way. Not that I’ve always lived up to that new way of looking at life. But it made me think. And now that I’m writing this, I’m thinking about it again…

Kara Gormley Meador running against Jake Knotts. No, wait, she’s not…

17 Replies

Speaking of Republican women and media…

There was a flurry of excitement earlier in the day when word was going around that Kara Gormley Meador, formerly of WIS, was preparing to run for the Senate against Jake Knotts. As Jack Kuenzie reported:

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) – The race for state Senate District 23 was thrown a major curveball Thursday with the announcement from a former WIS anchor and reporter that she intends to enter the race.

Kara Gormley Meador enters an already crowded field of contenders in the form of former Lexington County GOP chair Katrina Shealy and incumbent Sen. Jake Knotts.

Meador says she had been considering the decision for a while and planned on rolling out her campaign on March 1, but rumors began to spread that she was looking to make a run at the  seat….

And when I say excitement, I mean excitement. Check this sampling of comments from her Facebook page:

  • I am SO PuMpEd! You go Kara! I know you’re gonna win this! I’m your biggest fan!
  • Iam in tears…tears of joy. Kara I am so proud of you words in this status could never express it. I have already put you on a prayer list. As I shared with Jim Matthews when he ran: Proverbs 29:2, “When the righteous increase(rule in other versions), the people rejoice, But when a wicked man rules, people groan.” I love you!
  • YES!!! YesYesYesYesYesYES!!!! We’re buying property in Lexington County JUST so we can VOTE! GO KARA!!!!

See what I mean? Mitt Romney would kill for a tenth of that enthusiasm for his candidacy. That sort of enthusiasm makes the excitement about Obama in 2008 look like tepid dislike. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever run across that much enthusiasm for anybody. If anyone hurled it at me, I think I’d back away in fright. Fortunately, that’s not likely.

In any case, it was all for naught, as this was reported later in the day by a certain rival news organization:

The Lexington Election Commission says the recent redrawing of state Senate districts means former WIS anchor Kara Gormley Meador can not run for the state Senate seat held by Jake Knotts.

Instead, Meador will be in district 18, held by Sen. Ronnie Cromer. That race is already crowded, with former Lexington County Republican party chairman Rich Bolen saying he plans to run.

Filing for state Senate seats does not open until March…

So I guess Jake has escaped having a tidal wave of enthusiasm wash over him…

Here’s a new wrinkle in campaigning for non-elective office in SC

1 Reply

Have you ever seen a public, media campaign in SC for an appointive office? Neither have I. But we just had one.

An ex-colleague (as in, someone else who used to work at the newspaper) brought this to my attention. It came to him yesterday as a solicitation e-mail. It featured that “View Full Image or Donate Now” feature that I’ve seen on a number of GOP solicitations recently. When you carefully avoid the “Donate Now” and click on “View Full Image,” you go to this site, where you read:

Conservative women, we need your help in Columbia tomorrow.

Democratic Senators are attempting to stop the nomination of a strong, conservative woman to lead an important state agency.

Qualified women are too often discouraged from seeking public office by the entrenched “good old boy” interests. You can read more about this issue an op-ed by our founder, Karen Floyd, that was published in The State newspaper today. Scroll down for the complete text of Karen’s piece.

Don’t let it happen this time – Let’s stand with Catherine Templeton during her Senate screening hearing tomorrow.

If you care about making sure qualified women are encouraged to serve, STAND WITH US!

Set aside where Republican appeals to feminist sensibilities have gotten us in the past, and focus on what an unusual approach this is. I hadn’t seen it before, but perhaps I just wasn’t paying attention.

Anyway, whether this helped or not, those behind it got their way today:

A Senate committee approved the nominee to run South Carolina’s environment and health agency at a hearing today.

Catherine Templeton will be the next Department of Health and Environmental Control commissioner following the 13-0 vote, pending final approval by the Senate next week.

Democratic senators Brad Hutto, Joel Lourie and Clementa Pinckney abstained, raising questions about her experience…

SC went for Tillman rather than Hampton

3 Replies

Here’s an observation that occurred to me the weekend of the South Carolina presidential preference primary, but which, being busy, I never got around to writing. It occurred to me again this morning, so here it is…

Before the primary, I wrote that the usual pattern for SC Republicans would be to pick the candidate who seemed most like the boss, or the massa, if you will. That would be Romney. I said it within the context of the possibility of Gingrich overtaking him, but at the same time I thought, wrongly, that most white folk in our state would follow the most patrician candidate just as they followed such men into battle in 1860. That’s what had happened in the last few cycles. OK, there were other factors, such as going with the guy whose turn it was, but that also worked for Romney.

Nice theory. It got shot all to hell.

What South Carolinians did, explaining it in terms of our history, was what they did in the 1890s — they turned away from Wade Hampton, and went for Ben Tillman.

Gingrich, with his fulminations against the uber-rich Yankee Romney and the dirty, no-good press, stirred something deep in the race memory of these voters. He was the closest they could find in these tepid times to fellow populist “Pitchfork” Ben, who urged them to rise up against the hoity-toity ruling class. Of course, Newt is rather tepid by comparison. Newt made the crowd roar by scornfully dismissing that Negro who dared to challenge him on his “food-stamp president” line. But that’s thin stuff compared to when ol’ Ben said he would “willingly lead a mob in lynching a Negro who had committed an assault upon a white woman.” Black men, said Tillman, “must remain subordinate or be exterminated.”

And Newt’s put-down of the media in the next debate was downright wimpy compared to Ben’s nephew gunning down my predecessor, N. G. Gonzales, at noon on Main Street for having dared write critical editorials about him. (He was acquitted by the ancestors of some of those Gingrich voters, who decided, after the editorials were entered into evidence, that the editor had it coming.)

No, Gingrich is no Tillman. But I suppose angry white folks have to settle for what they can get these days.

You must, of course, consider me a biased source. The State newspaper, as you may know, was founded for the purpose of fighting Tillmanism. The newspaper was from the start opposed to lynching (those wild-eyed liberals!), and has since that one incident frowned on shooting editors as well. And some of my own ancestors were anti-Tillman. My great-grandparents were appalled when they found themselves living next to Sen. Tillman in Washington. (My great-grandfather Bradley was a lawyer for the Treasury Department, and later helped found the GAO.)

In conclusion, let me say this this analogy, too, is imperfect. It doesn’t explain why, for instance, all those rather patrician, or at least Establishment, Republicans went for Gingrich at the last minute. That’s rather more complicated, and in some cases had to do with rivalries and resentments that wouldn’t make much sense to folks who are not SC Republican insiders. Some of it, for instance, was about stopping Nikki Haley from seeming to have a win. There were other old scores being settled, some going back a number of years. Once I can get some of these folks to talk about it on the record, I’ll write more about that.

But I think my analogy has at least a ring of truth in it when applied to the great mass of voters out there who never ran a campaign or even met many of these movers and shakers. Or am I attaching to much importance to those visceral roars when Gingrich baited black, liberals and the media in those debates?

Discuss…

Forget Ferris Bueller. Zais was absent 29 days

7 Replies

Edward R. Rooney would forget Ferris and his measly nine absences if he had Supt. Mick Zais in his school, according to this report over at Palmetto Public Record:

South Carolina Superintendent of Education Mick Zais took twice as much personal time during 2011 as the average state employee is allowed, according to an exclusive look at the schools chief’s schedule.
Zais’ personal calendar, which was made available to Sen. Phil Leventis (D-Sumter) through an open records request in November and later obtained by Palmetto Public Record, shows that Zais took 234 hours of personal time (the equivalent of 29 full workdays) between Jan. 12 and Nov. 17, when the schedule was turned over to Leventis. That number doesn’t include medical leave, of which Zais took the equivalent of six workdays during the same period. The schedule also doesn’t include the final five weeks of 2011, when Zais may have taken even more personal time for the Christmas holidays.

In sharp contrast to Zais’ considerable number of absences, a state employee with 10 or fewer years of experience is allowed 15 days of personal leave per year — about half of what Zais took during the 44 weeks covered in his schedule.

Education Department spokesman Jay Ragley said the state superintendent, as a constitutional officer, is held to a different standard than regular employees. “Because of their unique status in state government, constitutional officers are presumed to be on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and are not allotted sick days or annual leave time as standard state employees accrue,” he said…

Democrats are making a big thing of this. I got this link from an advisory from Phil Bailey with the Senate Dems (under the headline, “Senators to Discuss Zais’ Truancy”), telling me that Sens. Leventis and Brad Hutto are having a press conference to talk about it at 3 today at the State House. No, I don’t know why Sen. Leventis didn’t bring it up in November, when he got the info.

And now, we turn to the city election…

14 Replies

… which I’ve been neglecting.

Long ago, I wrote something about Cameron Runyan announcing for the at-large seat. Since then, two others have stepped up to oppose him: Robert Bolchoz, last seen running for attorney general last year, and, drumroll… Joe Azar (note that the website is from his last run for mayor, but that’s what Google gives me).

Then there’s District 2, where Nammu Muhammad — last seen among a big crowd running for major (no, wait — Congress) — is challenging incumbent Brian DeQuincey Newman, who is seeking re-election for the first time after he replaced E. W. Cromartie in mid-term.

Then there’s the really active one, District 3. Back before Christmas, I went out for beers with young Daniel Coble, and took notes, and was going to write about it. But I wanted to talk to the other candidates first, and what with the holidays and the presidential primary, I just didn’t get to it and didn’t get to it…

Then on Monday, I ran into Jenny Isgett at Rotary, which was when I realized that I was going to have to start paying attention to this stuff again. Because it’s coming up in April. Ms. Isgett and Mr. Coble are opposed by restaurateur Moe Baddourah, who has sought the office before, and my former colleague Mike Miller, who is now described by our former paper as “a freelance writer active in Columbia’s music and arts scene.”

So I need to start lining up interviews with these people. This morning, I met again with Cameron Runyan, at his initiative. I actually didn’t have a notebook on me, but here’s what I learned in terms of what’s up with his campaign now…

He’s spending two or three hours a day, and five or six on Saturdays, walking the districts door-to-door. On Sunday, he hits two or three churches.

He’s assembled a fairly impressive professional team: Heyward Bannister, campaign manager; Kendall Corley, field; Adam Fogle, message, mail, media; Rick Quinn, strategy; Keely Saye, social media; Bob Wislinski, development.

As you’ll recall, he has the mayor’s backing — hence the fact that his team looks a lot like the mayor’s from two years ago. Mr. Benjamin called while we were talking this morning.

We talked about other stuff, having to do with disagreements on issues with other candidates. But I want to talk to said candidates before I elaborate.

As the days go by, I’ll be finding out more as I talk with those folks.

Nikki has a budget idea… no, the other Nikki

9 Replies

Phil Bailey (Senate Democrats, Pub Politics) sent out this release yesterday, and I’m just getting to it:

Legislation to Transform State Budget Process Introduced

Columbia, SC – Lexington State Senator Nikki Setzler has introduced legislation to transform the state budget process and ensure the public knows how all dollars collected from South Carolina taxpayers by state government are spent.

Senator Setzler’s legislation targets so-called ‘other funds’ and treats money from those accounts like other state dollars in the budget. The legislation, introduced by Setzler on Tuesday, takes spending authority for billions of dollars held in special accounts away from a single government official and rightfully places it with lawmakers.

Currently, the state budget is divided into three types of funds: general funds, federal funds and other funds. General funds are tax dollars collected by the state. Federal funds are dollars from Washington that the state does not control. And ‘other funds’ are the dollars that are not general or federal fund dollars, primarily generated from fees charged to those who use the agency’s services.

Over the past 10 years, with lessening state tax revenues, state agencies have grown more reliant on ‘other funds’.  For example, one agency in 2000 spent $35 million in general funds and $4.0 million in other funds.  By 2009, that agency spent $29 million in general funds and $20 million in other funds.

Until two years ago, the Legislature had little to no oversight over “other funds” in state government. For years, a single government official would grant state agencies authority to spend those funds. The Joint Other Funds Oversight Committee was formed to review these funds and agencies’ request to spend these dollars. Setzler’s legislation would permanently transform the budget process.

Setzler said serving on this committee has been a wake-up call. “The taxpayers of South Carolina were being left in the dark. The budget process was nowhere near as transparent as it should be,” said Setzler.

The legislation introduced by Setzler and co-sponsored by Republicans and Democrats directs all ‘other funds’  to be deposited in the state’s General Fund and appropriated by the General Assembly.

“This makes the budget more transparent and state agencies more accountable to the taxpayers. This is common sense reform and I’m happy to have the bi-partisan support of my colleagues in the Senate,” said Setzler.

###

Sounds intriguing. I’d like to know more — what  sorts of fees we’re talking about, how and why they came into being — before I could make up my mind about it. I’ve asked Phil for some examples.

Let sleeping culture warriors lie, please…

146 Replies

I’m beginning to suspect that the Left is dissatisfied at the prospect of an election about real national priorities, and is conspiring to get the Culture Warriors of the Right — heretofore MIA — to enter the 2012 fray.

I’m just going by the top three stories on my most recent email from The Slatest:

Federal Appeals Court Deems Prop 8 Unconstitutional

But backers of California’s gay marriage ban are expected to take their fight to the Supreme Court.

Komen VP Resigns in Wake of Planned Parenthood Dispute

Karen Handel defends her work to cut funding to the group, saying it was the best for Komen and the women it serves.

University Selling “Morning-After” Pill from Vending Machine

Students at Shippensburg University now have easier access to Plan B emergency contraception.

Think about this for a minute, people…

The Culture Warriors of the Right have been pretty quiet lately. Their guy in the GOP presidential contest, Rick Santorum, hasn’t caught fire, in fact has been totally an also-ran since Iowa. It was looking like we might have a presidential election about national security and the economy, which I’ve gotta say, would be nice for a change.

So what happens? Culture Warriors of the Left sue to get a court to overturn a public vote on a hot-button issue, and get a favorable ruling from a panel of… the 9th Circuit. This of course will now be taken all the way to the Supremes (who on the right would ever be satisfied with the judgment of the 9th?), assuring that this attempt to overturn a public vote by judicial fiat (talk about waving a red flag at a bull!) will blaze on through the election.

Some of their comrades then go totally ballistic over a decision by one private organization not to help fund another private organization. These Culture Warriors freak out to such an extent over what — $680,000? And the ramifications continue, with everybody on all sides all worked up.

As for the third thing… I don’t know. I’ve been to Shippensburg a number of times, and I’m trying to square this with the images I have of Amish people riding up the High Street in horse and buggy, and Civil War re-enactments. This is a whole new wrinkle…

All I can conclude is that the left just wasn’t happy with the Culture Warriors of the right being all dormant. It’s like there is a concerted effort to make the 2012 election about all this Kulturkampf stuff. Which I, for one, would not appreciate. And I don’t think it’s a good idea for Obama’s re-election chances to get the right’s Culture Struggle machine all hot and bothered.

Oh, you know what the fourth story on the Slatest email was? It was this:

Santorum Poised for 2 Wins in Tuesday’s GOP Contests

But with no delegates up for grabs, the Iowa winner will need to be content with PR victories.

Coincidence? Well, yeah, I think it is a coincidence. But those of us who would rather this election be about something other than abortion and sexuality and the like still eye such developments as all of the above with foreboding.

The good news is that the White House appears to be trying to take down the temperature a bit, on one thing it can control. It may dial back on its recent ham-handed effort to make Newt Gingrich’s ravings about a “war on the Catholic Church” seem to be true. That’s good. I like the sound of that. No-Drama Obama, that’s what I want to see. This was yet another completely unnecessary fight (and with a demographic that the president needs to keep in battleground states, which made it seem particularly weird).

Next, could we all talk about Iran and Israel and Afghanistan and consumer confidence? Throwweights, perhaps? Please? Anything but this hyperemotional stuff…

So far, I’m not on Henry Clay’s list yet

2 Replies

For some reason, I regularly get email releases from U.S. Rep. Daniel Webster of Florida. And I have to say, they are disappointing. You see that name, and you expect towering eloquence. But I get stuff like this:

“The federal executive-branch agencies hold an extensive amount of property that includes 429,000 buildings and over a million total properties.  In fact, the federal government is the largest owner and manager of real estate in our country.  If we sold all excess federal properties, proceeds could approach an estimated $15 billion – serious savings – on top of even more savings reaped annually from reducing maintenance and operating costs.

“H.R. 1734 is a cost saving initiative that achieves a reduction in the size of the federal real property inventory through selling or redeveloping underutilized properties, increasing the utilization rates of existing properties, and expediting the disposal of surplus properties. The act shows real respect for the hardworking taxpayers who pay for government buildings and space.  You can do more with less if you do it efficiently; this bill does just that.  Better management of federal property presents an opportunity to reduce expenditures and increase revenue.  As families look for ways to budget and manage their personal finances, our government should do the same,” said Representative Webster.

Not exactly “Justice, sir, is the great interest of man on earth. It is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together.”

But I guess he does what he can. Here’s what an Orlando publication says about him:

For someone who shares a name with one of the most loquacious and eloquent men to sit in the United States Congress, 8th District Rep. 
Daniel Webster has been nothing like his historic namesake since leaving for Washington. By December 2011, the Winter Garden Republican had yet to make a single major speech on the House floor or introduce a substantive piece of legislation—in marked contrast to the freshman lawmaker he unseated in 2010, Democrat Alan Grayson, by all accounts one of the mouthiest politicians on Capitol Hill.

In a year’s time his office has issued just 31 press releases, and from June through December, Webster, 62, held no public town hall meetings, although he did meet with 25 invited guests at Valencia College in November. One reason Webster has been so elusive may be that a town hall meeting in April turned raucous, provoking some of the meager press coverage about him–after which his office circulated a “watch list” of six Florida activists to other GOP members of Congress.

It goes on to say:

So, what’s up with the bland, soft-spoken, former longtime state legislator and Tea Party favorite? Aubrey Jewett, a political science professor at University of Central Florida, says Webster sees himself as “a foot soldier in what the Republicans [are] trying to do, and not necessarily being a leader in the movement.” Donald Davison, of Rollins College’s political science department, takes a similar view. “My impression is, the guy’s invisible,” Davison says. “My guess is he’s following the leaders of the Republican leadership in the House: united opposition to Obama.”

Sounds like he’s sort of the Joe Wilson of the Tea Party movement — more of a “me, too” kind of guy.

Too bad. With the right handlers, the original Dan’l Webster could have been the leader of the Tea Party movement, had he so chosen. Here are other quotes I ran across:

  • “A country cannot subsist well without liberty, nor liberty without virtue.”
  • “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, the power to destroy.”
  • “God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.”

What they wouldn’t be so crazy about was when he said stuff like this: “Keep cool; anger is not an argument.” And some of his positions still wouldn’t fly down South: “Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable.”

But you can’t have everything. In any case, they don’t make Daniel Websters the way they used to.

Just in case you weren’t quite totally fed up with Congress yet

17 Replies

The Washington Post has done an analysis of congressional earmarks, and found the following:

Thirty-three members of Congress have steered more than $300 million in earmarks and other spending provisions to dozens of public projects that are next to or near the lawmakers’ own property, according to a Washington Post investigation. Under the ethics rules Congress has written for itself, this is both legal and undisclosed.

In the first review of its kind, The Post analyzed public records on the holdings of all 535 members and compared them with earmarks members had sought for pet projects, most of them since 2008. The process uncovered appropriations for work in close proximity to commercial and residential real estate owned by the lawmakers or their family members. The review also found 16 lawmakers who sent tax dollars to companies, colleges or community programs where their spouses, children or parents work as salaried employees or serve on boards.

None of the 33 were from South Carolina, although when you first look at the map, it appears that there is a mug shot looming over our state. But it’s just some guy named Jack Kingston from Georgia.

Not that the Post claims to have caught all the potential conflicts. It invites readers to help:

What do you know?

Help us disclose the undisclosed.

Do you have any specific information about earmarks in which current members of Congress may have had a personal financial interest? Or do you have any tips on undisclosed financial conflicts that could help us create a more complete financial portrait of Congress?

Please submit your info in the box below; all replies will be handled with confidentiality.

Now that I’ve reported this, what do I think about it? I think… I’m still ambivalent about earmarks. I can occasionally get stirred up about them. Unlike members of Congress, I’d prefer that with rare exceptions, projects be prioritized by disinterested bureaucrats, based on criteria that are as objective as possible. But it also seems within the legitimate constitutional purview of Congress to direct spending as specifically as it likes, and sometimes a specific local project actually does have national importance. Charleston harbor, for instance. The Hoover Dam.

As for the cases reported here… well, they get into that fuzzy area that I’ve always had a problem with. The area where “ethics” is defined in terms of appearances, rather than right or wrong.

It occurs to me that, since members of Congress are certainly most likely to advocate projects in their own districts — something that is not inherently wrong, even though it has enormous potential for skewing national priorities — that a certain percentage of such projects will be “near” their own property. What percentage? Well…

If 33 have been caught doing so (and as I said, there are likely to be more), that means just over 6 percent of the 535 members of Congress may have considered self-interest in seeking these earmarks. I say “may” because this is very fuzzy territory. I expect that some element of venality entered the decision-making processes of some of these members. But all, or even most, of the accused 6 percent? I don’t know, but I doubt it.

Take that Jack Kingston guy. He sought beach renourishment money, and he owns a beach house about 900 feet from the beach. Set aside whether you think federal money should be spent pumping sand onto beaches. Is it unusual for members of Congress to help local officials get financing for such projects, whether they own beach property or not? No, it isn’t.

And that brings us to the problem of earmarks overall. Most of the time, it’s a highly flawed way to set spending priorities. But do I think this story is a major “gotcha” on Congress? No. But it will play that way. What’s Congress approval rating down to now? 13 percent? It may go a fractional bit lower, as a result of this story.

Not that it should. 84 percent disapproval seems like enough calumny heaped about these elected heads.

‘The Ides of March’ fails to meet expectations

11 Replies

In politics, particularly during the presidential primary season, when each step determines your momentum for the next, expectations can be everything. If you’re expected to win big, and you win modestly, then you lose. And so forth. Silly, but that’s the way it works.

By that standard, “The Ides of March” was for me a dud.

In fairness, I must cite the hyperbolic buildup. At dinner on the night that E.J. Dionne was here for the Bernardin lecture, there was a lot of buzz about the movie at my table. My good friend Moss Blachman made it sound like it was the greatest movie he’d seen in years. So I was eager to see it. Not eager enough to pay today’s exorbitant ticket prices to view it in a multiplex, but eager. I finally got it from Netflix this weekend.

And was disappointed. I had expected a cross between Robert Redford’s standard-setting “The Candidate” and some of George Clooney’s best recent work. Something with the depth of “Michael Clayton,” and the perception of “Up in the Air.” I felt like politics was due for that sort of treatment.

But I didn’t get that. Instead, I got a rather facile “ripped from today’s headlines” middling drama about… what was it about? Lost innocence? A descent into cynicism? Maybe. But it wasn’t a very deep descent. Or at least, the protagonist didn’t have far to descend from where he started.

What was missing? Well, first of all, any sense of why the campaign strategist played by Ryan Gosling thought the candidate played by Clooney was special. There are references to the fact that he does — that he has to believe in a candidate, and this is one he believes in (thereby making any disillusionment painful). But nothing happens or is said to make me believe it. The candidate seems pretty facile to me, nowhere near the kind of subtly redeemable character that I’ve seen Clooney play.

As for the protagonist — well, he seems pretty garden-variety, really. When his moment of shocked discovery comes, I simply don’t believe that he’s shocked. Nothing I’ve seen has persuaded me that he possesses enough of a moral sense to be shaken on a profound level. The character I’ve come to know by this point wouldn’t have a stunned look on his face; he would simply say, “OK, here’s a problem; let’s deal with it.”

Of course, by the end, what at the moment of revelation was indeed a garden-variety, way-of-the-world scandal has become something truly horrific, mainly because of the way our vapid antihero has mucked everything up.

Anyway, at the end of it all, there’s no one left standing that I can possibly care about — Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s character was the only admirable one we met along the way (the guy just refuses to turn in a bad, or even mediocre, performance, doesn’t he?). And we have learned nothing about politics, or human nature, or anything.

The thing is, we could really use a movie today that asks, and genuinely tries to answer, difficult questions about the state of politics in this country today. We’re still waiting for that film.

All that said, it was probably a B-minus or C-plus movie, an absolute score that doesn’t sound too bad. But I had expected an A-plus. So that means it failed.