So if Thigpen’s right, we’re much less likely to see scenes such as this one this year.
Having trouble finding anything substantive not to like in Nikki Haley’s education and other proposals, some critics are saying she’s just playing election-year politics.
Well, if that’s the case, that’s good news, too. In fact, unless you’re a Democrat trying to unseat her, it’s hard to see where the downside is for you here.
That occurred to me reading the following, written by Schuyler Kropf at The Post and Courier:
Democrats — and even some political talking heads — were quick to point out Haley’s attention to education and mental health could easily be seen as attempts to neutralize her Democratic opposition.
“They must feel it’s a more moderate electorate out there,” retired Francis Marion University political scientist Neal Thigpen said Monday in assessing her administration’s 2014 spending ideas.
Thigpen, who has followed Republican politics in the state for years, said the most obvious political target in her budget is announced Democratic challenger, state Sen. Vincent Sheheen of Camden.
Haley’s camp must see a need in “trying to block him out,” Thigpen added, “and being ahead of him in trying to blunt those issues that he may be able to use.”…
Look again at what Neal Thigpen just said…
“They must feel it’s a more moderate electorate out there…”
If Nikki Haley and her people are looking around them and seeing a more reasonable world than the one that elected them in the Year of The Tea Party, then that’s gotta be a good thing, right?
So, if that’s correct, her speeches this year will be less about throwing red meat to people who hate government, and more about good governance. Which Vincent Sheheen will be doing as well, because he always does that. Which means that no matter which of them is elected, that person will be committed to such basic things as better schools, and better care for the mentally ill.
Which as I say, is a good thing for all South Carolinians…
Related Posts
It’s getting tougher every day for Sheheen. Since his campaign has always been about attacking Haley, what does he have to focus on? The DOR hacking incident that appears to have impacted zero people?
Haley has more than doubled Sheheen’s campaign fundraising. As long as she stays under the radar, she’ll probably win by 6-8 points. The best shot for Democrats at this point would be to find a different candidate.
Doug’s correct on his political reading here. He had the correct analysis in the run-up to Haley’s 2010 win also.
To further expand on Brad’s point in general terms, you don’t need to elect the “right people”. You just have to motivate politicians (even if they’re the “wrong people”) to do the right thing.
What motivates every politician? Votes. A politician is in the market for votes. With their actions, they’re trying to buy as many votes as they can, and they’re in the business of competing with one another to get elected. A politician will vote for a something if he thinks that’s in his political self-interest. One of the big things that I hear from my more strident friends is: “Throw the bums out!” The thing is, you really don’t need to do that.
You don’t have to change who the politicians are. People have a great misconception in this way they think the way you solve things is by electing the right people. There are no “right people”. Unfortunately, all leftists, and some conservatives believe that they are the “right people” and only the *other* guys are the wrong people. That’s why so many issues turn into these Team Red vs. Team Blue struggles. Each team believes that if they can simply get more of their people elected — the right people, THEN they can start to do what they want to do. A great many issues are simply a means to that end.
Don’t get me wrong. It’s nice to elect the good people. I’d rather have honest people as opposed to openly dishonest people, but that isn’t the way you solve things or come to a policy decision for a politician.
The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.
In this instance, it’s arguable that Haley is coming out with her education plan merely to buy votes. If the policy is sound, does it matter if she truly believes it’s the best idea or if she’s simply doing it to earn votes? Either way, a good policy is good policy. Take the “why” out of it. If the education policy is a good policy it will have the direct effect of benefiting education here in SC and have the side-effect of getting Haley reelected.
That’s all I’ve got for today. I’ve got to go round up the usual suspects.
That’s your second Capt. Renault reference today. One more, and its a veritable trend…
That’s an inside joke for anyone who worked at the Wichita Eagle-Beacon in the 80s. One of the sayings of the great Jerry Ratts, an assistant metro editor who had one of the driest and most world-weary wits I’ve ever encountered, would say of a news development. “That’s twice. If it happens once more, it’s a trend, and we can send it to Lifestyles…”
He didn’t smile when he said these things…
In 2010, candidate Haley was correct, politically, to ride the anti-federal government wave in 2010. The 2010 election was (1) before the Supreme Court ruled the Affordable Care Act constitutional and (2) after the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act took effect. These federal happenings were on people’s minds then. In the lead-up to the 2014 election, neither health care nor the federal budget are major issues. Gov. Haley is correct now, politically, to ride the state politics wave and to steal the Democrats’ thunder.
She’s Tracy Flick.
Yes, quite the Tracy Flick. Check out this debate vs. Barrett video from 39:20 til 39:54. A sight to behold, “Everything is out there. Thank you.”
Her nose is getting longer and longer.
Didn’t she end up winning the election?
But that theory (that it’s good for SC) only works if she follows through. If she is only saying these things right now to be politically expedient but doesn’t really believe them, isn’t it likely that after lip service to these policies gets her elected, she will then do whatever she would have anyway but try to spin it otherwise while also hoping that people will have stopped paying attention (which sadly many will have)? I mean look at her track record. How much transparency did we get?
If its a policy I like, and its a choice between someone that has built a career out of advocating for the policy and someone who just all of a sudden started supporting the policy possibly out of political expediency – I’ll choose the one that has a history of believing in said policy.
Ah, but that suggests another conundrum…
Where do you think your chances are better of seeing a policy enacted…
With a Democrat who ardently believes in the policy, but, if elected, would face a Legislature full of people who would oppose his proposals for two reasons — because they disagree, and because he is a Democrat (which, among today’s partisans, passes as a “reason”)…
or…
With a Republican who espouses a policy because she believes that’s what the people want (which is what is meant here by “for political reasons”), and who will be opposed by many lawmakers of her own party simply on philosophical grounds — an obstacle to a great extent outweighed by the fact that legislative leaders tend to pride themselves on enacting policy initiatives from governors of their own party?
Another way to put it…
The choice is between:
— Someone who wants to do the right thing for the right reasons, but would likely fail in doing it.
— Someone who wants to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, but might succeed in doing it.
The choice is not necessarily that clear-cut in the real world, but it’s the idea I’m positing in this post, and one I think is compelling enough to be considered as a counter to the Democrats’ “She’s doing it for the wrong reasons” argument.
I can live with someone doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Easily. I’m still stuck on whether or not I can believe her that she’ll try to do it for any reason. I just don’t trust her. If she is lying then the better odds are still on the one that will try at all – even if it’s more of an uphill battle.
I agree with Brad on his comments above. If you have two people who want to enact the same policy, I don’t think you should look at who “truly believes” more. That’s irrelevant to me. You should evaluate who will most likely succeed in achieving the policy implementation.
If you think the “true believer” will more likely succeed in implementation because of his beliefs, then that’s certainly your opinion. However, I think Brad’s practical take on which candidate is an opinion supported by logic.
And let’s use Sheheen as an example – what legislation has he been able to drive through the Senate in his tenure?
I just don’t see him as a leader. Smart guy, nice guy, good ideas… but he doesn’t seem to have that quality that gets people to follow him.
How about government restructuring.
http://www.thestate.com/2014/01/15/3209399/exclusive-after-decade-of-debate.html
You’re able to take Haley seriously,at all.That’s just sad.She IS governor,but you’ve been dumbing things down w/your,’Unparty’ for years,so what should anyone expect,here?
Nothing.
Sorry, Brad, but I never consider triangulation a praiseworthy tactic. This is my take. Perhaps realizing a vulnerability based on her previous statements, alliances, and positions on education, she has program with some real merit and appeal crafted to neutralize the issue. She gains cred with some middle income voters who reside largely on the side of public education and have been put off by the last 6 or so years of cuts and attacks. She fears little “middle ground” opposition from her assaults on the working poor people in the state (from budget cuts, denied Medicaid expansion, non-creation of a state healthcare exchange, and AFDC payment cuts, etc)
Giving-in somewhat on one issue to divide ones opposition in order to continue assaults and neglect toward the most vulnerable among us does smack of “playing politics,” but I wouldn’t consider it good news, just unexpected tactics from a Governor whose chief backers (TEA party) has lost some of its steam.