Category Archives: 2008 S.C.

David Herndon, S.C. House Dist. 79

9:35 a.m. — David Herndon turned 40 a few months ago, looked around, and decided it was time to get involved with politics. His business (trucking) was in good shape, and his kids at an age that he could free up the time.

First, he replaced Sherri Few as chair of the Kershaw County GOP. Then, when he heard Bill Cotty would not seek re-election, and Ms. Few was the only Republican contender for the seat (at that time), he filed for that.

He cites two main differences between him and Ms. Few, who as you may recall ran against Mr. Cotty last time:

She’s the private-school voucher (or tax credit) candidate, and he stands in opposition to that. With three kids in public schools he says he feels like he’s got too much investment in them to give up now. He says his opponent’s support of private school "choice" isn’t overt, but all you have to do is look at where her money comes from. The current holder of the seat, of course, has been a favorite whipping boy of the out-of-state interests that have financed the private school "choice" movement in S.C.
He’s a businessman, who’s made a payroll and knows what it’s like to make his way in the real world. By contrast, Ms. Few’s main experience is in the nonprofit world, with "most of the money coming out of Washington."

Beyond his opposition to vouchers, however, Mr. Herndon doesn’t have much to propose in the area of education, beyond paying teachers better.

He does have other reforms he’d like to see. He’s one of those all-too-few candidates who brings up government restructuring before we can ask him about it. He would get rid of the Budget and Control Board, and reduce the number of constitutional officers.

He says that "in general" he’s against tax increases — except for the cigarette tax. He wants to bring more of "a business approach" to government, but his emphasis is less on taxes than on spending. He’s an advocate for setting priorities, and an opponent of such pork spending as the Green Bean Museum in Lake City.

He also wants to work to make health care coverage more accessible. He learned the hard way — through having a child with cancer — that health insurance "is one of the most important things a family can have."

Looking ahead to the general election, he said he sees himself as having an advantage over Democrat Anton Gunn, in terms of having lived in the district 30 years, and having his roots there.

Benjamin Byrd, S.C. House District 77

9:45 a.m. — Benjamin Byrd is the second candidate we’ve spoken to who is seeking the seat being vacated by Rep. John Scott. The first was D.J. Carson; the third Democrat, Richland County councilman Joe McEachern, will come in next week. Mr. Byrd is retired after three decades with the state Department of Transportation, where he helped start the minority business enterprise program, before becoming the freedom of information officers in the agency’s legal department.

Mr. Byrd is a soft-spoken man who does not boast — for instance, when he said he was running on the basis of his "experience" and Cindi asked about those experiences, he did not mention that he had served on the Richland County planning commission. What he did mention was his time at DOT, but also his involvement as a parent when his two children were going through public schools — both with PTA and the school improvement council.

While recognizing that the Legislature’s primary responsibility is to pass laws, he is very interested in providing constituent service, and would want to exercise leadership in the community beyond legislation — for instance, he would work to encourage district churches to get more involved in education, through after-school activities, mentoring and homework centers.

His response to the private school "choice" movement is that we "need to make sure all of our schools are financed or operated to where there’s no need to be talking about school choice," because none of the public schools would be inadequate.

While he didn’t use the term, when asked about taxation he asserted the need for considering the system comprehensively, rather than reacting to this or that tax piecemeal. One change he mentioned specifically: "When you buy a car, you enjoy" paying no more than $300 tax, "but that’s not realistic."

His planning commission experience came up in connection with the state’s relationship to local governments. He spoke of the wisdom of merging city and county planning commissions to be cost-effective and more efficient, and in general observed that "I think we have too many little governments."

Mary Barber Kirkland, S.C. House Dist. 70

4 p.m. — Mary Barber
Kirkland, whose father and grandfather were both school principals and
has spent 39 years in public education herself, is challenging Rep. Joe
Neal. Originally from Hopkins, she has been involved in a lot of
community efforts in lower Richland. She says she’s running because she
"wanted a leader who is visible and focused." She declined to criticize
the incumbent, although those points are common to candidates who have
opposed Mr. Neal (unsuccessfully) in the past — assertions that he is
not engaged enough locally between elections.

But Mrs. Kirkland
preferred to talk about what she would do, and she would concentrate on
education and economic development, the latter being particularly
sorely needed in her district.

She believes that parental and community
involvement are the main elements needed for children to succeed in
school, and she has seen her share of children struggling — and says
she has seen gang involvement as young as the second grade — "I can
see the little ones joining now… seeking that family that they don’t
have at home."

She also favors programs that enable senior
citizens to share their wisdom with younger generations.

Stanley Robinson, S.C. House District 80

1:30 p.m. — Stanley Robinson,
who is retired from the Air Force, is opposing incumbent Jimmy Bales in
the Democratic Primary. He has no particular criticism of Mr. Bales’
stewardship of the seat, but he thought this would be a good year —
"an exciting year, an historical year" — to try to get into politics.

He readily acknowledges that he is "a rookie," but figures he ended up
doing well at other things he’d never tried before, such as when he got
married 36 years ago, and the first time he was ever stationed overseas
— daunting, but not insurmountable.

He’s interested in improving
access to health insurance. "The patients seem to think the doctors are
getting rich, but they’re not," he says from his experience the last
few years working in the health insurance industry.

He wants to improve
public education, particularly in the distressed areas in the Pee Dee.
He sees early childhood education as key.

While he is a Democrat, he’s
"just as conservative as anyone else," and believes that "picking up
litter isn’t partisan… people are people."

Mike Sturkie, S.C. Senate District 23

10 a.m. — Michael Sturkie
is one of two challengers going up against Jake Knotts in the
Republican primary for this Lexington County seat. Mr. Sturkie has
lived in the district 26 years, and owns two businesses, S & T
Grading and Excavating, and S&T Landfill.

He says he thinks the
people of the district want more focus on "major issues," rather than
what he says is an overemphasis on "good ol’ boy issues." I asked him
for a definition of the latter (since a lot of folks use it, sometimes
meaning different things), and he meant "favoritism" in appointments
and such. Beyond that, he said of Mr. Knotts, "It seems like he’s
picking fights" all the time, whereas Mr. Sturkie said he would present
a lower profile: "I can take a back seat."

He suggests he would never
vote otherwise than in accordance with the wishes of his district,
whatever the facts, and believes more issues should be settled by
referendum rather than through representative government. He wants to
do away with property taxes altogether, and pay for everything with an
even higher sales tax. He said he’s "not looking to pad my pension,"
and would want to "fix" the overgenerous deal afforded lawmakers. Of
teachers, he said "they’re getting paid a lot less than they deserve.

D.J. Carson, S.C. House 77

Wednesday, noon — The departure of Rep. John Scott (who is running for a seat being vacated by a senator who has worked his posterior down to nothing) has opened up a three-way competition in the Democratic primary for S.C. House District 77 in Columbia.

The first of those candidates — indeed, the first candidate of the season — to interview with our editorial board was D.J. Carson, a political newcomer. I mentioned earlier that he was coming in.

Mr. Carson grew up in Columbia and Forest Acres, and graduated from Richland Northeast High School. He lived in Brooklyn while studying law on Long Island, and returned home. He worked as an aide to Rep. Todd Rutherford before becoming an assistant solicitor in the 5th Circuit, starting in August of last year. He has mostly prosecuted drug cases, and cites that experience as valuable in helping him understand critical issues in our state, from lack of education to youth gangs.

Mr. Carson’s platform is pretty straightforward: He says he’s running as an advocate for public education, and to oppose vouchers and tax credits. He would increase state spending on education, to increase teacher pay and turn around the Corridor of Shame.

He talks briefly about other subjects — economic development, health care — but keeps coming back to K-12 education. And when he comes back to education, he usually talks about the need for more funding. He mentioned, for instance, that he’d heard Corrections chief Jon Ozmint had predicted the need for two new prisons, and he said we should spend that $100 million on schools instead.

As we do in these interviews, we had a number of other things we asked him about, such as:

Tax policy: He says he favors increasing the cigarette tax, and vows that he will not advocate for any tax cut: "I’m not an advocate for cutting taxes because I’m not an advocate for cutting services."
Party loyalty: "Like-minded people hang around like-minded people," and he wanted voters in the district that his would be a distinctively Democratic voice. "Party affiliation is important." But he said he could also work across the lines, and that it was "more important to speak to people, not to speak to party."
Home Rule: He said he agreed that the Legislature should not be "micromanaging" local affairs.
Restructuring: He declined to offer an opinion, saying "I don’t want to speculate," and would need to study the issues involved first.

Mr. Carson is facing Benjamin Byrd and Richland County Councilman Joe McEachern in the primary.

Summers chairs Richland Democrats

Back when Boyd Summers wrote us an op-ed criticizing the Bar exam mess that benefited the daughter of his ex-opponent, another blog speculated this meant he’d be going after Jim Harrison again.

Not so. Turns out that Boyd has other stuff on his political plate now. As he wrote via e-mail this week:

Hope you are doing well. I wanted to mention to you that I was elected to succeed Steve [Benjamin] as Richland County Democratic Party Chair at the County Convention in March.

If I can ever help you with anything, please let me know. I will miss candidate interviews this year, but perhaps when it slows down I could meet with you guys to discuss County Party activities.

I wrote back to make sure I was understanding him right, and he said back:

That’s correct, I have not filed to run for the SC House or any other office this year.

I will be working to get other folks elected who have the same vision that I share to move my home state forward in a progressive manner.

Their is certainly a lot of work to be done.

I hope we will have the opportunity to get together soon.

Boyd

Jim Harrison, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was to have general election opposition this year — Democrat Tige Watts, who I’m told (see below) has dropped out. If that’s right, then Mr. Harrison will have a free ride now. Of course, thanks to partisan gerrymandering, there’s nothing unusual about incumbents having no opposition in the fall. But at least there are a few primary choices — in districts other than this one.

A little blog trivia for you: Messrs. Summers and Harrison were the first legislative candidates I ever posted video on…

Legislative interviews begin today

Late last week, I forwarded this release to Cindi:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 28, 2008
Contact:       Kerry Abel

MEDIA ADVISORY

Carson Announces for SC House
A New Generation for District 77

COLUMBIA, SC – Local attorney DJ Carson announced today his candidacy in the June 10th Democratic primary for SC House seat 77.
"I grew up right here in this community," Carson said. "This is my home, and it deserves
fresh, energetic leadership that looks beyond the daunting circumstances of what is and into the possibilities of what could be."
Though this is Carson’s first run for public office, he is no stranger to politics. He spent 2000 as a grassroots organizer for the Democratic Party’s Coordinated Campaign and has also served as an aide to Rep. J. Todd Rutherford.
   Combined with his work as a Richland County Prosecutor, these experiences have given Carson a unique perspective on some of the most challenging issues facing us today.
   "I see how much drugs, guns, and gang violence costs this community every day and I’m ready to take that fight to the next level," Carson said. "I’ve been in the trenches and now I’m ready to lead the charge."
   "The time for excuses has past. The time for change has come. The future is now!"

            ###

Cindi responded thusly:

And we get to meet
him on Wednesday, at noon.

Ohmigosh, and here it is Wednesday at 11:21. And so it begins. I haven’t counted yet myself, but Warren said he counted up the candidates running in Midlands legislative and county primaries, and we will have 52 interviews between now and June. He also noted that we will have far more interviews for primaries than we will for general elections in the fall. Such is the domination of reapportionment by incumbents and political parties.

And Mr. Carson, who will be competing with Joe McEachern & Benjamin Byrd for an open seat currently held by Rep. John Scott (who is seeking a Senate seat), will be the first.

Graham slaps down Sanford again — politely

You’ll recall Lindsey Graham’s rebuke to his old friend Mark Sanford last week over the governor’s continuing efforts to divide the Republican Party.

As you can see on the video, he was polite and used mild language, but the rebuke was fairly firm nonetheless. Obviously, the Senator had decided it was time for someone to act like a party leader rather than an insurgent.

Well, he’s done it again, this time over the South Carolina reaction to Real ID. This release came in late Monday:

March 31, 2008

Graham on REAL ID and South Carolina
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made this statement on South Carolina and REAL ID.
Graham said:
“I am pleased South Carolina has been granted an extension by Secretary Chertoff regarding REAL ID compliance. The decision was more than justified.
“The Governor has done an excellent job in explaining his concerns to federal officials, many of which I share. Our state already meets 16 of the 18 compliance benchmarks – about 90 percent — called for in REAL ID. Governor Sanford’s efforts to reform our state drivers’ license program has made the system more secure and efficient.
“REAL ID grew out of recommendations made by the 9-11 Commission over the need for more secure forms of identification. It was viewed as an effective means of cracking down on the use of fraudulent documents like those used by the 9/11 hijackers. In addition, REAL ID would make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to obtain employment by tightening acceptable forms of identification.
“I will do my part to help ensure the federal government addresses the unfunded mandate burden imposed on the states by REAL ID. Governors and state legislatures across the country are rightfully concerned about these requirements.
“However, in this age of international terrorism we must secure the homeland. We need better identification to protect air travel, access to federal buildings, institutions, and other high value terrorist targets.
“I believe we can accommodate the legitimate national security needs of our nation with the concerns raised by Governor Sanford and the state legislature.”

#####

As he said, there’s no excuse for unfunded mandates. At the same time, we need a better identification system for citizens, both for national security and immigration control reasons.

He points out that for all the hollering, South Carolina is already most of the way to compliance.

And as he concludes, we can address these important matters without all the ideological posturing and brinksmanship. We just have to act like grownups.

Tom Davis predicting Rod Shealy attack

A reader yesterday asked what I thought about the smear job, reportedly engineered by Rod Shealy, that hit Tom Davis this week at the outset of his attempt to unseat Sen. Catherine Ceips.

When I read about it, I just nodded. Tom, the subject of my column this past Sunday, indicated last week that he expected something of the kind, and that it would probably be worse than even he expected:

I hadn’t even thought about that, to be honest with you… I hadn’t even thought about what it’s gonna be like having a guy who wakes up in the morning who just wants to strip the bark off me. I mean, and that’s what Rod Shealy’s gonna wanna do… I’ve never been through a campaign. I’ve been told just to expect, whatever it is about you that you don’t want people to know, expect it to be known.

Tom thought it would be about something true about him — such as the fact that he was a Democrat when he was young — instead of this illegal-alien nonsense. But that’s Tom’s great liability in this race: He’s a Mr. Smith type. He’s a very open, candid, straightforward, sincere kind of guy (I would have added "thrifty, brave, clean and reverent," but you get the idea), so he figured whatever he was hit with would be something real.

So he was right: He hadn’t really thought through what it would be like with Rod Shealy after him. That’s because Tom Davis is incapable of thinking like Rod Shealy.

It’s a helluva thing, isn’t it, when honest people have to fear running for public office because of sleazy stuff that will be done to them that has nothing to do with their suitability for office?

Oh, but wait! Rod Shealy is reformed! It’s got to be true… PBS said so…

Anyway, in the video above, you’ll see and hear Tom talking about this subject.

Did Hunter Howard just substantiate the rumor?

The rumor has been kicking around that Hunter Howard of the state Chamber would run against Sen. David Thomas in the upcoming Republican primary.

His announcement yesterday would be consistent with the rumor — as you can read here, he’s quitting his 17-year job with the Chamber (I would have guessed it was longer than that, his face and name have been synonymous with S.C. business interests for so long) and moving home to Simpsonville.

So maybe it’s so. But if it is, why didn’t he say so, and get a free bump from coverage of his leaving the Chamber? Maybe he promised not to; I don’t know. When I see him I’ll ask him.

In the meantime, we don’t have long to wait to see if it’s true. The filing deadline is this weekend.

Graham on Sanford, S.C. politics

Sen. Lindsey Graham made headlines today by rather dramatically breaking with his friend and fellow Republican Mark Sanford. Far from having a "list" of Republican lawmakers he’d like to get rid of, Sen. Graham gave a thumbs-up to the whole GOP field of officeholders in South Carolina.

So when he came by today to talk about Iraq, Iran, Europe and nuclear proliferation, before he left we inevitably got into S.C. politics, starting with a question from reporter John O’Connor about to what extent Mark Sanford is actually a veep contender.

Mr. Graham was careful only to say positive things about the governor, he did say something about himself that drew a contrast between the two of them. He said he was backing Republicans, regardless of whether he agreed with them totally or not, is because "I’m a party leader." Which of course suggests that certain other people are not, but he wasn’t going to say so.

He was much more forceful and articulate when talking geopolitics, of course. I plan to go back through the more substantive parts of the interview and see if I can can pull out a clip or two from those parts later. For now, I thought I’d share the part that dealt with today’s news story.

Democrats got a Senate candidate!

Well, lookee here… we keep hearing (although not all that much) about lesser-known Republicans running against Lindsey Graham on account of their being ticked at him over immigration. That’s old news.

But now I read that a Democrat — Michael Cone, a Charleston lawyer — is also interested. Here’s a story that was brought to my attention this morning. More to the point, here’s his Web site. And here’s a philosophical interlude from that site:

… Thomas Jefferson wrote that there are only two real political divisions between people: people are either Aristocrats or Populists, no matter the label they might hang upon themselves.
Essentially, an Aristocrat is someone who believes that the people of the United States should be represented in government by an elite group of privileged few who know what is best for the people. A Populist believes that the people themselves know what is best for them and that their representatives in government should represent the will of the people to the largest extent possible. Equal opportunity for everyone is not favorable for Aristocrats as they would lose power if they were not lifted above the people. Therefore, it is imperative for the Aristocrats to create artificial divisions among the people so that the people cannot come together to create equal opportunity for everyone.
I am a Populist….

Had you all in suspense there, didn’t I? You thought he was going to say he was an Aristocrat, I’ll bet. Or maybe not.

Anyway, not being that big a fan of Jefferson, I see the world in less simplistic terms, more as his protege Madison did. In other words, I believe in the republic that our Constitution established, which provides that regular folks get elected to Congress, go there and study the issues as most of us are unable to do, and become smarter about those issues before voting on them. I want government that’s a lot smarter than an opinion poll. But that’s just me; I’m weird.

Anyway, no word yet on whether he’s upset about immigration, too. Looks like he’s for the "FairTax," though.

Club for Growth targets two

You read here before about the incumbents who are favored by the Club for Growth. Now, in this release, we see whom they want to get rid of. Since the only names on the list are those of Richard Chalk and Jake Knotts, I’m guessing this is not a final list, but I could be wrong (Matt, please correct or confirm).

Mind you, this is not the same as the governor’s "list," but I think we can assume (there I go again) that it has some names in common with it. Anyway, here’s the release:

SC Club for Growth State Action PAC Endorses Three Reform-Minded Candidates
Columbia, SC – Today, the South Carolina Club for Growth State Action PAC endorsed three reform-minded candidates who are seeking election in the upcoming June 10th primary.
Tim Scott, Stu Rodman and Katrina Shealy are lifelong advocates for smarter government, increased economic growth and more money for families and small businesses whose budgets are not growing nearly as fast as our state government’s.
Each has shown a commitment to improving a state government that refuses to address South Carolina’s most important problems including high taxes, too much regulation and an outdated government structure. Their success in this historic, watershed election will positively impact our state for decades to come.
In a legislatively dominated state, change happens at the ballot box. In the last election cycle, the SC Club for Growth State Action PAC endorsed candidates in 23 primary and general election races. Thanks in part to the electorate’s desire for change and the generosity of our members, endorsed candidates won 17 elections – an impressive 73 percent of the races in which the Club PAC was involved.
The South Carolina Club for Growth State Action PAC has already endorsed seventeen strong, fiscally conservative incumbents for re-election. Today, the State Action PAC is proud to announce the first challenger/open-seat endorsements of the 2008 primaries:

TIM SCOTT (HOUSE DISTRICT 117 – CHARLESTON)
Tim Scott is a very successful small business owner, Chairman of Charleston County Council and a strong fiscal conservative. Endorsed by Governor Sanford last fall for state treasurer and recently for this office, Tim has never voted for a tax increase nor has the council ever increased taxes during his thirteen-year tenure. Long-time incumbent Tom Dantzler, who has consistently received “F” ratings from the Club, recently chose to retire rather than face a great candidate like Tim.
Tim’s opponents for the open seat, Wheeler Tillman and Bill Crosby, both present causes for concern. Tillman served for four years in the House during the 70’s as a Democrat, ran again for public office as a Democrat in the 1980’s and only switched parties earlier this decade. Crosby wants to spend billions of dollars a year in taxpayer money on mass transportation and making local libraries a statewide responsibility.
We think Tim is unquestionably the best candidate in this race based on his record as a strong fiscal conservative and reformer. Tim will also make history as the first African-American Republican elected to the legislature since Reconstruction. Tim Scott is a rising conservative star, and we urge you to send him to the Statehouse.

STU RODMAN (HOUSE DISTRICT 123 – HILTON HEAD)
Stu Rodman is a proven, reform-minded leader who will bring his fiscally conservative principles to Columbia. He currently serves on the Beaufort County Council and was elected to the Beaufort School Board, giving him valuable insights into government.
As a businessman with an M.B.A. and an engineering degree, Stu understands how important it is for South Carolina to be competitive in the global marketplace by lowering taxes, limiting government bureaucracy, and improving educational opportunities for our children. Stu also served on Governor Sanford’s 2003 State Commission on Management, Accountability and Performance, which suggested ways to restructure and streamline state government.
Stu is challenging incumbent Richard Chalk. Chalk received an “F” in 2007 on the S.C. Club for Growth’s scorecard, which reflects his poor voting record on fiscal issues. Chalk supported a higher gas tax on working families and was one of the few Republicans to vote to overturn Governor Sanford’s vetoes on all fifty budget items in the Club’s “Lard List.” One can only assume Chalk was trying to send a message when he voted to overturn Governor Sanford’s veto of pork items like $150,000 for a new pottery program, over $8 million for Senator Hugh Leatherman’s pet projects in Florence and $9 million for a program editorial writers called “a legislative slush fund.” We hope you will send a message to Chalk by supporting Stu Rodman.

KATRINA SHEALY (SENATE DISTRICT 23 – LEXINGTON COUNTY)
Katrina Shealy is a proven leader and reformer in Lexington County. Her experience as an insurance underwriter gives her a great foundation in fiscal issues and she recognizes that South Carolina’s out of control growth in state spending must end. She supports state budget spending caps as well as tax cuts that will lower our state’s high income tax to encourage new businesses and better paying jobs. Katrina also supports important tort and worker’s compensation reforms that will safeguard our small businesses. As Chairwoman of the Lexington County Republican Party, she has done an incredible job of building a grassroots network of people who will work to support her campaign.
Her opponent is incumbent RINO (Republican In Name Only) Jake Knotts, who earned an abysmal 8 out of 100 on our most recent legislative scorecard. Knotts voted against a 29% reduction in our state income tax in 2005, complaining that letting you keep more of your tax dollars would reduce what he and his legislative buddies got to spend on government programs. And spend it they have – growing government by over 40% in the last few years! Last year Knotts even voted to send $950,000 of your tax dollars to the aforementioned Green Bean Museum and later voted to override every single one of Governor Sanford’s 228 budget vetoes that would have saved taxpayers $167 million.
To say that Knotts has worked against Governor Sanford’s reform agenda is like saying that John Edwards is willing to pay “a little extra” for a haircut. He has cast crucial votes to kill Sanford-backed restructuring plans and to prevent parents from having increased choices about where to educate their children. Just last year, Knotts voted to give a liberal judge a ten-year term on our State Supreme Court. He explained his vote by saying that the candidate was “a female who puts more diversity on the bench. It shouldn’t be about being conservative.”
Frankly, we are not sure how Knotts even calls himself a Republican after publically supporting Democrats Jim Hodges and Tommy Moore over Governor Sanford in the last two gubernatorial elections. Fortunately, he’ll finally get a chance to face Republican voters.
Knotts’ defeat will remove a major legislative roadblock to lowering taxes, slowing government growth and implementing common-sense structural and educational reforms. Katrina’s election will provide sorely needed leadership for her district and the state. In fact, Knotts seems to agree – he contributed $100 to her campaign for House in 2002. Once you are over the shock of hearing that he actually supported a Republican for a change, we hope you will support the real Republican in the race- Katrina Shealy.

You gotta hand it to the Club… here we haven’t even had our first legislative candidate interviews, and they’ve already settled on endorsements. Maybe it’s a little easier for them. Then again, maybe it’s just all that hard work, initiative and talent that helped the Club members grab their disproportional portions of the American pie, and which they firmly believe WE could do, too, if we would just buckle down and apply ourselves…

An ‘exit interview’ with the governor’s right-hand man

Tom_davis_021

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
MY BEST CONTACT in the governor’s office left Mark Sanford’s employ last week, which is bad news for me. The jury is still out on whether it’s a good thing for South Carolina.
The jury in this case will be the voters of S.C. Senate District 46 in Beaufort County. Tom Davis, formerly chief of staff to Mr. Sanford, will oppose Sen. Catherine Ceips in the Republican primary in June. I have no idea which should win; we’ll have our hands full on the editorial board just trying to endorse in primaries for Midlands districts.
But Tom dropped by our offices on his way out of town last week, and I thought I’d share with you some observations from what one might term this “exit interview” — less for the light it sheds on a Senate contest, and more for what they tell us about the guy who’s been the governor’s point man for most of his time in office.
You will have gathered from previous columns that I am, shall we say, disappointed in this governor. But Tom Davis has always impressed me with his passionate support of his boss. He is so earnest and so insistent in his faithful advocacy — from taking flak from lawmakers without resentment to sending me e-mails so intensely detailed in their rebuttal of criticism that I have to set them aside until I can find the time — that you can’t help but respect and like the guy, even when you disagree.
The five issues he says he most wants to address distill some of the best things the governor has at least theoretically stood for (with a hint here and there of the worst). They also remind us how little has been achieved under this governor, despite Tom’s efforts:

1. Education funding. He would take all the money from the bewildering array of sources we have now — the EIA, the EFA, the whole EIEIO — and put it all into one stream, “so you can see where the money’s going and what it’s doing.” He’d have the money follow each child rather than districts and programs. This, of course, brings to mind the governor’s voucher and tax credits crusade. But it also points to the work that Tom has done reaching out to Education Superintendent Jim Rex. I’ve often been frustrated at the governor’s slowness to work personally with Mr. Rex on reforms they agree about, but Tom has definitely been the good cop on this one. Tom praises Mr. Rex’s efforts at public school choice, and says what’s needed to make the plan work is the funding reform he advocates.
2. “The way we tax.” Rather than get bogged down with the governor’s obsession with the income tax, Tom clearly advocates the comprehensive tax reform that our board has pushed for what seems like forever.
3. Government restructuring. The main reason we endorsed Mr. Sanford in 2002 was his embrace of our restructuring agenda — and his fecklessness on the issue played a role in our not endorsing him in 2006. Tom wants to try working for these crucial reforms from the very citadel of resistance, the S.C. Senate. And he understands that the state’s systemic problems extend far beyond just reducing fragmentation at the state level — he would stress prying the state’s fingers from the throat of local governments (my terminology, not his) so that the governments closest to the people can do their jobs.
4. Quality of life. One purpose of restoring the promise of Home Rule would be empowering local governments to fight sprawl. This is a natural outgrowth of the uncontrolled growth he’s seen in the Lowcountry, and an area where he and the governor have a lot more in common with Theodore Roosevelt than too many modern Republicans.
5. “The Ports.” One of the subjects of some of Tom’s most recent e-mails has been his fierce insistence that I am wrong when I say the governor hasn’t accomplished much. His evidence is the deal that he, Tom Davis, has helped engineer between our governor and Georgia’s over a new Jasper County port. He acknowledges this has been his “silo” at the governor’s office and perhaps looms larger in his mind than other people’s. But he maintains, with some justice, that there are few things more important to South Carolina’s economy than the health of its ports.

Tom argued a bit with us about vouchers. He says that movement has led to such promising developments as Mr. Rex’s open enrollment initiative. I say it’s brought any efforts to improve public schools to a grinding halt, consuming all the political oxygen that could be going to fight for such things as merit pay for teachers and district consolidation — things the governor has said he favors, but has done little to promote.
Tom said that if elected, he would actively push those things. That would be good. It would be even better if Mark Sanford would.

Tim Cameron’s GOP candidate sites

Last week Tim Cameron of The Shot joined me for breakfast Camerontim (that’s him at right, at a Fred Thompson event last year), and talked about some of the Web sites he’s developed and is maintaining for political
candidates (mostly legislative). I already knew about Nathan Ballentine’s but the rest were new to me. The Glenn McConnell site, complete with spiffy video (above), just went up on Monday.

www.jimdemint.com — No, his seat’s not up this year, but why wait until the last minute?
www.nathansnews.com — You knew about this one.
www.talleyforsenate.com — Republican incumbent from Spartanburg County. (Never mind the party affiliations; they’re all Republicans. A House member trying to move up to the Senate.
www.shaneforsenate.com — This one kind of threw me, since it promised "HARD WORK TO SHAKE UP COLUMBIA." But he’s running for the senate, not city council, and he’s the incumbent. Isn’t there a rule that incumbents can’t run on the "shake-up" platform? In any case, he’s got his tie off and sleeves rolled up, ready for shakin’.
www.forresterforhouse.com — This candidate’s running for the seat Talley’s vacating. As with Talley, his site shows a penchant (Tim’s?) for the kind of cadences Mitt Romney used on his yard signs: "Integrity. Solutions."
www.senatorcleary.com — More of an incumbent sort of feel, with the main page dominated with "A WORD FROM YOUR SENATOR."
www.representativekelly.com — Another incumbent from Spartanburg? How many they got up there, anyway? I like what he says about no special privileges for lawmakers… not so with school consolidation, though (he’s against it in his district).
www.blairjennings.com — A change of pace, this one’s for a solicitor candidate. Not to be confused with my old friend Doug Jennings from Bennettsville, who wouldn’t fit in here on account of not being a Republican.
www.scsenategop.com — Here’s another I already had linked from my blog. This one’s for the whole Senate GOP caucus, just in case one Republican at a time isn’t enough for you.
www.myscmanews.com — Varying even further from our theme, this goes beyond party to a special special interest (I mean that in a nice way, of course).
www.repviers.com — Back to our one-candidate-at-a-time theme. Also very incumbent-y, it presents Thad as A SOLID REPUBLICAN. But you didn’t have to be told that, did you?
www.glennmcconnell.com — The newest of them all. Unusual color choice on the page — is that supposed to be sepia? OK, I get it. Anyway, the president pro tem dons modern mufti to do video clips, such as the one above, in which he explains that he wanted to be way tough on illegals, but those wimps in the majority didn’t want to.

That’s Tim’s list, which is just the beginning. Next, I’d like somebody out there to tell me about some Democrats. And if there are any UnParty candidates with sites out there, I’d really like to know about those.

If I can, I’d like to compile as complete a list as possible, to share with all y’all.

Why, against all reason, Sanford gets mentioned as potential veep fodder

One of the main reasons why Mark Sanford keeps getting a lot of veep buzz out of Washington — something that would never arise from those with experience dealing with him in South Carolina — is that he connects well with inside-the-Beltway journalists.

Look at this video at The Washington Post‘s Web site. The governor comes across very well in small doses — he certainly did in interviews with us back in 2002. And if you don’t go deeper, you end up persuaded.

Note particularly how smoothly he handles the question about why most Republicans in the State House can’t stand him. He ties them up in a neat little dismissive box in a way that sounds like the very soul of reason. Of course, you have to accept the premise that most people in the Legislature are worthless — otherwise his words not only don’t make sense, but are highly offensive, the sign of a personality that has serious problems with meaningful social interaction.

Washington journalists come away with such encounters thinking, "What a smooth, reasonable guy." That’s because they don’t go deeper.

Anyway, what I said two ‘grafs back also explains why he wins elections. It’s very easy for a voter to accept the idea that the Legislature as a whole is worthless. That’s because most voters don’t interact with anyone in the Legislature — the overwhelming majority have no dealings with (and too frequently can’t name) their own lawmaker. So what the governor says sounds reasonable. But if voters had the same chance to be exposed to lawmakers, they’d see how much more complicated reality is than the way the governor categorizes it.

Contact report: Hugh Leatherman

One thing I need to do is catch up on some recent meetings I haven’t let y’all know about, before I get too far behind. I’ll mention this chance encounter from this morning now:

I ran into Sen. Hugh Leatherman this morning at breakfast and sat with him for awhile to kick over a number of topics — national and state politics, what’s happening in Florence, etc.

Two things stand out in my mind:

We talked about endowed chairs. Sen. Leatherman is high on the program, but isn’t convinced that the cap has to be raised. Mind you, he’s certainly not persuaded by any of the governor’s objections, which seem to him off-base. The governor chops at trees, but has never bought into the forest (although he IS into preservation of wilderness, so maybe that’s a bad metaphor). But the Senate Finance Chairman sees a way to make sure future chairs are funded without lifting the cap. He briefly explained it, but I confess I didn’t fully understand it, and didn’t want to detain him all morning trying to. It’s a good topic for further inquiry.
I was reminded at various points in the conversation, as I am so often in speaking with the General Assembly’s Republican leadership, about how frustrated they are trying to deal with the governor day-to-day. Conversations such as this one flesh out the substance of such stories as this one in The Post and Courier today, about the governor’s efforts to stack the Legislature in his image. To serious, responsible lawmakers, having one Mark Sanford is enough of a burden; they don’t need any clones. Note this quote from the Charleston story: "If someone ran against Senator Leatherman, I’d probably support them." Who said that? Mark Sanford. So we’re not just talking paranoia here.

So is Kirsh still on the Club’s ‘nice’ list?

What did you think when you read John Monk’s piece over the weekend about Herb Kirsh’s bill to limit contributions by Howard Rich and others who get around limits now by giving through multiple corporations?

I just had one, simple thought: Will Rep. Kirsh still be on the Club for Growth’s list of approved legislators, or did he just make the "naughty" list?

Yes, I realize Howard Rich and the Club are different things, but they share the same aims. And the effort of groups with similar aims to stack the Legislature in the image of Mark Sanford is a very sore subject at the State House, where the governor is persona non grata.

Arrrgghh! They’re coming!!!

Just got this from Warren:

Brad, I’m going to start scheduling the folks running for (Columbia) city council. I believe there are seven. Would you share some dates you’re available next week and the week after so I can try to get firm commitments when I first talk with these folks? Thanks.

Warren

How unfair is this? We just got done with endorsements in the presidential primaries, what — five seconds ago? Now we’re starting on those seeking Columbia city council seats on April 1.

And here’s the killer — we have to start on state and county offices (the real biggie, in terms of volume) immediately after that, because those primaries are coming June 12 — just days after legislative adjournment. (Extra fun: This is the year that we do the Senate as well as House.) And as soon as those are over, we plunge into endorsement hyperspeed to make runoff selections within the fortnight, then we go through those weeks when we’re extremely shorthanded while we take turns taking some time off, then Labor Day starts us on our general election round of interviews.

Somewhere in all that, we’ll give some thought to choosing between McCain and (I hope) Obama — but given this schedule, not a whole lot of time.

Oh, yeah, I just realized that there’s an editorial point in all of the above. City elections should happen at the same time as the others, rather than having "stealth" elections in April, wedged between higher-profile races, when voters’ guard is likely to be down. April elections depress turnout.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits