Editor’s note: Kevin Fisher called this morning and mentioned that I had failed to provide a link to his column. Which is embarrassing. Mea maxima culpa. Here’s the link (and now each reference to his column below also features a link. Sorry about that, Kevin.
A week ago today, Kevin Fisher gave me another of those phone calls to let me know he would be referring to me in his column that was coming out in the Free Times the next day.
“Uh-oh,” I said. “Am I in trouble?”
Oh, no, nothing like that. He had just liked something I had said earlier this year, so he quoted the headline from that post, “Sheheen makes entirely unobjectionable speech at Energy Summit.” His point in quoting it was to say that Vincent is playing it too safe in his bid to be governor.
I’m glad Kevin liked what I wrote, and it’s true: Vincent doesn’t set the world on fire as a public speaker. Regrettably, I don’t agree with the ultimate point of Kevin’s column, headlined “Sheheen and Gay Marriage — No Guts, No Glory,” which is that Vincent failed to be a stand-up guy when he didn’t reverse himself and come out in favor of same-sex marriage.
Kevin presents a lot of strong-sounding points on his way to that conclusion — that he knows one of the women who filed the lawsuit, and she’s a fine public servant of whom we should all be proud; that Sheheen is the standard-bearer for a party that now identifies itself nationally as favoring same-sex marriage; that Vincent needs to light a fire under his base somehow, and maybe changing his position on this would do it; that it’s not even that politically risky any more to make such a change.
It’s a better-reasoned column than the one by Chris Haire in City Paper the week before, “S.C. Dem Vincent Sheheen says FU to gay marriage in an effort to woo GOPers.” (Apparently, saying “Furman University” is now a faux pas akin to the gratuitous use of the word “Belgium,” and is so rude that initials must be used.) But then, Chris labels his column as containing “biting commentary and rabid rants.” So, he’s just doing his thing.
As I said, Kevin’s is better reasoned, and doesn’t rely on such terms as “yellowbellied.”
But there’s a central flaw in it. It ignores the highly-likely possibility that Vincent Sheheen actually, honestly does not support same-sex marriage. In that case — and until the candidate says something to the contrary, I believe that IS the case — all of those strong-sounding points Kevin makes are countered. The fact that the Highway Patrolwoman Kevin knows is an admirable person who stands up courageously for what she believes in doesn’t mean Vincent is required to believe the same thing. The fact that national leaders of the Democratic Party now support same-sex marriage doesn’t mean Vincent Sheheen has to. The position he holds is the same one Barack Obama, Joe Biden, et al., held a couple of years back. Remember? They were against it before they were for it. Sheheen’s supposed error here is that he still believes now what he believed then. Or he says he does, and I believe him.
And as for the polls, if every other voter in South Carolina now supported same-sex marriage, but Vincent Sheheen disagreed, how would saying he agreed with them make him a stand-up guy? Seems like it would make him the opposite.
Mind you, I’m pinning a lot on the man actually meaning what he says. But I’ve seen no reason to believe that he does not.
Do I think it was Vincent’s finest moment? Nope. But I also believe there was nothing he could have done to make it come out better. It was a no-win situation. He could change his mind on the issue, and invite the culture warriors of the right to paint him as an automaton who lets the national Democratic Party (which, you may have noticed, is not terribly popular here) do his thinking for him. Or he could stick to his position, and dismay and even hurt a lot of people who otherwise would be enthusiastically supporting him. (And frankly, I think it was his aversion to hurting the feelings of good, sincere people who would take his position personally that made him soften the blow by having his campaign manager address it, rather than saying something himself.)
Either way, it’s a mess. In such a situation, he might as well just be honest. Which I’m assuming is the course he chose…
Related Posts
If he sincerely does oppose same sex marriage that is a reason to vote against him. If he’s pandering that too is a reason to vote against him. On this, like so many other issues in state elections liberals have no one to support. Not sure it’s worth the bother to stand in line next November.
Why does Vinnie hate teh gheys?
Because a) he knows he will get the Democrat vote anyway and b) he needs to find a couple crossover issues (guns & gays) to get enough Republicans to vote for him.
He could be a man about it and speak for himself directly and clearly on why gay marriage in South Carolina would cause anyone any harm… but I don’t expect him to. Better to hope this one just gets lost in the din of Haley bashing over the next year.
I agree – my question was supposed to be rhetorical. Vinnie will run as far to the right as he can, staying just to the left of Haley – the classic “ice cream vendors on the beach” example from econ 101. He’ll try to peel off some republicans, because his Democrat base – including the gays, will vote for him anyhow. I also wish he’d “man up” and tell us how he really feels. Nikki’s been a tremendous disappointment, but at least
you might get a shot of leg from heryou know where you stand with her, at this point.Vincent
Thank you.
Not having studied economics in college, I wasn’t familiar with the “two ice cream vendors on the beach” problem. Despite its obvious application to politics. Here’s a link, for others as ignorant as I was.
I know where we stand with both of them. They’ve told us. This might shock some people, but what politicians say is usually a pretty good guide to what they mean. When I see a reason to believe someone’s lying, I reassess. But in this case, all the evidence points to them meaning what they say.
That Vincent would think, or “feel,” something different seems unlikely here.
Vinnie is a big state government, big spending federal government,free spending liberal. Is that what he’s “saying” in his campaign?
Vincent
What did Vincent say and when did he say it? Did he personally make a public statement and take any questions to get him to expound on his views or did he just release a statement and run for cover? Is he steadfast in his opposition to gay marriage to the point that he will never, ever be convinced otherwise?
If he wins, he will likely be faced with this issue sometime within the next 4-8 years. It’s coming sooner or later.
Why is it important to you that he talk about this personally? He handled it about the way I would under the circumstances, and given his position. I have no questions to ask him on the subject.
I assume that a person would hold the same position in the future that he holds now, since the one he holds now is the same that he has held in the past.
It makes no sense to ask whether someone will change his mind in the future. If he says yes, it means he already has changed his mind. Which he hasn’t, according to the evidence available to us.
If he did change his mind at some future date, then that’s when he would be accountable for explaining his position. Politicians are free to change their minds (something I wish they’d do more often — ideological slavery to past statements doesn’t serve the republic well). But they should explain such changes to constituents.
Since it wouldn’t occur to me to vote for or against someone on the basis of this issue, what he might or might not do about it three or four years from now does not interest me. It’s not exactly one of the top ten responsibilities on the gubernatorial job description.
So when did he speak about this issue and what did he say? That’s what I am trying to understand.
Even though you wouldn’t vote based on this issue, can you understand that there are some people who might? It isn’t important to you but it may be very important to 5% or more of the population of the state and somewhat important to even more people. For some of those people it is THE most important issue… far more important than 4K kindergarten or the generic “government restructuring” issues.
He owes those people a full explanation. Ducking it for political reasons demonstrates his character.
It would be good to know just how strongly held his beliefs are in this area. Is he opposed to any and all benefits to gay couples? Does he believe homosexuality is a sin? Does he believe there should be a different class of crimes specifically related to attacks on gays? What specific rights and government benefits should be denied to gays?
I don’t think he has “ducked” anything. I think the way he addressed it, through a campaign aide, is completely adequate. There was no news here. His position is what it was. Given that, it doesn’t even rise to dog bites man, because everything stays the same.
I’d have seen it as posturing for votes for him to make a thing of it, the way Nikki did. This feels like the right way. Here’s why:
This is not a personal issue to him. But he knows there are many good people out there to whom it IS a personal issue. It’s one thing for a campaign aide to say, essentially, “We have nothing new to say here. No news. Move along.”
It’s another entirely for him to stand before cameras and essentially say to all the people out there for whom it IS a personal issue that he disagrees with them. Because while to him it is simply a matter of rejecting an argument, many of those who take it personally will see it as rejecting THEM, personally. I think we’ve all observed that this is true, regardless of our respective positions on the matter.
I think he didn’t want to be personally hurtful to anyone. But given his position, the only way he could avoid that completely would be to say something he doesn’t believe. Given a choice between rubbing something hurtful into people’s faces and being dishonest, he chose to be honest in the lowest-key manner possible.
As I said, a no-win situation. But he handled the no-win situation with the most tact and delicacy possible under the circumstances.
Oh, and allow me to point out that 4K and government restructuring affect 100 percent of the population of South Carolina, whether those people are deeply interested in the topics or not.
I find that fairly few of the most important subjects facing state government are terribly interesting to most people. Meanwhile football and “reality” TV seem to endlessly fascinate. Which are neither here nor there.
I prefer that a candidate for state office take an interest in the “dull” critical issues facing state government, rather than posturing on culture war issues, or obsessing over what Barack Obama is doing. I appreciate relevance in a candidate. And for me, “relevance” doesn’t mean the latest hot watercooler topic; it means the things that actually matter, things that affect the health, wealth and wisdom of South Carolinians going forward.
The only person he was protecting was himself. Are you saying he could not defend his opinion without saying something hurtful about another group of people? And using a surrogate demonstrates that behavior even more. Once again he has proven that he lacks the basic leadership skills to be in an executive position.
Chances are that this WILL be a personal issue for him someday (if it hasn’t already). He will have a family member, a close friend, a co-worker who will come to him and say “I am gay and I want to marry my partner. Will you support me?” And then he’ll apparently send out his mouthpiece to say, “Sorry, no. But please continue to vote for me.”
In reply to, “Are you saying he could not defend his opinion without saying something hurtful about another group of people?”
Yes, I am saying that. I know, from having paid attention to these debates, that it is impossible even to state, much less to explain, his position on this without some folks taking it very personally and being very hurt. It really doesn’t matter that he intends not to hurt. It will be hurtful, because of the way the issue has been framed — either you agree, or you’re seen as hateful.
And so it is that people who DO disagree and are NOT hateful would rather not address the issue, for very good reasons. We’re talking about people who have been tolerant and kind their whole lives, accepting that people are different and that’s just the way the world is, and then suddenly a few years ago, the goal posts moved. Suddenly, “tolerant” wasn’t good enough. Affirmation became the order of the day, and if you did not actively affirm, you were hateful. And that’s what the marriage issue is about — affirmation.
Advocates for same-sex marriage misrepresent the issue, although I don’t think most are doing so intentionally. They couch it as being about acceptance of other people’s differences, about leaving people alone to live their lives, not interfering with them. But of course that’s not what marriage is. Marriage (as a political issue) is not about the two people who are getting married. It’s about the rest of society actively stepping up and saying, yes, we give this the same imprimatur and recognition as we do traditional marriage. It’s about society saying, yes, it’s exactly the same thing.
And if you can’t quite intellectually get there, if no matter how hard you try to agree, your brain continues to see important differences between relationships between two people of the same sex and those between two people of opposite sexes (sorry about all those “betweens” in this sentence), then you can’t lie and say, Yes, I think it’s the same thing.
And it appears that that is where Vincent Sheheen is. And that business about being close to gay people is one of the more bogus red herrings. He’s probably had gay friends and family members his whole life, and he probably cares quite a bit about sparing their feelings if he can.
But some people cherish intellectual honesty, and cannot bring themselves to lie, even to avoid hurting the feelings of people they care about.
I think that’s where Vincent is. The way he handled this certainly seems to point to that.
I could be totally wrong. He could just be making a totally cynical political calculation here. But it doesn’t look that way to me, and that would be inconsistent with what I know about him.
Yes, 4K school and government restructuring affect 100% of the population. Which is why they are safe topics. Every candidate is for education and government restructuring. Whoopee! I’m sure he’s for motherhood and pecan pie as well. Probably for tax reform and jobs, too.
He’s the generic every man candidate. Nice guy, not a leader.
THERE you’re onto something.
As I’ve said, Vincent is a nice guy — and more than that. He’s a good, honest guy with good ideas on the issues that affect all South Carolinians. I think he’d do a good job as governor. And he’d want to be governor of ALL the state’s people, not just the “conservatives” or “liberals,” and to hell with everybody else, which is what we get with certain other candidates. (Which is why he’d rather not take a strong personal stance on issues that for most voters are about defining oneself as being at one end or the other of the political spectrum. And for most people on both ends of the spectrum, since they’re not personally affected, that’s what the same-sex marriage issue is about — declaring whether you’re a “right-thinking” person, or one of those horrible OTHER people.)
But he doesn’t set the world on fire as a public speaker. And that could keep him from getting the job.
It’s ironic. I think most of us would prefer someone who doesn’t burn with desire for the power, who doesn’t ooze personal ambition for high office from every pore. Vincent Sheheen is willing to be governor, but you get the sense that it’s not the end of the world to him if that doesn’t happen.
And weirdly, while I think we’d agree people like that are the very ones who should hold office, it’s harder for people like that to win out over the gimme-gimme types who just HAVE TO WIN…
He’s not a leader. He’s a Sweathog.
Up his nose with a rubber hose…
Oops. I added this to the top of the post, but I’ll put it here as well for those who go straight to the comments:
Editor’s note: Kevin Fisher called this morning and mentioned that I had failed to provide a link to his column. Which is embarrassing. Mea maxima culpa. Here’s the link (and now each reference to his column below also features a link. Sorry about that, Kevin.
By the way, to be totally fair to Nikki Haley — Initially, she, too addressed this issue only through a spokesman, in reaction to the lawsuit being filed. So it’s not like she just ran out into the street to demagogue about it.
She was later quoted speaking in person about it, but I get the impression that’s just because reporters caught her at a Budget & Control Board meeting and pressed the issue. She postured a bit — “I stand behind that constitutional amendment and will continue to fight to make sure that states have the ability to decide what they want marriage to be in their state” — and y’all know how I dislike “fight” talk from politicians. But initially, she dealt with it in the same way Vincent did.
Is he also opposed to extending state benefits to the domestic partners of state employees? How about adoption of children by gay adults?
What other rights and benefits does Vincent Sheheen feel depend upon a person’s sexual orientation?
Most of us have known a few gays. Most gays I have know have been both productive and non-obtrusive in the workplace and in mixed society they are generally no more of obtrusive than most folks.
The politicized movement we see today was based at its inception upon the premise that their lifestyle was not chosen, they were born “that way”.
Adoption of children by gay couples over the past 20 ears should soon yield an unbiased indicator as to whether or not the original premise had statistical merit. Yet, we read nothing of the sort. Are children raised by gay parents hetero or gay in proportion to society at large, or not?
The looming question (not P.C.) is why the results have not been tabulated AND published yet. Truth matters!
The fact that Obama “evolved” after his first election might come as a surprise only to the politically naieve: those who would expect another lawyer (Vinnie) not to evolve likewise. He does not fool me for an instant, and i doubt he will foolvery many straight voters.
I hope now that Vinnie’s officially against the gays that Nikki “evolves” on the issue and comes out in favor of gay marriage…. Check and Mate.
Vincent
You know at this point I’m saying it because I know you’ll correct me, right?
Yup
Because it beats your repeating everything I say, and other juvenile gambits…..
He’s breathing on me!
So if we start calling Haley “Nimrata” are you going to correct us?
I would love it if you did. Nimratha, Nimratha, Nimratha!
For one thing, denigrating a person’s name intentionally is designed to be an insult and lower that person’s esteem without adding anything of substance to the conversation. It is also a bullying tactic.
Her name IS Nimrata.
Just as POTUS is Barack Hussein Obama, as so many like to note, not for any good reason…
Our host, D. Bradley, might weigh in?
Silence is just trying to inject some much needed “oomph” into Vincent’s personality.
“Ayyyy, vote for Vinnie for Governor… he’s cool, man!”
“Off my case, toilet-face.” – Vinnie
“Vinnie” is a perfectly appropriate nickname for “Vincent”. Dick is a nickname for Richard, Jack is a nickname for John, Jim is a nickname for James, and somehow, Peggy is a nickname for Margaret.
So true, Joshie.
People should be called by whatever name they choose, especially if it is their given name. To do otherwise is disrespectful.
Replace Francis with Vinnie in this clip…
So is that what you wanted in this situation? Did you want Vincent to stand up and say, “Any a you homos touch ME, an’ I’ll kill ya…”