Category Archives: 2010 Governor

Anybody agree with Barrett about the Navy brig?

29 Replies

Now to the substance of what Mullins McLeod was getting on Gresham Barrett about.

As I mentioned before in one of my last columns for the paper, Rep. Barrett didn’t seem to have a reason for running for governor. He could clearly state what he wanted to do, or anything special that he brought to the job (which is probably why he dodged talking to me for a couple of weeks, until I got really insufferable with one of his staffers — avoiding free media is just bizarre behavior in a gubernatorial candidate, and it really stood out), which was not good.

Now, he’s apparently decided he wants to grab attention and break out of the pack in the worst way — which is exactly what he’s done.

In the playbook of the kind of politician who has a very low opinion of the electorate, he’s doing everything right: He’s appealing to xenophobia, to the Not In My Backyard mentality, to insecurity, and sticking it to the administration that happens to be of the other party. He accomplishes all that by griping loudly and obnoxiously about the idea of the Obama administration bringing “detainees” from Guantanamo to the Navy Brig in Charleston.

Folks, I’d just as soon they stay in Gitmo, because I’ve always thought that was an excellent place to keep them, practically speaking. First, it’s off our soil, which keeps them in limbo as far as our legal system is concerned. You’ll say, “But that’s just what’s WRONG with Gitmo,” but the fact is that prisoners who are taken in such unconventional warfare, many of whom are sworn to do anything to harm Americans if given the chance, are different either from people arrested in this country under civil laws or captured in a conventional conflict.

And it’s secure as all get-out.

But… and this is a big “but”… as convenient as it might be for us to keep people whom we believe to be terrorists on a sort of Devil’s Island, as practical as it might be — it hasn’t been good for our country. Why? Because we’re not the 19th century French. We aren’t governed by a Napoleonic Code. We’re all about innocence until proven guilty. And while we may sound like damnable fools for extending such niceties to people who thought 9/11 was really cool and would like to see another, we do stand for certain things, and Gitmo has given this country a huge black eye that it can’t afford. We have to be better than that.

For that reason, even if John McCain had been elected instead of Obama, we’d be closing Guantanamo. (As Lindsey Graham says, we might have done it in a more organized manner, but we’d still be doing it.) And finding a secure place to put those people is part of that process. Guess what? Our allies don’t want them. So we’re stuck with them.

And that makes the brig down in Charleston as good a place as any. Hey, I don’t want them there, but sometimes, somebody besides our men and women in uniform has to put up with something they don’t like in our nation’s greater interest in this War on Terror.

And does anyone truly doubt the ability of the United States Navy to keep those people secure there? I don’t. I suspect we could always transfer up a few more Marines from Guantanamo if we think we don’t have enough security there. It certainly fits the brig’s mission, which is officially stated as follows:

The mission of the Naval Consolidated Brig Charleston is to ensure the security, good order, discipline, and safety of prisoners and detained personnel; to retrain and restore the maximum number of personnel to honorable service; to prepare prisoners for return to civilian life as productive citizens; to prepare long term prisoners for transfer to the Federal Bureau of Prisons or the United States Army Disciplinary Barracks; and when directed by superior authority, detain enemy combatants under laws of war.

So basically, Rep. Barrett’s attempt to score points on this issue is ugly, petty, and insulting.

Just for the sake of argument, does anyone agree with him?

Mullins grabs some attention, but fails on civility

17 Replies

You may recall that I haven’t been too impressed with Mullins McLeod. I’ve generally dismissed his campaign as being… what’s the word… trite, I suppose. His campaign releases have sort of struck a generic populist pose, trying to project him as a regular guy who’s tired, just as you good people out there are, of all them blamed politicians and their shenanigans.

That pose is tiresome enough when done well, but as I said, his populist pronouncements have been so vanilla, as that genre goes, so as to be easily forgettable five minutes later. As I said back here, Mullins just hasn’t been able to get a hit in his few at-bats.

Well, he made a concerted effort to get on base yesterday, when he told Gresham Barrett to “shove it” on the Gitmo prisoners issue. Well, Gresham certainly deserved to have someone call him on his really ugly NIMBY ploy for attention, but while it might be cool for, say, a Dick Harpootlian to say something like that (except that Dick would be more imaginative, and he’d say it in Dwight’s behalf, not Mullins’), that’s not the kind of language we need from one who would be governor.

So basically, Mullins has managed briefly to get our attention by passing first and running the basepaths, but he’s immediately alienated us by coming into seconds with sharpened spikes high, a la Ty Cobb. In other words, the first time he gets our attention, he fails the civility test.

Hey, if we wanted a guy who talks like this as governor, we could turn to Joe Wilson.

You got that right, Logan (I mean, Daniel)

Leave a reply

Sometimes Twitter allows you to say all that needs to be said about a given subject, and Greenville’s Logan Stewart achieved that this morning with her comment on a certain event coming up tonight:

LOL… yes // RT @danielboan: 10 candidates, 2 parties, and 1 debate sounds like the worst idea I have ever heard

You got that right, Logan….

Oh, wait — that @danielboan means HE said it, and you’re agreeing.

OK. You got that right, Daniel…

Actually, Rex faces TWO serious contenders

1 Reply

As I read this this morning:

Rex, the state superintendent of education, is known by more of those surveyed than the other Democrats running for governor. More than 60 percent recognized his name. Forty-one percent had a favorable impression of Rex. In contrast, a majority of those surveyed did not know the four other Democratic contenders — Columbia attorney Dwight Drake, state Sen. Robert Ford of Charleston, Charleston attorney Mullins McLeod and state Sen. Vincent Sheheen of Camden.

… I thought, No, there are not four other contenders. Really, there are two — Sheheen and Drake.

News stories can’t say that, because the reporters aren’t allowed to say that Robert Ford would never be a serious factor (and if you think otherwise, you apparently haven’t followed his career or listened to him), and Mullins McLeod, in spite of having an AWESOME South Carolina name and being the nephew of Walt McLeod (one of the coolest people in the Legislature), hasn’t caught on and seems increasingly unlikely to do so.

I could prove to be wrong about this, of course. McLeod could suddenly kick into gear, or Ford could start acting very unFordlike.  But if that happens, I’ll say the position has changed and include them. Right now, I wouldn’t be too concerned about them if I were one of the other three.

Henry McMaster’s video on the Water War with N.C.

4 Replies

You know, it occurs to me: How am I going to get people, especially political types, to buy ads on my blog (once I start offering ads on my blog) when I go ahead and put there promotional material on the blog for free? The video above being a case in point.

Well, I don’t know. But I’ll keep sharing stuff like this whenever I have something to say about it.

And what I have to say about this is: It’s a huge improvement over his initial campaign video, but still leaves much to be desired.

It’s an improvement because it isn’t a naked play on partisan resentment. In the earlier video, he blamed unemployment in South Carolina, absurdly, on Barack Obama. In this one, by contrast, his villain is those greedy North Carolinians upstream, which is more credible.

And the tone is laudable because it’s calmly and dispassionately explanatory. That’s nice for a change.

But one thing it fails to do is explain to voters why this has a bearing upon their choice for governor. It doesn’t clearly say that I, Henry McMaster, have taken a particular stand on this issue and my opponents have not, or in any other way related the Water War to the subject at hand, which is nominating a gubernatorial candidate.

You may say I can’t have both calm explanation and overt appeal for votes, but I think I can. If you’re going to take a minute to ‘splain something, ‘splain what I can do about it. It doesn’t seem like it would be that hard.

Your thoughts?

Henry’s got some ‘splainin’ to do

7 Replies

I tend to yawn at debates over technical violations of ethics rules. Perhaps that will shock you, since journalists tend to be the ones who get the MOST worked up about such.

Consider it yet another one of the little ways that I have always tended to be a contrarian. Here’s my thinking on the matter: Ethics rules usually have little or nothing to do with right or wrong. They’re almost always about the appearance of right or wrong — and usually pretty narrow-gauge rights and wrongs at that. For instance, ethics laws really fret over the appearance of a conflict of interest. I worry about it when it actually leads to (or rather points to; the cause and effect relationship can be fuzzy) a public figure doing something wrong.

For instance — I remember a lot of folks getting really concerned about David Beasley accepting plane rides from folks associated with the Barnwell nuclear waste dump, from whom he had also received campaign contributions. People went on and on about these plane rides, like they mattered. (Folks who get worked up about ethics laws have a particular obsession with plane rides, as we’ve seen recently.)

Me, I was more concerned about the fact that Gov. Beasley had thrown careful interstate negotiations out the window in a reckless bid to overturn years and years of bipartisan effort to get some state other than South Carolina to be the region’s nuclear toilet for awhile. Mind you, he had already done this before all the hoo-hah about the plane rides. I kept trying to explain to anyone who would listen that the plane rides were only significant in that they might point to a cozy relationship with the dump people, which could portend that the governor might do something in the interest of the dump people rather than the interest of the people of South Carolina. But folks, he had already done the worst thing he could have done along those lines. This worrisome indicator (the disclosure of the plane rides) was superfluous and after the fact, and it interested me not in the slightest. It was a matter of straining at gnats.

It struck me as particularly dumb that Democrats were making a huge deal over the plane rides, and to my mind never made enough of the trashing of our nuclear waste policy (if Jim Hodges had run on that instead of the state lottery, he still would have won).

Actually, I could have just given you this short explanation: I care more about the substance than I do the appearance.

Anyway, having the attitude I do about these things, I didn’t make much initially of the story about Henry McMaster’s contributions from lawyers working for the state. But as it happens, The Wall Street Journal did pay attention, and made quite a deal of it:

More interesting than the suit’s dubious merits are Lilly’s recent court filings about the AG’s ties to trial lawyers. Mr. McMaster in 2006 chose three private lawyers—John S. Simmons, John Belton White, Jr., and F. Kenneth Bailey, Jr.—to prosecute Lilly on behalf of the state. The no-bid contingency contract—which Mr. McMaster refused to produce to Lilly for nearly a year—gives the private lawyers a sliding-scale cut of any judgment or settlement, a jackpot potentially worth tens of millions of dollars.

About a month after filing the case in 2007, according to the Lilly documents, Mr. Simmons’s law firm had turned around to contribute the maximum amount allowable ($3,500) under state law to Mr. McMaster’s re-election. Mr. White’s law firm contributed the same amount on the same day, and Mr. White later added a personal maximum donation. All told, the law firms, their lawyers and spouses have contributed more than $60,000 to Mr. McMaster since 2006. The AG can transfer this money to his gubernatorial account.

This sweetheart deal is rife with conflict of interest, and Lilly’s filing also lays out the legal and constitutional problems. Consider due process. Both the U.S. and South Carolina constitutions make clear that the state and its lawyers must be guided by justice and the public interest, not monetary gain. South Carolinians would be outraged if Mr. McMaster won a personal financial cut of any case he won as Attorney General. How is it better that his lawyers get it instead?

And as uninterested as I tend to be in such things, they managed to get my interest in the way they described why it was a bad thing. (It used to be Cindi Scoppe’s job, as the one journalist who knew the most and cared the most about state ethics law, to persuade me when an ethics case was actually worth caring about, and she was good at it. Now I don’t have her around to persuade me, so the WSJ did the persuading this time.)

I’m still not clear that Henry violated any ethics rules in taking this money. But as I say, that’s the kind of thing that bores me. (By the way, the reason most journalists get so worked up over whether an ethics rule — which is usually about appearances, not substance — was technically broken is that news people don’t get to make a judgment call and say, This guy did a bad thing. They can only report whether it technically violated a rule. So they go ape over whether a technical line was crossed, and their eyes are closed to policy actions that are monumentally bad, because with those they have to present just as many views saying it wasn’t bad as saying it was. Are you following me? It’s one of the reasons I put news behind me and moved to editorial in 1994.) What interests me is that the Journal piece makes a pretty good case that there is a degree of coziness here that is a bad thing.

Set aside that the Journal‘s motive is likely the fact that they want to stick up for Big Pharma. Bottom line, this is another embarrassing black eye for South Carolina. Not as bad as Sanford’s Argentina travesty or Joe Wilson’s ongoing foolishness, but the GOPs most promising gubernatorial candidate didn’t need this headache. Henry’s got some ‘splainin’ to do.

Dead-blogging the GOP debate

39 Replies

Just some scattered thoughts as I listen to the GOP debate last night via the Web. Can’t call it “live-blogging,” but it’s kind of like that, so I’ll call it “dead-blogging,” which sort of reflects my level of enthusiasm about the candidates so far, a few minutes into it. Some random observations:

  • These people aren’t running for governor of South Carolina. They’re running for the GOP nomination for governor, which is entirely different. Every word they’ve uttered so far has dripped with Republican jargon and catch phrases, and none of them has communicated the slightest desire for MY vote. Anyone else feel that way? I mean, it’s like listening to old-line Marxists talk about “running-dog imperialists.” These phrases don’t communicate or inspire, they just help us pigeon-hole the speakers…
  • Did Larry Grooms just say that DHEC regulates too aggressively? In what state, in which universe?
  • Seems the panel should have some folks on it with more of a statewide perspective, such as, say, the editorial page editor of The State. Oh, wait; there isn’t one any more…
  • Nikki’s sweet (oh, the women are going to come down on me for that one, but she is), but she really shows she’s out of her depth whenever she starts comparing government to a business. Inevitably, she betrays a lack of understanding of one, or both. For instance, she just decried the fact that the state lottery spends $7 million on advertising. She says that should go to education. Well, fine, so far. I don’t like the lottery spending to sucker more people into playing; I don’t think the lottery should exist. I would not, of course, try to make people think that the lottery is in ANY way an answer to our school funding needs. But that’s not the problem with what she said. The problem is, she says a business would not spend the money on advertising to keep the customers coming. Ummm… yes it would, Nikki. It would have to. I mean, duh, come on. It’s hard to imagine a type of business that would be MORE dependent on ad spending to keep its product front-of-mind for prospective players, to constantly whip up interest in its “product.” It has no substance, so it’s ALL about generating buzz…
  • Interesting how it is an accepted truth among these GOP candidates that the current administration has totally dropped the ball on economic development. There’s nothing new about it — Republicans have been griping about it for years — but it’s interesting because it sounds for all the world like these folks are running for the nomination of a party that has NOT held the governor’s office since 2002.
  • Which is dumber or more off-point — a TV watcher asking when we’ll eliminate property taxes, or Larry Grooms saying we shouldn’t tax either property or income? Which of course only leaves taxing economic activity as the last major category. And given our current economic situation, how stupid is that? And is he unaware that we’ve already tilted our tax system far too far in that direction already? Where’s he been the last few years?
  • Gresham Barrett tries to deflect a question about the Confederate flag by saying we need to concentrate on sending the signal that we are serious about moving forward on economic development in this state. Well, getting the flag off our state’s front lawn is the easiest, simplest, most obvious step we can take in that direction.
  • Here’s another odd question from the public — Would you oppose more stimulus funding for SC if South Carolinians didn’t have to repay it? What relationship does that have to reality? None. There has never been, and never will be, such a major expenditure that we as taxpayers won’t be on the hook for. Of course, Nikki’s reply acts as though that’s the very situation we had with the stimulus that she agreed with Sanford on, which is the opposite of the truth.
  • Henry at least gets a plug in for comprehensive tax reform…
  • Grooms is right to say across-the-board is not the right way to cut the state budget, but then he retreats into quasi-religious ideological gobbledegook about how the problem is too much spending to start with. (More specifically, he says we shouldn’t institute programs — as if we’ve instituted new programs lately — that we don’t know how we’ll pay for. And yet he’s the guy who wants to make sure we don’t have the revenues we need, by taxing nothing but economic activity.)
  • Just watched Bill Connor’s Gov Lite campaign ad, which reminds me: If I ever do run for office, and I start blathering about how you should vote for me because I’m not a “professional politician,” will one of y’all slap me? Not hard, mind you, just to sort of reboot my brain so I can come up with something other than cliches…
  • Nikki says she supports “all education reforms.” So basically, if you call it a “reform,” she’s for it. Talk about failing to be discriminating…
  • Henry doesn’t seem to be aware that we are a national leader in demanding accountability of public educators. Lack of accountability isn’t the problem. We’re et up with it. In fact, we just had an insurrection over the PACT test, because so many parent agreed with the teachers that they’d had enough of it. I’m with him on merit pay, though.
  • Andre just came out for consolidating school districts. Good for him. Of course, Mark Sanford has always said he was for it, but hasn’t lifted a finger to make it happen. He also said he doesn’t want to spend money on football stadia, which I certainly applaud.

OK, I’ve got to stop watching now… lunch appointment. More later, if I get time…

They keep pushing me to run…

22 Replies

Today after Rotary, Kathryn F. buttonholed me and started egging me to run for office. Hey, it’s easy for her to say — I’m the one who would be making a fool of himself, not to mention having to go to all those chicken dinners.

Run for what, you’re thinking? Yeah, I know — it’s hard to remember what Brad isn’t running for today: Is it the S.C. House? Or governor? Or Congress?

In this case, it’s specifically Congress that I’m being coy about.

Kathryn’s not the only one, by the way. Nathan Ballentine asked me about it when I ran into him this morning. Of course, he said it with a smile.

Anyway, I gave Kathryn all the reasons why I can’t run, and she tried to knock them all down:

  • Neither of the parties can stomach me, and I can’t stomach the parties. And so far, no member of the UnParty has been elected to Congress. There’s a reason for this: Anything as stretched out and gerrymandered as a congressional district in the former Confederacy is really tough to win by shoe leather and personal perseverance. A state House seat, maybe. But a district that stretches to Beaufort sort of needs the simple answers and mass media approach and organization that only a party can provide. And on some of the hot-button issues that separate the parties, I agree with one side, and on some of them with the other. And on some of those issues, I have no easily explained opinion, but explaining WHY I don’t have a position is the work of at least a newspaper column, and how do you get a majority of voters in a congressional district to pay attention to something with that kind of nuance?
  • I don’t have a job, and I need to get one and get some money coming in soon. Kathryn says running for Congress would BE my job. But far as I know, you’re not allowed to pay your mortgage and personal phone and light bills with campaign contributions — assuming I can get campaign contributions (and who’s going to contribute to someone who’s neither a Democrat nor a Republican?). And when I get a job, the odds are that it will be one that wouldn’t allow me to run for Congress. Most jobs wouldn’t allow you to run for Congress. If I were independently wealthy, yeah, this would be a great time to run. But as things are…
  • Who would vote for me? Based on the kinds of comments I get here, not even a majority of my putative base here on the blog would vote for me. I mean, if the overall electorate receives my ideas the way some of y’all do, I’ll be lucky not to be ridden out of the district on a rail. I’m way too candid with y’all about too many things to be a successful candidate for high office.
  • Of the three offices I’m not running for, Congress would be my least favorite. Running for governor or state legislator, I would feel pretty confident that I would know the issues better than just about anyone who ran against me, and the issues aren’t nearly as bifurcated according to party. There’s more room for a Third Way kind of guy like me. With Congress, every conversation is a big political battle. Say I tell folks what I think about health care — well, that would automatically label me as being to the left of Barack Obama (that’s the area assigned to us single-payer types), which would endear me to the Democrats (some of them) and make me persona non grata to the Republicans. And there’d be no avoiding that issue. But suppose abortion comes up (no reason it should since we’re not talking about the Senate, but suppose it did)? On that one I’d be solid with the Republicans, and the Democrats would despise me. And people would accuse me of waffling, when it is my personal belief that I’m the coherent one, and “left” and “right” as they are currently defined don’t make sense. But could I sell that, with all the other messages out there being against me?

And lots and lots of other reasons. Y’all can probably think of more reasons than I can — after all, I would vote for myself.

At least, I think I would. The idea of sending myself up to Ground Zero of all the partisan madness I constantly decry… well, it’s not something I’d wish on a yaller dog. Or an elephant.

But at least Kathryn has given me a small taste of that phenomenon that causes candidates to piously claim that they’re only running because of the people urging them to do so…

Anyway, now that I’ve totally turned you off with my self-absorption — and made some of you laugh because it may sound like I’m actually considering this… Think about this: Almost any normal person who thinks about running for office goes through these same sorts of thoughts. And for almost any normal person, the answers to all these questions would add up to a big, resounding NO. In fact, you have to ask, given that there are all these natural objections to running for office, what it is that’s wrong with the people who actually DO? And you begin to understand why politics is as messed up as it is…

Trying to think like a businessman

4 Replies

I already posted this once this morning and it disappeared; let’s see if I can recreate it…

This morning I ran into Dwight Drake, who was breaking his fast with some newspaper folk, including my former publisher and Bill Rogers of the state press association.

I asked Dwight whether he was wooing the press, but he said it was the other way around: They were trying to sell him some ads.

Well, good luck to them, said I as I moved back toward my table — newspapers certainly need the revenue, and maybe if Dwight broke with the conventional wisdom and invested significantly in print, some of his competitors would, too.

Only later did I realize I should have told Dwight that I’m planning on taking ads on my blog, once I work out the technical issues, and so if he wants to spend money, he could do so with me. But I always forget stuff like that. Maybe I’m not cut out to be a Mad Man after all (please don’t tell Joan Holloway) …

I chatted with Dwight a bit more after his meeting broke up, and he told me that before he would approve the “500 Days of Sanford” video spoof, he had to go see the movie. Wanting to seem hip, I didn’t ask “What movie?,” although that’s what I was thinking. Oh, now I see. Dwight says it was OK, but no “Gone With The Wind.” I can believe that. At any rate, I found the video amusing without getting the allusion.

Then, after I left, I realized I’d missed yet another selling opportunity, because I could have told Dwight I can run video on my blog. Of course, I already did run his video, for free.

I’ve really got to get a handle on this thinking like a businessman thing…

Video commentary: ‘Fin de Semana’

10 Replies

Did you know there was a BobbyHarrell.com? Well, there is. And if you go there, you can read the Speaker’s letter calling on the governor to resign. There’s audio, too.

The Speaker of the House calling on the governor to resign is a significant step — or would be, if we thought there was the slightest chance the governor would listen to the Speaker or anyone else in South Carolina.

But I tend to focus on funny things. Such as this one little thing that the governor said on Keven Cohen’s show yesterday:

Bottom line, I was gone over that weekend.

Let’s see — he left on Thursday, came back on Wednesday, and that’s a weekend? Maybe in Argentina, but not here…

Rex lets the first shoe drop

5 Replies

Don’t know if you saw this on Jim Rex’s Facebook page:

Statement by Jim Rex
Thursday, September 3, 2009

“I have decided that I will not seek re-election to the Office of State Superintendent of Education in 2010, regardless of whether or not I decide to run for Governor. It is clear from my time in this office that there is a limit to what we can accomplish to move South Carolina’s schools and our state forward so long as we do not have someone in the Governor’s office who is making education, jobs, and economic development the top priorities of this state. I am in the final stages of making a decision about whether or not to offer myself to South Carolinians to be that kind of Governor – a “turnaround” Governor – or whether to return to the private sector and continue to work to make a difference there. Sue and I appreciate the support and encouragement we have received as we have moved around the state in these last few weeks, and I look forward to a final decision very soon.”

So that’s one shoe. He said at Bud’s house that if the other shoe’s gonna drop, it will be this week or next.

So if he does get into it, what does that do to the race for governor? I was intrigued that Wes Wolfe suggested Rex would be in third place behind Vincent Sheheen and Dwight Drake. I asked Wes why he thought that, to which he responded:

The money and connections Drake has are pretty powerful. Plus, Rex’s only claim to fame was beating Karen Floyd by 455 votes. Also, Rex’s fundraising operation, at least so far, has been woefully inadequate compared to Drake and Sheheen. I think he could pull third, but he’d have to show me something special to prove that he can get into the runoff.

My own thought is that Rex has more name recognition than Vincent, and lacks the controversy that attaches to Dwight as a result of his lobbying clients. In a Democratic primary, that is. For many Republican voters (those of the Sanford ilk), Rex brings baggage just from being associated with public education, which they despise. And there are enough of that sort of voter to be a factor in a general election. But that’s not a factor in a Democratic race.

I don’t know for sure which of those three ought to get the nomination, but if I were to predict I’d say Rex would start out with an advantage, whether he should or not. But of course, no one really knows; we’re making educated guesses.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that (or so they say)

9 Replies

The last couple of days, whispers about a certain public figure being homosexual have gradually been seeping into the MSM. My question is, should they?

Actually, I have several questions, including:

  • What does it matter if he is? Aren’t we supposed to not care? I’m constantly told by my children and others of their generation that we’re not supposed to care, that it’s the same as being hetero — even as some of that generation use “that’s so gay” as an apparent pejorative, which confuses me because it’s so, well, my generation.
  • At what point does the usual MSM dodge for reporting unsubstantiated rumor — that blogs and other low-threshold media have reported it to the point that the resulting buzz (not, of course, the underlying rumors themselves, perish the thought) has made news to the point that it must be reported — rise above being a lame excuse?
  • Should I even be writing about it here, even in the rather priggish manner in which I am doing so?

I almost did so yesterday, when WIS actually did a report on the subject, which caused a bit of triumphalist chortling in the blogosphere. But I didn’t. Such is my reluctance to address such a subject. (The WIS report raises a subquestion: Should one say “crap” on broadcast TV?)

But now that Peter Hamby of CNN — yes, a national news organization — is reporting that Jake Knotts is actually accusing our governor of coordinating this whispering campaign against Jake’s ally — an accusation for which I’ve seen no justification, in the governor’s defense (merely having an apparent motive does not make one the prime suspect) — I’m faced with the fact that just about everyone but me is talking about this. (Such as Politico, and both national and state blogs.) No newspapers so far, though, unless I’ve missed something. I can well imagine the conversations going on in newsrooms as they decide what to do, or whether to do anything. And I remain surprised that WIS did it first.

But should anybody be reporting any of this? Whose business is this?

It’s perversely interesting (if I may use that modifier) to see how things like this play out in this allegedly “enlightened” age. Consider for instance the subset of this phenomenon, whereby the apostles of tolerance are the first to “out” political conservatives who are said to lean that way. Their excuse, of course, is that they are exposing the ultimate political sin in this postmodern world, hypocrisy. One can do all sorts of hypocritical things in the name of exposing hypocrisy, including acting like there’s something wrong with someone being “gay” even when one adamantly insists the rest of the time that there is not.

Me, I’m Old School. Personally, I appreciate people not talking about their sexual predilections. For instance, I do NOT appreciate people talking ad nauseam about their “soulmates,” of whichever gender. When they do, I tend to harrumph.

And when third parties talk about someone else’s rumored predilections, I get really uncomfortable. It doesn’t seem right.

The whole thing is just so cringe-making that I might take this post down when I look back at it later.

What do y’all think?

Political art, for art’s sake

5 Replies

Do you like my latest header image (I figured y’all had had your fill of the ugly, rusty car with the big Confederate flag painted on it)? It’s filled with hidden meaning, regarding our political past and future.

It was taken at the S.C. State Museum Dec. 15, 2007, a Saturday, after a John McCain event in which he had publicly accepted the support of a large number of retired admirals and generals. (It was the same day I got his attractive young press secretary to promise me, on video, that she would quit smoking if he got the nomination. I wonder whether she did?) He and supporters were getting onto the elevator, and before the doors closed I got this artsy-blurry shot, which I think looks fairly cool.

At the far right, somewhat out of focus, you have a figure from our recent political past. Then at the opposite end, you  see the back of someone we’ll hear a lot from going into 2010. Since he represents the future, you can’t see his face. You know, the future being hidden from us and all.

Like I said, Baby, fraught with meaning…

mccain-032

Time for some ‘pure politics:’ Who can talk sense to our governor?

30 Replies

Check it out — I have a new Webcam. And so today, I decided to go with some video commentary rather than do all that tedious typing.

But to add a little something to this clip, here are some links to what I’m talking about:

Video from Bauer press conference

5 Replies

Andre Bauer’s press conference today was pretty much as advertised. I dropped by to check it out on my way to the job fair today at the State Museum.

Above is some sketchy video from my Blackberry. (And just to show how good I am to y’all, here is much higher-quality video at thestate.com.) You can see me shooting it, my arm obscuring my face, in the photo below by Tim Dominick of The State. You may be able to tell that the turnout on the part of media types was somewhat sparser than for the now-infamous Sanford press conference that started all this rolling.

No, excuse me: What started it rolling was Gina Smith catching the gov at the Atlanta airport getting off the plane from Argentina. Had that not happened, there would have been no confession, and we’d probably still be in the dark. Gina was at today’s press confab, and I was able to congratulate her for the S.C. Scoop of the Century. I’ve had some pretty good stories in my lengthy career, and put one over on the competition a few times in my reporting days. But rare is the reporter who can say that something this broke purely because she was on the spot in the right place at the right time. Sure, the credit goes to teamwork — someone else got the tip that the governor had been seen in Argentina, and the folks at The State determined that there was a chance he’d be on this flight — but the glory goes to Gina.

Anyway, the Andre thing told us pretty much what we knew. In essence:

  1. He called on the governor to resign, becoming the first statewide elected official to do so.
  2. He promised that if the governor quits and makes Andre governor before Andre announces his own candidacy for governor in October, Andre will not run in 2010.
  3. He made it pretty clear that if it takes longer than that — such as if we have to wait for the Legislature to be in session to impeach Sanford — the deal is off.

So, if ANYBODY has any influence over Mark Sanford (something which I doubt, unless his “soulmate” chooses to weigh in; this guy is singularly immune to what other people think), now would be a really good time to try to get him to quit.

379-bauer_td122standaloneprod_affiliate74

Do you MEAN it this time, Andre? If so, it’s settled: Sanford should go

5 Replies
How about it, Gov? (2006 file photo by Brad Warthen)

How about it, Gov? (2006 file photo by Brad Warthen)

The State is trumpeting the latest word from Gov Lite Andre Bauer that he would NOT run for governor in 2010 if only we’ll let him serve in the job as a temp between now and then:

EXCLUSIVE – Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer plans to call on embattled Gov. Mark Sanford to step down during a noon news conference today. Bauer will also renew his pledge to bow out of the 2010 gubernatorial race should Sanford resign within a month or so. By early October Bauer will formally announce his intentions to seek the GOP nomination for governor in 2010.

Bauer is the first constitutional officer to join a growing chorus of lawmakers pushing for Sanford to resign, including a majority of Republican state senators.

Today’s announcement, according to a source close to Bauer, is intended to send a message to State House leadership that Sanford needs to step down and Bauer won’t stand in the way. Some lawmakers have been hesitant to push for Sanford’s resignation because it would give Bauer an unfair advantage in the 2010 race, as he would be running for governor as an incumbent.

There are several points to make about this development:

  • First, does he really mean it this time? Andre floated the “I won’t run if you let me be governor now” balloon before, then added a sotto voce “maybe” to the non-pledge. If we can hold him to it this time, it makes all the difference.
  • All the difference, I say again. It changes everything. Before some (such as my friends at The State) have maintained it was too dangerous for South Carolina for Mark Sanford to resign now, because it would give Andre a leg up in the 2010 race, and the actual election of Andre Bauer as our governor for four years would be disastrous. I have disagreed. I mean, I agree that Andre winning in 2010 would be horrific. But I disagree on whether an interim elevation would help him. Here’s the thing, folks: As things stand, Andre has about as good a chance as any other Republican of being elected if he runs. Scoff if you will, but I have watched this unlikely fellow win election after election when it made no sense at all. In a crowded field, he would not get nearly the scrutiny he should get. But put him in the top job now, at a time when the governor’s office is under the closest scrutiny I have ever seen in this state, and his many flaws would be magnified; they could not be missed. To me, the one way to make sure Andre Bauer is not elected governor is to give him the job now. But if he promises not to run, and we can hold him to it, there’s nothing left to argue about. There is no question that it would be in the best interests of the state to let him occupy the seat for a few months.
  • And no, we wouldn’t be giving up anything in the leadership department. Even before the current scandals, Mark Sanford was a dead loss for this state as governor. The limitations of the office, the circumstances of his promotion, and the wariness of State House leadership would prevent Andre from doing real harm. And since there was no chance Mark Sanford was going to do any good, there’s nothing lost. Yes, this state needs real leadership from the governor’s office. But letting Andre have the job now increases the chance that the voters will get serious and elect somebody good next year.
  • Unfortunately, “Sanford should go” is a lot easier to say than to make happen. The man is immune to political pressure from within his own party or from any other quarter. He does what pleases Mark Sanford. He always has, and always will. And the rumblings about impeachment are unpersuasive to me. The idea that South Carolina Republicans will actually summon the will power to impeach one of their own — even one whom they despise as much as they do Sanford — is hard for me to imagine. We’ve seen some unlikely things happen in the news lately — Santee Cooper backing down on the coal plant, the Rev. Jimmy Jones deciding not to build a duplicative homeless service shelter, neither of which I expected to see — but SC Republicans summoning the chutzpah to do that would be truly stunning. Anyway, the deal Andre is offering doesn’t seem to apply in the case of impeachment. Sanford has to resign, and he’s under a deadline to do it — by the first of October, roughly. So if anyone has the lever that will move our gov, now is the time to insert it and start prying.
  • Talk about your ironies: By making this gesture, calling upon the governor to resign and making his promise, Andre Bauer is exercising true leadership. In fact, one would have to go back a few years to find an instance of leadership by a governor or would-be governor that compares to this. Yes, the idea of Andre Bauer being our governor is appalling. And yet he’s doing this. Whatever else we say, I give him credit for it. Sure, he’s probably banking on the smart bet that there’s no way Sanford will quit. But it’s still impressive.

What do y’all think?

Welcome to the 2010 race, Henry

23 Replies

Let’s all welcome Henry McMaster to the 2010 gubernatorial contest. Or, if you won’t, I will.

I like Henry. For a guy who was our fourth choice for attorney general back in 2002 (we endorsed Jon Ozmint in the primary, Larry Richter in the runoff and Steve Benjamin in the general), I think he has turned out very well. This is partly by comparison with his predecessor, but on the whole I think Henry’s done well.

Then there was the fact that Henry backed John McCain through thick and thin. In the darkest days of his quest for the GOP nomination, when everybody was saying he should quit, Henry was proud to stand up and support the senator from Arizona. And since McCain was to me the only guy in the GOP contest worth considering, that counts for a lot with me.

For me, those two considerations — the job he’s done as AG, and his sticking with McCain when almost no one else would — more than cancel the qualms I had about Henry back when he was best known as a party chairman who regularly traded partisan silliness with his counterpart Dick Harpootlian.

At this point, Henry seems clearly the strongest candidate on the GOP side — especially after my interview with Gresham Barrett early on gave me the strong impression that he hasn’t even thought about what he would do as governor, and nothing I’ve heard since has disspelled that.

Not that Henry is chock full o’ specifics yet, either. And this seems to be an occupational hazard for Republicans. They know they have to live down the disaster that Sanford has been, but they are fearful of alienating the support that the governor continues to enjoy, bizarrely, among the GOP rank-and-file (which is to say, among Republicans who don’t actually have to deal with the guy, which is always where his greatest support has lain).

So they tiptoe. So we have Henry, in the video above, speaking vaguely, and awkwardly, about how “there’s been too much dishonesty and too many scandals…,” implying he’d get us away from all that. But what dishonesty? Which scandals? What is it that YOU, Henry McMaster disapprove of? Let us know where you stand. We all disapprove of “scandals” and “dishonesty,” but tell us where you see those bad things, so we can decide whether we approve of YOU.

The State seems to believe the “scandals” Henry refers to have to do with Sanford. But I don’t know that — not until Henry SAYS that’s what he means. And if so, he needs to go further: Which aspects of the governor’s behavior does he find scandalous? His affair? His use of the state plane as a personal taxi when he’s telling state employees to double up in hotel rooms? How about the fact that as governor he does not govern, in the sense of taking responsibility for the course of our state? Is that scandalous? And if so, why?

Beyond that, his initial platform seems remarkably like that of uber-Democrat Dwight Drake: Jobs. Again, not exactly a controversial position, not a defining trait, not a chisel that will help sculpt a clear image in the voter’s mind.

So I go into this inclined to like Henry, but wanting to hear more.

Harry Ott stays out of it, backs Sheheen

4 Replies

Well, the rumors I was hearing at the Jim Rex event last week turned out to be untrue — Harry Ott is not running for governor. Instead, he’s backing Vincent Sheheen:

OTT BACKS SHEHEEN IN RACE FOR GOVERNOR

“I believe it’s time we elect a governor we can all be proud of…

Vincent Sheheen is that person.”

St. Matthews, SC – Following his announcement over the weekend that he would not run for governor, House Minority Leader Harry Ott announced today that he is endorsing state Senator Vincent Sheheen in the race for governor.

“South Carolinians are yearning for a trustworthy, hard-working governor – one who can build the coalitions and provide the leadership necessary to address the challenges we face,” said Ott. “On the issues that will define the success or failure of our next governor – particularly creating good jobs and revitalizing our public schools – Vincent Sheheen is the candidate with the independence, experience and vision to move South Carolina forward.”

Ott and Sheheen served together in the South Carolina House from 2001 – 2004. Since 2004, Sheheen has served in the state Senate, where he represents Chesterfield, Kershaw and Lancaster counties.

“I have had the pleasure of knowing Vincent over the last decade and I believe, without a doubt, that he and I share a common vision of what South Carolina can be with the right person at the helm,” Ott continued. “Vincent has a longstanding reputation for forging partnerships and getting results. And perhaps most importantly, he believes deeply, as I do, in the value of our public schools and knows that they are the cornerstone for economic development and job creation.”

“South Carolina is at a pivotal juncture,” Ott said. “I believe it’s time we elect a governor we can all be proud of – one who has the character and integrity to help this great state find its way again. Vincent Sheheen is that person. I am excited to endorse Vincent Sheheen for governor of South Carolina, and I will work to help him get elected.”

This seems a good call on Rep. Ott’s part. The field was crowded enough, and he didn’t want it badly enough to claw through all that, from what I could tell at the one campaign event I heard him speak at.

This is good news for Sheheen, as Harry Ott is the sort of Democrat who pulls toward the center, and whoever gets the nomination will need that kind of appeal in November 2010. (Of course, the big question is always whether primary voters will have the sense to appreciate that.)

Bud’s get-together for Jim Rex

35 Replies
jim-rex-event-003

I converted this to black and white as a cheap and easy way to eliminate red-eye (note the otherwordly gleam in Bud's eye as he introduces Rex).

Tuesday was so eventful in the contest for the Democratic nomination for governor in 2010 that I didn’t have time to write about everything that happened.

I wrote about Dwight Drake’s candidacy (I talked to Dwight today, and he likes it that I called him the “anti-Sanford”), and about Vincent Sheheen’s relatively aggressive reaction to that. Then, that night, I went to a fundraiser for Jim Rex at Bud Ferillo’s house, and by the time I got home I was blogged out. Not to mention sweaty.

Not much to report. Rex says he’ll decide whether to run for governor either the first or second week in September, but of course, he was sounding very much like a candidate. If he gets in, he’ll run hard and Bud will no doubt help him do so, although it won’t be end-all and be-all for him. As his wife, Sue, noted to me, Rex has had a full career or two. He came out of retirement to run for superintendent (his first elective office), and while he gives it his all, he could always go back to retirement with a sense of fulfillment.

Consequently, don’t expect him to come out swinging against anybody the way that Vincent did in reaction to Dwight (or the way someone with apparent links to Mullins McLeod has done more indirectly, but more forcefully). He’s low-key, and prefers to stay away from such stuff. As he made a point of saying, “People are sick and tired of partisan, negative politics.” Not that I would put what Vincent did in that category; I think it was perfectly within the bounds. So does Dwight, for that matter — “He’s got to do that,” he said of Vincent today. But Rex probably won’t.

What else can I tell you, aside from how muggy it was? Well, I could tell you who was there. A partial list: Hayes Mizell, Rep. James Smith, Chris Vlahoplus, Charlotte Berry, Joe Berry, Barbara Rackes, Mike Mann, Raúl Fernandez-Carreras, Sally Huguley, Ted Riley…

… but don’t attach too much significance to any of those names; they weren’t all there because they’re supporting Rex. James Smith, for instance, is a Vincent Sheheen man all the way. There are few allies closer that those two and Joel Lourie. But as James had told me previously, he wrote a check for Rex — and wrote on the check that it was for his re-election campaign as superintendent. And he reiterated that upon his arrival at Bud’s. He and his lovely wife Kirkland had come to be sociable (and, in a sociable sort of way I suppose, check out the opposition).

While I did see at least one couple drop an envelope into the bin set by the front door, I think a lot of folks were there just to see what was happening. And to talk politics (there were rumors that yet another Democrat might run for governor, but I haven’t had a chance to check that out yet. If true, it would surprise me — although not as much as Dwight did.)

I, of course, was there in my usual mode of disinterested observer — which I always have to point out to people these days. Although I didn’t have to tell Zeke Stokes. When someone asked a question that he thought bore a little too intimately upon the not-yet campaign’s strategy, he begged off by saying “Brad Warthen is here,” so he at least still sees me as a journalist.

Best quote of the night, in response to a question about whether he would appeal to moderate Republicans and independents (which Rex noted he did already in winning in 2006): “I have become the darling of the NRA.” I believe that was intentionally ironic; he was just saying he hopes for diverse support (and that he agrees with the NRA that kids need to get into the outdoors more).

That’s about all, except to say this continues to be very interesting…