Monthly Archives: April 2012

The videos we did for the Coble campaign

Here are the three videos ADCO created for the Daniel Coble runoff campaign. I like the way they came out.

I think you’ll find they’re a little different from what you usually see from a political campaign.

There are no “gotchas” here. We haven’t edited the truth to try to embarrass the opponent or make him look bad. Our purpose was more journalistic, to provide the voter with information they weren’t getting from news media, to help them make up their minds. Yes, we thought Daniel looked a little better than Moe in these clips. But the clips weren’t just chosen on that basis — in fact, we thought Daniel came across better throughout the debate, although Moe handled himself well, too. They were chosen because they struck a nice balance between complete answers, more than you’d get on TV news, without being so lengthy that the viewer wouldn’t lose interest and go away. (For instance, there were some really pertinent passages when the candidates discussed an important issue at some length — such as when Coble explained his position on water and sewer funds being used in the general fund, and did a good job with it — but we felt they were too long for this purpose.)

At the end of this forum, before the Melrose Neighborhood Association on Monday night, Moe Baddourah thanked the group and praised the format. He liked it because he wasn’t limited to 30-second answers as in some such gatherings. I think he was right, and you should be able to see some of what he liked about the format in these clips, even though we didn’t use some of the longer answers.

Each of the answers you see is mostly complete and unedited. I say “mostly” because in several cases, we trimmed the beginning of an answer and started the clip at the point when the candidate settled down to really answering the question — to the extent that he actually did answer it, which didn’t always happen.

You might watch these and decide you prefer Moe to Daniel, although I think most people will not. In any case, you can get a pretty good sense from watching them which of them approaches issues, and public service, in the way that you would prefer an elected representative to do.

I could elaborate here on the three clips and why we chose them, but I’d rather that those of you who are interested (particularly those who live in Columbia’s third district) would look at them with a fresh eye first, and after I see your reaction, I’ll elaborate.

Enjoy.

Charges filed in Trayvon Martin case

I had some things I wanted to say about this today, but I’ve run out of time — I’m on my way to a meeting that will last the rest of the afternoon.

So I thought I’d put up a post where y’all can start a discussion, and I’ll join you later in progress. Here’s the latest news:

SANFORD, Fla. — George Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch volunteer arrested on murder charges in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old, is scheduled to make his first court appearance Thursday afternoon.

Mr. Zimmerman, 28, was charged by a special prosecutor on Wednesday evening with second-degree murder. He is likely to appear with a new lawyer, Mark M. O’Mara, a well-known criminal lawyer, but it is not clear if a judge will set bail, or if Mr. Zimmerman will formally enter a plea.

Mr. O’Mara said in a brief interview on Wednesday night that when the time comes his client would plead not guilty…

Cindi Scoppe’s long, lonely battle against legislator pensions

Having brought your attention to the Coble endorsement in the paper today, I am reminded that I meant to point out Cindi Scoppe’s column yesterday. It’s one of the many she has written over the years trying to call attention to the ridiculously generous pensions that South Carolina legislators receive:

If you assume that it’s OK for our part-time legislators to receive a pension — and I don’t, but let’s make the assumption for the sake of simplicity — there still are three problems with the way the special legislative pension system operates:

•  Taxpayers subsidize legislative pensions at more than double the rate we subsidize regular employees’ pensions. For every dollar state legislators put into their system, taxpayers contribute $3.89; for every dollar most state employees contribute, the taxpayers contribute just $1.47.

The result is that, while no one is going to get rich off of a legislative pension, our part-time legislators can draw pensions that are actually larger than the ones received by the average full-time state employee who paid into the system for the same number of years.

•  Legislators are allowed to keep purchasing credit in the system at that same super-subsidized rate even after they leave office — even if voters kicked them out of office.

This is not the same as the program that allows regular state employees to purchase credit for years they worked for other entities in the past, at high rates that will (appropriately) get higher under this legislation. That program also is open to legislators, whose rates likewise will go up — but rarely would legislators want to purchase prior credit, since they get that super deal on future credit.

•  Legislators can elect to stop receiving their salaries and instead collect their pensions while they continue to serve — a benefit that because of that super-subsidy means they can collect a pension of as much as $33,000 instead of a salary of $10,400.

Those first two provisions are unique to the legislative pension system, and they are by far the most generous and most difficult to justify…

Cindi’s been at this for years. Lawmakers give lip service to wanting to do something about it, but somehow that never happens.

Here’s what a Coble endorsement looks like

Some readers seemed confused earlier as to what an “endorsement” of a candidate looked like. It looks like this, in The State today:

COLUMBIA City Council District 3 runoff opponents Moe Baddourah and Daniel Coble are solid candidates who share common priorities, from focusing on district needs to improving public safety and providing long-term funding for the public bus system.

They also share a common drawback: We fear their strong focus on constituent and district needs could lead them to put those interests ahead of more important citywide issues.

While the two men are pretty even in many ways, Mr. Coble does distinguish himself as the better candidate. His knowledge and understanding of city issues and how government works stood out among all candidates in the just-concluded council races….

Now I can’t say it’s a ringing, unequivocal endorsement. Daniel is The State‘s second choice for the seat. My old colleagues initially endorsed Jenny Isgett, who did not make it into the runoff.

Now if I did endorse someone, it would be Daniel. It so happens that the candidate ADCO is doing work for is the one I would choose were I endorsing. But wait, you say! Isn’t my saying that an endorsement?

Not to me. I’ve spent many years of my life doing endorsements, and I have a very clear idea of what one is. To me, an endorsement involves setting forth a series of arguments as to why someone is the better candidate. As I’ve said thousands of times over the years, the value in an endorsement is the reasons why, not the mere who.

That goes to the core of why newspapers do endorsements (and should do endorsements). It doesn’t matter whether a reader ultimately agrees with the endorsement or not. It is valuable to have considered the arguments, whether you accept them in the end or not. For having spent that time reading a carefully constructed case for a candidate, your own ultimate decision will have been better-considered.

The endorsement in The State today is pretty good. It’s not exactly what I would have written, and were I still the editor I’d have made some changes in the piece, but I generally agree with the points made.

Who’s your fave Republican celeb?

How’d you like that Teen Beat-style headline?

I figured that was what a silly feature like this deserved. But after following a Wonkette link to this Zimbio feature, I must confess I clicked through all the lonely Hollywood conservatives to see who was on the list. Most are usual suspects: Ah-nold, Ted Nugent, Clint Eastwood…

One surprise was Vince Vaughn. I wonder if that’s accurate?

My biggest disappointment was that my favorite Hollywood conservative, avid Tweeter Adam Baldwin, was missing.

And where would they be without ME, I’d like to know

Well, I was deeply shocked when I received this mere moments ago:

Members of the elite media establishment –

Next Wednesday, April 18, marks a big milestone for Pub Politics – Episode 100.

What started as just me, Phil, a few beers and a camera, has turned into a weekly must-attend event viewed by thousands online.

We’re going to throw down and we want you to be there to cover our big day.

WHEN: Wednesday, April 18, 6:00 pm

WHERE: Jake’s in 5 Points, Columbia, SC

WHO: Attorney General Alan Wilson with more guests to be named later this week. ‘The Project,’ a band led by State Representative James Smith, will perform.

I would really appreciate you coming out to celebrate with us.

Sincerely,

Wesley Donehue

Can you imagine it? They’re having their big 100-show bash, and they haven’t asked me, their one-and-only seven-timer, to be a featured guest! Would they have come this far without me? Where would “Laugh-In” have been without Tiny Tim, or Charo? That’s what I’m on about. (“Help! Help! I’m being repressed!”)

Sure, they called me a member of the elite media establishment, but that’s old hat to me. I want to be treated like the star that I am.

Be sure to write to the network (after all, it worked so well in saving “Firefly”), or whomever, and express your shock and outrage.

Here they come, all right — and ‘they’ includes YOU

A fragment from the latest of the DCCC releases that come to me several times a day, which was headlined, “here they come…“:

Since Rick Santorum dropped out yesterday, the Obama-Romney general election has fully engaged.

Just hours after Santorum’s announcement, Karl Rove teamed up with the Koch Brothers to launch a $1.7 million SuperPAC ad buy attacking President Obama in key battleground states.

There’s too much at stake to fall behind Romney, Rove, and the Koch Brothers.

Since the general election kicked off yesterday, we’re only 951 donors away from our goal of 10,000 supporters standing strong for President Obama and a Democratic Majority.

Contribute $3 or more right now to fight back against the Republicans’ swift-boat attacks >>…

My favorite part, I think, is that excellent example of the way parties use completely nonsensical terminology that they know has a proven track record of stirring the emotions of their base — in this case, “swift-boating.” (A term that hasn’t had any sort of relevance for eight years, and never had the meaning that Democrats ascribe to it — but it stirs the indignation of the faithful, and that’s the point.)

This release can be understood on several levels. One is face value: Now that his chief rival has dropped out, Mitt Romney will turn his full evil machine on our beloved President Obama, so you must give us money so we can fight him! Which is problematic in that the situation is not new. Romney has been trying to ignore his rivals and focus on the general election since before the Iowa caucuses; he just kept getting distracted. Now, you’ll see more of the same, with fewer distractions.

Then there’s another, ironic level. This is but one of a very long series of missives over the past few months going after Mitt Romney (remember how bemused I was that the Dems were totally focused on Romney, even as Gingrich was winning the SC primary?), and also trying to scare you into giving money so the party could keep doing so. No Rubicon is being crossed here, folks. Just another step on a long, boring road.

But there is one sense in which we are seeing a qualitative change at this moment. We are, with the departure of Santorum (although not of Gingrich or Paul), entering waters that partisans on both sides have longed to enter. We are entering the area where, according to the self-justifying propaganda of both sides, they believe they have the excuse to throw off any constraints that might in the past have pulled them somewhat in the direction of truth and proportion.

In other words, here they come — the Dems and Repubs both — and their coming at us with stuff likely to be even more outrageous than what we’ve seen.

For months, the two sides have been preparing their followers for this moment. During the SC primary campaign, I repeatedly heard and saw Republicans excusing the attacks they were hurling at each other by saying, “You’d better toughen up and learn to take it now, because if you’re the nominee, this is nothing compared to the horrible stuff that Obama will throw at you in the fall.” And I would turn and look at Obama, and I would wonder whom they were talking about. We’ve all seen the kinds of campaigns Obama runs. The fact that he was NOT like that was a prime reason why we endorsed him in the 2008 SC primary.

Meanwhile, the Dems have been working as hard as ever to demonize the opposition, building to this moment when they could say, “Now these monsters will stop chewing on each other and come after US!” At which point we’re all supposed to run for the hills or something. No, excuse me — we’re supposed to throw all our money at the Democratic Party (which will FIGHT for us!) and then run for the hills.

Well, thanks for the warning. You’ve  reminded me that it’s time to batten down the hatches. A squall of foolishness is headed our way. Here they come…

Something you should know: I’m helping Coble

The Melrose event Monday night.

Last night I went to a debate between Daniel Coble and Moe Baddourah sponsored by the Melrose Neighborhood Association. But I’m not going to tell you what I think about what was said there because I wasn’t there as a blogger. This is complicated by the fact that various people who saw me there, including Moe, probably think I was there as a blogger. So this is to set the record straight.

I’ll start at the beginning.

Lately, a large part of my job with ADCO has been business development. In connection with that, I went to breakfast one morning several weeks ago (Feb. 23) with my old friend Bud Ferillo, and I urged him that if he ever finds himself in a situation where he’s representing a client who needs some of the services that ADCO provides, he should give me a call.

Sometime later (I’m not exactly sure when, but my first email on the subject was on the Ides of March), he gave me a buzz and said he needed some help with the production of some last-minute mailings for the Daniel Coble campaign. Fine. I put him in contact with colleagues here at ADCO with expertise in that area, and they helped him out.

At that point, I wasn’t directly involved, beyond getting people together. (I didn’t even see the mailings until after they were done and gone.) Nevertheless, when I interviewed Moe for this post, and when I interviewed Mike Miller for this one, I mentioned what my company was doing to help out Bud on Daniel’s behalf. Neither of them expressed any concern. (I meant to tell Jenny Isgett when I interviewed her, but later realized I had forgotten. And given the reactions of the other candidates, it didn’t seem worth a separate call. I’ll let you be the judge whether I was right about that.)

Then, over the next couple of weeks, I got slightly more involved, but only in the sense of being a conduit for communications between the campaign and folks at ADCO.

Last Thursday, my status changed. On that day, Bud asked whether ADCO could shoot video at a debate Monday night, and provide YouTube clips contrasting the candidates. I checked, and our usual in-house people couldn’t do it that night. There wasn’t time for handling things the usual way. I went ahead and personally lined up a free-lancer, Brett Flashnick, who readily agreed to help out.

So I was there last night in case he had questions, and also so I could witness the whole debate, and be able to help him in editing the video. This afternoon, Brett and Bud and I spent between two and three hours going through video and choosing some clips of good YouTube length. Brett has left now and will send Bud and Daniel the finished product to see if they approve.

So basically, I’ve been heavily involved now in making editorial judgments about campaign materials. I wasn’t involved in that way at all before, but I am now.

Even before things got to this point, I was worried about what, if anything, I should write about the campaign. When I wrote about all those endorsements that Daniel got on March 29, the news was so helpful (in my opinion) to the Coble campaign that I worried that I wasn’t reporting anything of similar impact from the other campaigns, and that it could look like I was favoring him. But I couldn’t figure out how to balance things out. Neither Moe nor Jenny were generating news like that; I wasn’t seeing anything new to react to.

Now that I write that, I realize that as indirect as my involvement was before, I should have told y’all about it. The fact that it was entering my head, that I was worrying about whether I was being 100 percent fair or not, even a little bit, means I should have told y’all so you could judge for yourselves. But I didn’t. I thought about it, but I decided that I was overthinking things, and that all I would accomplish would be to make the connection sound like a bigger deal than it was. Which is a case of over-overthinking, now that I think further (over-over-overthink) about it.

Also, I thought this: The fact that Daniel was the only candidate advertising on my blog (and I assure you, the other candidates had the same opportunities to do so that he did) was a greater apparent conflict than my indirect involvement with those mailings. And y’all knew about that — you could see the ad — and were therefore forewarned and armed to make any judgments you chose to make as to whether I was being fair.

Regardless of decisions I made in the past, there’s no question now: Y’all should know that I am involved at this point. So, anything else I say about this runoff (which probably won’t be much) must be considered in light of the fact that I’ve definitely, directly, done work to help the Coble campaign. I fact, I invite you to go back and read everything else I’ve written up to now (just use the search feature to look for the candidates’ names), and decide for yourself.

Of course, this is an opinion blog. I never make any pretense to news-style “objectivity.” But what I invite you to do is see whether you think any subjective judgments I’ve made were ones I would have made anyway, without any involvement in the campaign. Actually, what I see when I look back is that I held back from expressing any strong opinions or preferences. Which means that what I wrote was affected. Because that’s not normal for me.

All of this is making my head hurt. This, of course, is why people who make their livings as reporters and editors just don’t get involved, period. Or at least, that’s the way it used to be when there were good, full-time jobs to be had in that field.

Now, increasingly, news (or at least commentary) is brought to you by people who make their livings some other way. Which is something you have long known about me.

Life is confusing here in the New Normal, and all I can figure out to do about it is to tell y’all what I’m doing. Which I just did.

‘There goes that Obama, undermining initiative…’

Twitter drew me to this picture (which I’m not actually placing on the blog because I can’t afford to pay what AP demands for rights to pictures), which had this caption:

President Barack Obama helps a little boy roll his egg to the finish line during the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, Monday, April 9, 2012, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington. In the background, at left are Malia Obama and Sasha Obama. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

As soon as I read that, even before I saw the picture itself, I could imagine what the GOP commentary on the image would be like: Obama undermines individual initiative, picks winners in state-run event.

In the next wave, we’d hear, And look at how the media made that little boy look so precious and harmless! Why didn’t they wait until he was 17, and get him in a hoodie with facial hair?

Do you think I’m exaggerating?

Interesting speaker this week..

Carl Evans over at USC brings this to my attention:

Friends,

Sheryl WuDunn, the first Asian-Amerian reporter to win a Pulitzer Prize, will be speaking in Gambrell Hall this Wednesday, April 11, at 6:00 p.m.  If you care about social justice and especially about issues facing women around the globe you will be interested in WuDunn’s talk.

WuDunn is the author of Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, co-written with her husband Nicholas Kristoff, a New York Times op-ed writer.

There is also a related colloquium at Columbia College this evening, April 9, from 6-7 p.m.  Please read the attachment for additional details about both the lecture and the colloquium.

Regards,

Carl

Personally, I’m not familiar with her work, but I’m a great admirer of her husband’s, and I sense that she’s been a strong influence on him.

Because of his work, I would not expect this lecture to be a string of feminist cliches. I expect that her critique is reality-based, like Kristof’s, based on what she’s actually seen in the world.

That’s one of the things I really appreciate about Kristof. He’s the kind of liberal who routinely flies in the face of the left’s (and anyone else’s) orthodoxy, based on his first-hand knowledge of real conditions. For instance, he’s the guy who persuaded me of how indefensible the Democratic position was on the Colombia Free Trade agreement several years back.

As for the plight of women, there’s little room for argument over the outrages he exposes in the parts of the world where “war on women” wouldn’t actually be true and not absurd hyperbole. I wouldn’t be surprised if his wife has a similarly compelling message. Perhaps even more so.

If we could just suspend the Constitution long enough to take care of this ONE thing…

I spent Easter weekend at the beach with some of my family. We stayed at the beach house that my grandfather built in Surfside Beach. It’s on a small, narrow freshwater lake — the twins call it “the river” because it is so long and narrow that that’s what it looks like — with the ocean a couple of blocks beyond.

I don’t get there often, but we made it this time. The weather was beautiful. We had the whole day free Sunday (at least, until we had to drive back), having attended Easter Vigil Mass at my cousin’s church in Conway.

Between the Easter egg hunt with the twins and dinner, I managed to find a few quiet moments to lie in the hammock right next to the lake. Conditions were perfect. The breeze was perfect. I put some early Steve Miller Band on my iPhone and set it next to my head (I had no earbuds) as I prepared to snooze. I was right on the verge of doing something unusual for me — thoroughly enjoy the outdoors.

Just then, the roar of a riding lawnmower started up about 20 feet from my head, over on the lot next door. The guy on the mower was not the owner of that property, but a stranger. He was doing this for pay, on Easter Sunday.

I went inside fuming about it, but took solace from the fact that with that riding mower and he being a professional, it couldn’t take more than 10 minutes for him to mow that yard. I even found myself making excuses for him in my mind: Poor fellow must be desperate for the income to be mowing lawns today…

Then I headed back outside and resolved to escape the noise the way Huck Finn escaped the things that he didn’t like about “sivilization.” I got into the jon boat and pushed off with an oar to drift across the lake. It’s only about 40 yards across. As I drifted, I realized to my horror that some unseen fiend was using a leaf blower on the far side. Which sounded even worse.

I turned back as the first guy stopped mowing, only to see that the heathen mercenary had started using a weedeater.

I changed course again and started rowing perpendicular to the line between these two abominations.

As the first guy put down his weedeater and picked up a leaf-blower of his own — to blow the yard trash he had cut out onto the surface of the lake — I paused to write the following on Twitter:

Forget the Constitution: Anyone operating obnoxious power tools on such a beautiful Easter Sunday should be drawn and quartered, then fined.

I was reTweeted and received supportive replies from several folks (one who totally got into the Swiftian spirit of the thing wrote, “And then punished in a manner that could be considered cruel and unusual for such a crime.”). Good to know there are some sane people left in this world.

And the runoff begins…

Got this this morning from Daniel Coble:

In Tuesday’s District 3 City Council three-way race, I came within 60 votes of catching front-runner Moe Baddourah and leading the District. In less than two weeks, I face him again in a run-off election for the City Council seat. I am very gratified for the support of friends and neighbors within the District and around Columbia for getting me to this point!! A lot rides on this election. And with your help, we will win Tuesday, April 17.

The contrast between Mr. Baddourah’s priorities and my own for serving Columbia could not be more stark. While Baddourah has run his campaign solely on the interests of businesses, I am committed to a more balanced approach that protects neighborhoods while growing our businesses and keeping them prosperous. The result of Baddourah’s narrowly focused campaign would block progress for our City and put at risk the capacity of the City to fully fund essential services like law enforcement. He hasn’t answered how he would replace lost revenue. And he hasn’t said what services should be cut.

My focus on protecting our City’s essential services like public safety and neighborhood protection is highlighted by the endorsement of our campaign by local leaders such as Sheriff Leon Lott and current District 3 City Council Representative Dr. Belinda Gergel. I want to maintain the City’s capacity to help District 3 residents, small businesses, and our economy. And know that I will represent your interests and all other important issues in our District to continue to strengthen our great city! I would be honored to represent District 3 and to carry forward the important priorities of our community that are the backbone of our campaign:

  • Protecting our Neighborhoods
  • Public Safety and Crime Reduction
  • Environmental Protection and Sustainability Programs
  • Economic and Local Business Development
  • Development of our Cultural and Arts Communities
  • Improved Public Transportation
  • Important Historic Preservation
  • Meeting the Needs of District 3 and Columbia Residents!

I am putting together a plan of action to win on April 17. But I need your help to make it possible. Would you support my candidacy by making a donation NOW to support this larger effort? Your gift of $1000, $500, $250, $100, $50 or whatever you choose or are able to give (donations of any size are greatly appreciated and will be well used), would help me communicate and get out supporters for the run-off election.

In order to help, you can give online here or mail your donations to:

Coble for Council
PO Box 50524
Columbia, SC 29250

Our city is a breathing, vibrant and growing community. Every new generation of Columbia has been tasked with the job of re-inventing our community anew. This is the work before us. And with your help now, we will make this new vision a reality.

I haven’t received anything from Moe Baddourah. I need to give him a call and make sure I’m on his email list…

Oh, say can you see that my head is exploding?

Doug Ross sent this to Kathryn to send to me, with this message:

Please send this to Brad. I think his head will explode.

I don’t know why he didn’t sent it directly to me. I could probably figure out why, but my head just exploded.

Yep, I think that ranks as the worst, least respectful version of our anthem I’ve heard.

OK, so maybe the Roseanne Barr version was worse, because it was intentionally disrespectful. This Stacey Q person, whoever she is, probably thought she was doing something good. So it ranks as the worst that didn’t mean to be the worst.

Why can’t these kids today do it in the proper, traditional manner, the way they did it in my day (see the clip below)?

Seriously, though, my favorite that comes immediately to mind is the version that Ken Burns used during the opening credits of each episode of his “Baseball” series. It’s by the Big League Orchestra, and you can hear it here. I think what really makes it for me is the never-ending roll on the snare drums. That creates a tension, an excitement, that stirs the blood all the way through. Or something. Maybe Phillip could explain it.

Could future journalists uncover a Watergate?

I was intrigued by this question that The Washington Post posed on Twitter today: “Could the Web generation uncover a Watergate-type scandal?”

I followed the link and saw that the piece was based on a panel discussion featuring Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. They had their doubts:

“One of the colleges asked students in a journalism class to write a one-page paper on how Watergate would be covered now,” said Bob Woodward, “and the professor — ”

“Why don’t you say what school it was,” suggested Carl Bernstein, sitting to Woodward’s left in a session titled “Watergate 4.0: How Would the Story Unfold in the Digital Age?”

“Yale,” Woodward said. “He sent the one-page papers that these bright students had written and asked that I’d talk to the class on a speakerphone afterward. So I got them on a Sunday, and I came as close as I ever have to having an aneurysm, because the students wrote that, ‘Oh, you would just use the Internet and you’d go to “Nixon’s secret fund” and it would be there.’ ”

“This is Yale,” Bernstein said gravely.

“That somehow the Internet was a magic lantern that lit up all events,” Woodward said. “And they went on to say the political environment would be so different that Nixon wouldn’t be believed, and bloggers and tweeters would be in a lather and Nixon would resign in a week or two weeks after Watergate.”

A small ballroom of journalists — which included The Washington Post’s top brass, past and present — chuckled or scoffed at the scenario…

I also enjoyed the way the piece, written by Dan Zak, characterized the Woodstein legacy:

Tuesday’s panel briefly reunited the pair, whose untangling of the Nixon administration inspired a generation of journalists who have since been laid off or bought out in large numbers. Woodward and Bernstein’s main point was evocative of a previous, plentiful era: Editors gave them the time and encouragement to pursue an intricate, elusive story, they said, and then the rest of the American system (Congress, the judiciary) took over and worked. It was a shining act of democratic teamwork that neither man believes is wholly replicable today — either because news outlets are strapped or gutted, or because the American people have a reduced appetite for ponderous coverage of a not-yet-scandal, or because the current Congress would never act as decisively to investigate a president.

For the record, while I may indeed be one of those “who have since been laid off or bought out in large numbers,” I didn’t get the idea to go into journalism from these two guy — however much their example may have encouraged me. I was already working as a copy boy at The Commercial Appeal when I first heard of them…

Three times in a week, I’m mistaken for Mike

It happened two more times last night.

Mike Miller

After dropping by the victory party Cameron Runyan was having at 701 Whaley, I went to Kit Smith’s house to see what was happening with Daniel Coble. I went in wondering whether things were going well — and knowing that if they weren’t, people would feel somewhat constrained with a blogger in their midst. It only took a moment to find out that Daniel was a close second in a runoff, and that the campaign felt good about that — better than if they had been in a runoff with Jenny Isgett.

As I was absorbing that, a nice lady came up to me and started telling me that while she hadn’t followed me all that closely when I was at the newspaper, she had really come to appreciate my work, and she really, truly appreciated that I had decided to throw in my lot with the Coble campaign, and then she gave me a big hug. As I was trying figure this out, and muttering, “But I’m not… that is, I’m neutral… I mean…,” Bud Ferillo explained that I was there as a blogger. At which point the lady stepped back and looked at me and realized who I was.

Which was not Mike Miller.

A very short while later, I was in another room discussing the state of the world with Joel Smith, and a man came up to me and said, “Hi, you’re Mike Miller. I’m…,” at which point I interrupted to say, “No, I’m not.”

Not Mike Miller.

I told you previously about how this happened over at Belinda Gergel’s house the day she and Mike and Steve Morrison endorsed Daniel.

I don’t know what it is (it’s not like Mike looks like THIS guy), but I can almost sorta kinda see it. And I have this vague memory of this mistake having happened once or twice, long ago, when we worked at the paper together. Something about general similarity in height and weight and maybe head shape, and now hair color. We’re both from the Pee Dee (he’s from Dillon;  I’m from Bennettsville), but I don’t think that’s it.

Most of the folks at that gathering had on Daniel Coble stickers. I felt like I needed my own sticker, in the same yellow-and-black motif that Rob Barge designed for him, saying “I’m not Mike Miller.” But I don’t know if it would do any good…

What if Malthus was actually right for once?

Not that I think for a moment he will be — no one in the history of ideas was ever more spectacularly wrong (the poor fellow argued that resources would never be able to keep up with population growth even as an agricultural revolution led to much faster growth in food supplies than in population).

But some still predict that he will be. Andrew Sullivan drew my attention to this:

Grain yields are beginning to hit a “glass ceiling” in many countries, Brown said, where farmers have already taken advantage of what science has to offer for improving yield. As more and more countries hit an upper limit on productivity, the world grain harvest will begin to plateau, even as demand for food continues to rise, causing a rise in prices. More worrisome, the global food market is vulnerableto external shocks such as prolonged drought. “We don’t have idle land, we’re flat out,” says Brown. “We don’t have [food] stocks. We’re living harvest to harvest. The question becomes, what if we have a major shortfall in the world?”

Of course, if Malthus were ever proven right, that would be an extraordinarily bad thing. So I continue to root against him, even as I occasionally worry: Have you bought a bad of “topsoil” lately? It’s like all chunks of bark and stuff…

The biggest cognitive divide in politics

This was something I wrote as a comment on another thread, but I think it deserves its own post.

We were talking about the Midlands transit system, such as it is, and Stephen, making the sort of “me vs. you” argument that we generally hear from Doug, protested that “It’s not my responsibility to make sure an employee gets to work.”

I responded along these lines…

Stephen, it’s not that it’s your “responsibility to make sure an employee gets to work.” It’s that it’s in your interest (and everyone else’s in the community) to do so.

But if you’re like Doug, I’ll probably never convince you of that. You either get it or you don’t.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the biggest cognitive divide in politics. It’s not between “liberals” and “conservatives.” It’s between people who see the interconnectivity, and those who don’t.

Note that I don’t say “believe in” interconnectivity, or “advocate” interconnectivity. It’s not a matter of “should be” or “ought to.” The interdependence, the complex way in which our fates are intertwined in a modern economy, simply IS. And we either have policies and strategies that acknowledge the fact and address it effectively, or we don’t.

I should have known it would be Moe

If there’s one thing an INTP should know, it’s to go with his gut.

Which I did not do yesterday.

From the start of the campaign for the District 3 seat on Columbia City Council, I had thought Moe Baddourah was the guy to beat. Yes, partly that was because of all the yard signs. Months ago (way early in terms of conventional yard sign theory), I saw about 10 on one block of Wheat Street. Everywhere you went in the district: “Moe!”

Beyond that, there was his convincing assurance that he had learned a lot from Seth Rose in losing to him two years ago, and was applying the lessons.

So until very recently, I was sure that it would be Moe and someone else in a runoff. Either Daniel Coble or Jenny Isgett.

But then, in the last days of the campaign, I heard that there were polling data out there indicating that Jenny Isgett would come in either first or second, with Daniel Coble being in a runoff with her. It was counterintuitive, but then I thought, “Hey, we’re talking small number of voters here, so tiny fluctuations can make a difference and overwhelm the factors that you’re seeing out there.” That caused me to overthink what I was seeing. I started thinking, “Moe peaked too soon.” (Of course, I was aware that with such a small number of voters, even the best polling data could be negated by relatively small shifts on Election Day — which was why I hedged my prediction.)

Well, we saw what happened. My gut was right all along.

As it usually is. I should have known better than to be so influenced by one hearsay data point.

Always trust the gut, without overwhelming evidence to the contrary…

Anyway, now it’s Moe and Daniel in a tight runoff. Right now, either of them could win. My gut is telling me that Coble should be able to win over more Isgett voters than Baddourah, but it’s also telling me it isn’t sure yet. It’s still collecting cosmic waves, or whatever. And it has fresh reason not to count Moe out.

When it’s sure, I may tell you. Then again, I may not. This latest experience is reminding my why I avoided making predictions for so many years.

Runyan calls turnout ‘extremely low’

This came in from Cameron Runyan while I was at lunch:

Friends —

I wanted to give you a quick Election Day update from the field.

We’re just under halfway through voting and our poll greeters report that turnout is EXTREMELY LOW across the city. I’ve been out speaking with voters at voting locations all day and have observed the same thing.

What does that mean? It means that your vote in today’s Columbia City Council At-Large election could make the difference.

So if you haven’t voted yet, please be sure to do so before polls close at 7 p.m. There is too much at stake for the future of our great city to not vote today.

And please share this message with your family, friends and neighbors and encourage them to vote Cameron Runyan for City Council in today’s election.

CLICK HERE TO FORWARD THIS MESSAGE

If you need a ride to vote, please call  803-348-4571 . Someone will pick you up and take you to the polls. If you’re not sure where to vote, you can find out here.

After voting ends at 7 p.m. this evening, please stop by 701 Whaley Street for our Election Night Celebration. We’ll have the election results as they come in.

As always, I thank you for your support, your friendship and all you are doing to help me build a better Columbia.

In service,

Cameron Runyan

For my readers who live in Columbia: Have you voted? And what was it like at your precinct?

Here’s what’s going to happen today

Since I’m not endorsing anybody in this Columbia city election, I need to have something to say about it. So I’ll do the most indiscreet, foolish thing anyone can do — make predictions.

Here’s what’s going to happen:

  • Brian DeQuincey Newman will be re-elected in District 2.
  • Cameron Runyan will be elected to the at-large seat, possibly even without a runoff (although it’s extra hard to make a prediction like that with turnout as low as it appears to be).
  • Daniel Coble will be in a runoff with Jenny Isgett in District 3. The runoff will break roughly along standard Coble/Gergel/Shandonista vs. Finlay/Rickenmann/Tomlin lines (except for Shandonista women who just vote for a woman), offering a re-run of the battle four years ago between Belinda Gergel and Brian Boyer.

And yeah, the only one I’m going out on a limb on is District 3. For all I know, Moe Baddourah could be the eventual winner. But I don’t think so.

All of it is hard to call because turnout is so light, making small fluctuations mean more than they otherwise would. I was talking thismorning with Sam Davis, who mentioned how light voting was so far. I said that was to be expected, and he didn’t agree. But he offered a possible explanation for it that would be good for him and the other incumbents — that city voters are pleased with the current direction of the council.

Maybe. We’ll see.