Vincent Sheheen hasn’t wasted any time pointing out new contestant Dwight Drake’s vulnerabilities. Dwight did a conference call with journalists at 1 p.m., and at 3:24 Vincent sent out this:
Sheheen’s Statement on Democratic Primary
Camden, SC – State Senator and Democratic candidate for governor Vincent Sheheen today issued the following statement regarding the Democratic primary for governor:Which candidate can return trust to the governor’s office? That is the ultimate question that South Carolina voters must decide.
“In the South Carolina Senate, I have focused on fighting the special interests and insider politics that too often control our government in Columbia at the expense of the people. Whether it be predatory lenders, big tobacco companies, or environmental polluters, I have been willing to stand up to them — and stand up FOR hard-working South Carolinians and our families.
Next year, we have the opportunity to end business as usual and elect a new governor who will put the people of this state first. South Carolinians deserve a state government that will reward their faith and hard work with good jobs and strong public schools.
Democrats in South Carolina must make a statement about the values of our party and of our state. The future of the Democratic Party and the quality of our state government in South Carolina is at stake.
In this election, Democrats must carefully choose a candidate who represents our values and the values of South Carolina. We must make a new start, with a new direction and vision to rebuild our state. This is our chance and we cannot afford to miss it.”
You know the wild rumors that led to me being asked whether I was running for governor, at the behest of Jim Hodges and Dick Harpootlian? Apparently, the candidate that rumor was really about was Dwight Drake. (UPDATE: Jim Hodges just told me he’s not backing Dwight or any other gubernatorial candidate — yet.) This is not as shocking an idea as it being ME, but it’s still pretty wild and surprising. Dwight’s done well — very well — working the corridors of power without being the front man, so this is quite a step for him.
In fact, if you drew a spectrum of political figures in terms of their effectiveness with lawmakers and put Mark Sanford on one end, Dwight would be on the other. He’s the anti-Mark Sanford, whether you see that as good or bad.
Dwight F. Drake is a partner of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP in Columbia where his practice focuses on government relations, legislative issues, and disputes involving government contracts. Maintaining an active litigation practice, Mr. Drake regularly argues before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Since joining the firm in 1983, Mr. Drake has been at the forefront of every significant issue considered by the South Carolina General Assembly — from tort reform to the Economic Development Bond Act. Additionally, he has held numerous positions in firm leadership and management.
In 1981, Mr. Drake was named Lawyer of the Year in Government by American Lawyer, and he is widely recognized for his prominent role in governmental and political arenas. Mr. Drake has twice received The Order of the Palmetto, the highest honor bestowed by a Governor of South Carolina. Mr. Drake’s successful litigation practice led to his selection as a permanent member of the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference, and his advocacy skills are valued by legislative and litigation clients alike.
Mr. Drake served as a member of the Hodges for Governor Transition Committee. Prior to joining the firm, he served as Executive Assistant for Legislative and Political Affairs for South Carolina Governor Richard W. Riley. Mr. Drake served as legal counsel to South Carolina Governor John C. West.
In 1972, Mr. Drake earned a Juris Doctor from the University of South Carolina School of Law where he was president of the Student Bar Association and held membership in Phi Delta Phi and the National Moot Court Team. Mr. Drake earned a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Georgia in 1967.
Later today, I’m going to a fund-raiser for Jim Rex, and see what’s going on there. But it’s clear that this election is shaping up as the opposite of 2006 for Democrats. Then, no viable candidate stepped forward, and that party ended up with Tommy Moore. This year, you have have a statewide name in Rex, an idealistic young reformer in Sheheen, and the ultimate get-it-done guy Drake. Meanwhile, the party is keeping up a steady pounding on the likely GOP candidates, hitting them with Sanford like battleships softening up the beach with artillery before an amphibious landing.
2010 is going to be very different for South Carolina.
Oh, and just so you have all the details, here’s Dwight’s announcement:
Dwight Drake Announces Run for Governor to Get South Carolina Working Again
Drake Led Efforts to Bring BMW to State and Protect Public School Funding,
Will Keep Working for Jobs and Education as Governor
COLUMBIA – Dwight Drake, an attorney and experienced public servant with a long record of fighting for job creation and improved public education, announced today that he will run for Governor of South Carolina as a Democrat in the 2010 election. Drake announced his candidacy in a video emailed to voters across the state and posted at http://www.DwightDrake.com. [NOTE FOR TV PRODUCERS: Broadcast-quality versions of the video are available for digital download at http://www.box.net/DrakeAnnouncement.]
“We need to get South Carolina working again,” said Drake. “The past eight years have been wasted, and South Carolina is now first in unemployment in the South. Mark Sanford made a lot of news when he disappeared this year, but he’s been AWOL on jobs since the day he took office.
“I know from my experience working with two Governors who made education and jobs their priorities – John West and Dick Riley – and working to bring BMW to South Carolina, what it takes to create good-paying jobs in our state.”
Drake has been a tireless advocate on behalf of education and job creation in South Carolina. He headed up the successful, bipartisan effort to attract BMW to locate in South Carolina and later to expand their operations in the state, resulting in more than 15,000 new jobs for South Carolinians.
Drake also helped lead Choose Children First, a coalition of business leaders, lawmakers, and supporters of public education who came together to defeat Governor Mark Sanford’s attempt to drain money away from public schools with a voucher program.
Most recently, Drake represented South Carolina students Casey Edwards and Justin Williams in their legal fight to force Governor Sanford to accept federal funds for economic recovery and to put that funding to work for South Carolina’s public schools. Both students appear in Drake’s announcement video and speak about the work he did to make their victory possible.
Drake’s years in public service include serving as legal counsel to former Governor John West and as former Governor Dick Riley’s top legislative aide, where he helped pass landmark legislation, including the Education Improvement Act, as well as efforts supporting early childhood development and state government reform.
Drake’s first priority as Governor will be bringing jobs to the state, after years of neglect by Governor Sanford.
“The first thing a Governor should do when he wakes up in the morning is think, ‘What can I do today to bring good jobs to South Carolina?'” said Drake. “And the last thing he should do at night is ask himself, ‘Did I do enough today on jobs?’
“My mother and father taught me always to tell the truth and do my best. Well, the truth is we’re not doing our best in South Carolina. That’s why I’ve decided to run for Governor.”
Dwight Drake is a native of Spartanburg County, where his father worked in the mills and Drake joined him to help pay for his college education. He is a U.S. Army veteran who served in Vietnam, and he earned his law degree from the University of South Carolina. Drake lives in Columbia with his wife Beth, a federal prosecutor, and their two daughters, Marshall, 12, and Eliza, 9.
Drake will hold a press conference call at 1:00pm TODAY to discuss the announcement of his candidacy for Governor.
Folks, I’m going to take a break from my busy job-hunting schedule to be on Keven Cohen’s show at 3 today. Actually, I had sent Keven a message related to the job search (I’m sort of making my way through the contacts in my Blackberry), and he said he didn’t know of any jobs, but he could help me stay before the public eye. Or ear, in this case.
Keven has asked me to “talk politics/Sanford/2010-2012 races,” which I guess I can handle.
It’s on WVOC, which you can listen to online here.
Y’all will enjoy this — so I’m driving home this afternoon, having run some family errands after Rotary, and my Blackberry buzzes. And it’s Corey Hutchins from the Free Times.
He says there are rumors flying that someone is about to announce a candidacy for governor. Then he mentions something about it being someone whom Dick Harpootlian and Jim Hodges are backing (which makes the next part really wild).
Then he asks whether I’m the one. I had to get him to repeat it. He was asking me whether I’m running for governor.
I got a good laugh out of that — not at Corey’s expense, though. On the contrary; I respect him for being so conscientious as to take the trouble to run down a wild rumor before dismissing it. And he knew it was wild. In his defense, he said, “You should hear some of the names being mentioned.” Presumably, some are even wilder than mine. I hesitated to use Corey’s name here (and if he asks me to, I’ll take it down) because I didn’t want to embarrass him. But I thought that detail lent credence to a post that you might otherwise think was a hoax.
What I’m laughing about was that for him even to have heard it means that there’s at least one person, and possibly two or more, who found it credible enough to pass on…
But anyway, just for the record:
I am not currently running for governor. Nor do I have actual plans to do so.
I’m not aware of anyone out there who is working in behalf of a Warthen candidacy. And I’d know about that. Wouldn’t I?
Jim Hodges would not be putting my name forward. I mean, he and I get along fine these days, but still. Nor would Dick, far as I know.
I am the founder of the UnParty, and my party has yet even to come up with a nominating process.
Of course, on the other hand, there are the following items arguing the other way:
I’ve certainly thought a lot about what it takes to be a good governor. For a platform, I could start with my last column at The State, and build from there.
I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that I could be a better governor than the current one (not a high standard, but it’s something).
But no, I’m neither a candidate nor plotting with anyone to become a candidate. What I am doing is hunting for a job.
It’s interesting how susceptible the rumor mill is, though. Remember my thinking out loud, very briefly, about running for Ted Pitts’ House seat, since he’s running for Gov Lite? Well, that had legs. A couple of weeks back, when I dropped by the Lexington County GOP event at Hudson’s BBQ place (I was there to talk to Jake Knotts for this post, when we were all still wondering where the governor was), several people in the crowd asked me about it. And I think some of them were serious.
So it doesn’t take much to get this kind of thing going.
Anyway, to iterate once again — right now, my goal is full-time, paying employment. If I found a job that met my family’s financial needs and allowed me to run for office, too, I might think about it. Someday. But that’s a really huge “if.” Most employers would probably frown on that sort of thing.
Bottom line: I got a good chuckle out of this, and I needed one. So, to whoever started this ball rolling — thanks…
A working journalist friend has been forwarding me the governor’s public schedule, and she’s tired of doing it, and says I should just ask Joel (Sawyer, the gov’s press guy) to send them straight to me, and I haven’t asked him yet. Do you think he’ll send me one? Am I, as a blogger, sufficiently legit? We’ll see. When I get around to it. I’m kinda busy job-hunting and stuff.
But if he’s going to refuse to send one to anybody, it will be the folks over at the state Democratic Party. I mean, the poor guy tries to take a few days with the wife (he just sent out a new schedule postponing the rest of the week’s appointments so he can have some time with Jenny) under extremely trying circumstances, and they get all over his case:
SC Dems Outraged By Sanford Second Summer Vacation
Columbia, SC – South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler released the following statement today in response to Governor Mark Sanford taking another vacation after being back on the job for less than a month. Sanford canceled pending work for the rest of the week.
“A good many South Carolina families with out-of-work breadwinners had been hoping their governor would stick around and look for ways to bring more jobs to the state. He’s essentially been off the job for a month, and now he’s off again for a week’s vacation.
“Of course, unlike most South Carolinians, Mark Sanford gets paid whether he shows up for work or not. Once again it’s clear that there is one set of rules for Sanford and another set of rules for everyone else,” said Fowler.
Now, you see, Sanford’s thinking about now, this is why I didn’t put out public schedules before now…
I strongly suspect that — apart from when he was doing his executive budgets, which he was very obsessive about, and I mean that in a good way — one reason the gov never put out schedules before was because they would have looked kinda thin. I don’t know that; I just infer it from all the complaints I got from people who said this governor wouldn’t meet with them, unlike previous governors. Such as the folks over at Employment Security, who can be seen complaining about that very thing on this video.
So unless the governor starts doing a lot of gubernatorial stuff he didn’t used to do, his public schedules are going to give his critics lots of ammo. Which is why South Carolina’s Democrats are so thrilled that he keeps saying he’s not going to resign. They really, really want this state of affairs to continue through the 2010 election. It’s like Christmas every day for them.
Sorry not to have blogged in the last few days; I worked all weekend on a consulting project, and I’m still finishing it. But as I waited for someone to send me back something related to that, I checked my e-mail, and found this at the top:
June 30, 2009
News Release – For Immediate Release
Today, Democratic candidate for Governor Mullins McLeod made the following statement regarding the latest developments in the deepening Governor Mark Sanford scandal.
“Let’s not forget that the most important crisis we have right now remains our 12% jobless rate. The sad and disturbing Mark Sanford crisis is another order entirely. Our politicians in Columbia are busy tearing themselves apart with this scandal, focusing on their own political ambitions, while too many South Carolinians are losing their jobs. The hard working families of this state deserve better than this circus.”
###
Nothing particularly wrong about this release, except that it tries yet again to strike that “I’m the guy who cares about what the Real People care about” tone, and again fails to connect. I don’t know; maybe y’all think its fine. But it strikes me that of the three at-bats I’ve noticed Mullins having in this ball game, he’s yet to get a hit.
If you’re only going to put out a press release every once in a while, it seems like you’d wait until you have something clear and useful to say. But his statements so far seem to be, I don’t know, muddy. If he were putting out several a day, this one wouldn’t strike me as odd, but when I get this after a silence of days or weeks, and it’s so blah, I wonder why he bothered.
For instance, when he says, “The sad and disturbing Mark Sanford crisis is another order entirely,” what does he mean? Does it mean it’s worth talking about whether Mark Sanford should continue to serve as governor or not? He seems to suggest not, but he’s not clear. Note that he sent this out about an hour or so after AP reported that the governor got together with his girlfriend five times in the past year, not three, and that he’s “crossed lines” with other women, but not gone, you know, all the way. So is Mullins reacting to that, and saying we shouldn’t be talking any more about such salacious stuff? Or was he unaware of those developments, and just saying we shouldn’t talk about Sanford at all? Or what? “Another order entirely” doesn’t tell me anything.
He also seems to be suggesting (but nothing clearer than suggesting) we should be talking about unemployment instead of Mark Sanford. Which, come to think of it, is the same message Andre Bauer’s putting out — saying that if the governor quits and he takes his place, he’ll focus on “jobs, jobs and jobs.”
Andre went on to say other things that sound oddly like what Mullins is saying:
“My thought is that we’ve got to take politics out of it. We have got to move it forward as a state. Somebody’s got to show some leadership…”
Maybe Mullins has a different position from Andre’s, but I can’t tell. I can’t even tell if he means to hold Gov. Sanford responsible for the high unemployment, which would explain why he juxtaposes the two concepts. But he doesn’t say.
Like I say, there’s nothing really wrong with this release, but there’s nothing right about it either. And I’ve pretty much gotten that same impression from this campaign’s previous efforts. His releases seem to be generic, boilerplate, stuff politicians (whether they’re Andre or Mullins or whoever) say all the time. They don’t say ANYthing about why we should be interested in Mullins McLeod and what he has to say specifically. And this strikes me as odd.
The Republican version of McLeod seems to be Gresham Barrett, who after weeks of trying to get an interview with him really didn’t have any reasons to offer why he, in particular, was running.
Here’s hoping Mullins has more to say next time he makes an announcement. And that we start hearing more worth hearing from all the candidates. We need some substance here, people.
A story in The State this morning touched on this, and yesterday I was debating with Cindi Scoppe about it. Count Cindi among those who don’t want Mark Sanford to resign because becoming governor now would give Andre Bauer a leg up on being elected governor in 2010.
Just for the sake of argument, count me among those who believe the opposite: That becoming governor now would put Andre under public scrutiny far more intense than he would experience as just one candidate among several for a few months next year.
You have to understand — the lieutenant governor of South Carolina is about as close to a non-entity as you get for a statewide elected official. That’s no reflection on Andre; it’s an observation about the job. It’s supposed to be part-time. Andre’s friends in the Senate gave him that Office on Aging gig just to make it look like he’s doing something.
There simply is no reason for the press or anyone else to pay much attention to the Gov Lite — which drove Nick Theodore nuts back in the day, because he craved attention so.
If Andre were suddenly elevated to governor, particularly after this one collapsed so spectacularly under the weight of scandal, the spotlight on him would be as intense as the noonday sun. And while I think he’s matured a good bit in recent years, and learned to present himself far more capably than in the early days — the impression he made on us at his endorsement interview in 2006 was as different from my previous encounters with him as the night is from the day — I just don’t think he’d hold up well under such examination.
In the past, Andre had to do something pretty spectacular for people to pay any attention to him. And he was irresponsible enough to oblige. To repeat a laundry list I posted in 2006:
Wednesday, 07 June 2006
What would YOU ask Andre?
Andre Bauer is coming in for his interview at 4. I’m reviewing a few questions for him between now and then. I’m curious: What would you ask a lieutenant governor who:
When stopped speeding down Assembly Street, charged so aggressively at the cop that he felt threatened enough to draw his weapon?
When driving 101 mph on a wet highway, got on the police radio frequency to tell the patrolman pursuing him that “SC2” was “passing through,” and when he was stopped anyway, asked, “Did you not hear me on the radio?”
Lying to reporters about that incident, then saying you “forgot” about it when confronted with the evidence?
Showed up to negotiate with the Department of Transportation a price for land he owned — with a member of the transportation commission in tow?
The S.C. Democratic Party put out this release today in reaction to the governor’s disappearance, which, let’s face it, is pretty silly:
Columbia, SC- In anticipation of Governor Mark Sanford’s return to the state, the South Carolina Democratic Party will host a virtual town hall meeting today. The meeting is open to all residents who wish to ask questions to the governor who has been out of town (and out of touch) since last week.
“South Carolinians have been very concerned about Governor Sanford’s actions over the last eight months. They have a right to ask the Governor about our state’s unemployment rate, the stimulus and his reasons for abandoning the state. This virtual town hall meeting will give these concerned citizens a real opportunity to ask these questions,” said SCDP Chair Carol Fowler.
The town hall meeting, which will be held on the SCDP website, begins today at 4 p.m. and will end when Sanford responds to the questions. Residents wishing to participate in the SCDP meeting should visit http://www.scdp.org/governor/.
Tell you what, Democrats: Concentrate your energies on nominating someone better for governor in 2010. And Republicans, you do the same. THAT would be worthwhile. Stuff like this is not.
Nikki Haley is a true conservative and one of our state’s leading voices for fiscal responsibility and government reform. It’s too early to endorse anyone, but I would say Nikki Haley would make a terrific and inspiring choice as governor, and she’s a great addition to the field of candidates.
In other words, It’s too early to endorse anyone… but he just did.
Or did I miss it, and he’s made similar statements gushing about Gresham Barrett or Henry McMaster or whomever?
And there’s no mistaking the fact that Mark Sanford did indeed say that. It’s got his odd, signature “I would say…” verbal tick and everything. (About the fifth time he says that in a speech, I always want to say, Well then why don’t you go ahead and SAY it!?!?)
Anyway, as y’all know, I like Nikki. And as you also know, I think the last thing the state of South Carolina needs in 2010 is an official Mark Sanford wannabe candidate (what this election needs to be about, more than anything else, is moving beyond the dead loss of the Sanford years).
From the live streaming of the Supreme Court arguments:
Hearing Jean and Dick,
I have to wonder: Why can’t smart folk run our state?
Of course, you could argue that the über-smart Jean Toal does at least participate in running our state, as Chief Justice. But you know what I mean — why can’t such obviously smart people be involved in the day-to-day governance, both making our laws and executing them?
The ever-clever Dick Harpootlian, for his part, DID run for high state office — and lost to Charlie Condon — then consoled himself by making huge amounts of money in the private sector. Which, ironically, should make HIM the darling of the anti-government GOP right, instead of the perpetual public employee Mark Sanford.
Jean was a marvel in the Legislature as well, as I recall. But once one is on the court, we groundlings seldom get exposed in a direct way to her erudition. So this is enjoyable.
I’m going to try to keep this point in mind as we search for a new governor.
This may sound odd, but I have to force myself to get into the habit of reading the editorial page of The State each morning.
See, I never did it when I was the editor, since I had read it closely the day before. So it’s just not part of my morning newspaper-reading ritual. I go front page (only reading the stories that jump out as important in terms of being an informed citizen, which is often just one or two items on the page), the jumps from that page, metro front and the jumps of the stories I read there, the business front and (during the legislative session), page B3. And, if I’m not also reading the Wall Street Journal or some other paper, I’ll look at A4 for a national-international overview.
I’ll “read the paper” in accord with my habits, and never even glance at the opinion pages. Which is not good. I don’t mean to avoid it; it simply does not occur to me that I hadn’t read it unless something comes up to make me consciously realize it. And that’s awful, because I know how hard Warren and Cindi (and Randle and Claudia, but you don’t know them as well) are working in my absence.
For instance, I “read the paper” this morning, but did not see Cindi’s nice piece about what a principled guy Henry McMaster is. Finally, after it was brought to my attention a couple of times today, I went and read it. Sorry I missed it earlier. You should go read it now, if you’ve been similarly remiss.
Henry’s one of those gubernatorial candidates I had not written a profile of before I left the paper, since he had not declared. Still hasn’t. But when he does, I’ll write more about him on the blog. In the meantime, Cindi’s piece is a nice conversation-starter.
Henry’s been the sort of attorney general who makes you say you’re sorry — for not endorsing him when he ran. He has been SO much better than his predecessor (and so much more reasoned and professional than you might have expected the ex-party chairman — who used to trade silly partisan shots with Dick Harpootlian when they were opposite numbers — to be), that he is one of my two favorite people about whom I like to say “we were wrong” for not endorsing. The other is Lindsey Graham.
Henry and Lindsey, along with Bobby Harrell, were the South Carolinians who stuck with John McCain in the darkest hours of his campaign for the GOP nomination. That has something to do with why I respect them as I do. It’s not that I respect them for backing the right guy per se; it’s just that the qualities that caused them to choose McCain among the Republicans and stick with him are related to the traits that cause me to respect them as public servants.
But I digress. Of course, digressing is a large part of what a blog’s for, isn’t it?
So I did what I usually do at such events — breeze by the sign-in table and start chatting with the guests, without signing in, and without making a contribution. Because I’m press. That is, I WAS press, for my whole adult life until very recently. Now, the closest thing I am to “press” is that I’m a blogger. But it feels natural to keep going to events such as this one for various candidates so I can keep up with what’s going on. After all, over the four years since I started blogging, I’ve gone to such events primarily as a blogger, not as an editorial page editor. So what’s different now?
I don’t know, but I recognize the potential for awkwardness. For instance, the next day I saw Boyd Summers at Rotary, and he mentioned seeing me at the Sheheen thing, and said isn’t it great that now that I’m not an editor, I can “do things like that.” Obviously, he thought I was there to be involved, that I was declaring my support for Vincent by being there. Which I wasn’t, so I set him straight on that. (Incidentally, I also saw Boyd at the “tea party” protest recently, and he didn’t assume I was supporting that, so what’s the diff? I was reminded of that yesterday when someone on Facebook called my attention to this picture of me and Boyd at that event. If you follow that link you’ll see that someone mistakenly identified Boyd as Mark Quinn from ETV.)
Anyway, I had a nice time for the half hour I was there (and yes, you CAN have a nice time even if you’re actually working). Had a pleasant chat with Vincent’s wife, Amy. We talked about the pope and other Catholic stuff for awhile. Then I excused myself, explaining that I was going to see “Star Trek” with my younger son, and she totally understood, because she and Vincent went to see “Star Trek” for their anniversary.
Anyway, others who were there included James Smith, Joel Lourie, Vincent’s dad Fred and others whom you would expect to find there. Maybe 30 people. I don’t know if there were speeches, because I left so soon.
But I had to wonder — did anyone else there make the mistake Boyd made? And how can I prevent that? Should I wear a sign that says, “I’m Just Blogging,” in letters big enough to be seen across the room? Or should I simply not go to political events? If so, how do I write about them? How do I have those critical casual conversations with people, the kind where you find out what’s really going on (as opposed to those stiff, “I’m calling you up to interview you” conversations)? Do I have to rely entirely on running into them by chance at Starbucks? I don’t mind, but as a strategy, that seem iffy.
Anyway, I’m still figuring out this “I used to be a newspaperman, but not any more” thing.
I wish she hadn’t — she’s a good House member, but isn’t ready for this (and the last thing the campaign needs is someone dubbed the “Mark Sanford candidate,” since this election needs to be about moving beyond Mark Sanford) — but she did it:
Nikki Haley Announces Bid for Governor
May 14, 2009
LEXINGTON, SC – May 14, 2009 – Representative Nikki Haley (R-Lexington) today announced her intention to seek the Republican nomination for Governor of South Carolina.
“After months of encouragement from supporters all across the state and countless discussions with friends and family, I have decided to run for Governor of South Carolina,” Representative Haley said. “For more than five years I’ve sat in the statehouse and watched – sometimes in disbelief – as our state government has spent with abandon and in the process wasted taxpayer dollar after taxpayer dollar. I know what good government can look like. I’m running for Governor so the people of this state will know what it feels like.”
Haley, one of the strongest fiscal conservatives in state government, was first elected to represent the 87th District in Lexington County in 2004, when, as a virtual unknown she beat the longest serving state legislator in a Republican primary. In 2008 Representative Haley was sent back to the statehouse with 83 percent of the vote – the highest percentage earned by any lawmaker facing a contested South Carolina election that year.
Her time in Columbia has been marked by conservative leadership on behalf of her constituents and an unwavering commitment to the taxpayers’ bottom line. She has fought wasteful spending at every turn, pushed for smaller, more efficient government, and led the fight for the accountability and transparency that before her arrival was sorely lacking in the Legislature.
For her efforts to cut taxes and slow the growth of government spending, Nikki was named “Friend of the Taxpayer” (2009) by the S.C. Association of Taxpayers and a “Taxpayer Hero” (2005) by Gov. Mark Sanford. She has also received the Palmetto Leadership Award from the S.C. Policy Council for her expertise on policy matters and the Strom Thurmond Excellence in Public Service and Government Award from the S.C. Federation of Republican Women for the outstanding constituent service she provides to her district.
Born in Bamberg, S.C., the daughter of Indian immigrants, Nikki’s first job was keeping the books for her family’s clothing store – at the age of 13. She went on to graduate from Clemson University with a B.S. degree in accounting and following her graduation worked as Accounting Supervisor for the Charlotte, N.C. based corporation FCR, Inc. and five of its subsidiaries. Nikki then went back to the family business where she helped oversee its growth into a multi-million dollar operation. Since 2008 she has served as the Assistant Executive Director of the Lexington Medical Foundation.
“We’ve got great challenges facing us in South Carolina, but also a world of opportunity,” Haley said. “I have every confidence that with conservative leadership and a renewed commitment to the principles that have made America great – hard work, traditional values, promoting an atmosphere of opportunity over an environment of bailouts – South Carolina can be transformed into a state that’s not always at the bottom but sits proudly at the top.”
Nikki and her husband Michael, a full time federal technician with the South Carolina National Guard and an officer in the Army National Guard in Darlington, South Carolina, attend Mt. Horeb United Methodist Church in Lexington. She was previously a board member of both the Orangeburg and Lexington County Chambers of Commerce and a member of the National Association of Women Business Owners. Currently, Nikki sits on the board for Mt. Horeb United Methodist Church, Medmission, and is a proud member of the West Metro Republican Women, Lexington County Republican Party and the NRA.
Today, Democratic candidate for Governor Mullins McLeod pushed to reform our election laws by making it easier for South Carolinians to exercise their fundamental right to vote. McLeod vowed to fight for early voting in South Carolina and pledged to veto any legislation that would reduce a voter’s access to early or absentee voting.
McLeod’s statement came after published reports revealed that the legislature’s attempts to pass early voting are not only failing, but that Republicans have passed legislation in the House that would prevent most in-person absentee voting.
“The current crop of career politicians in Columbia aren’t getting the job done,” McLeod said. “When I’m Governor we will have early voting in South Carolina just like so many states do now. And if the legislative Republicans keep trying to make it difficult for our citizens to vote, they’ll feel the full power of the Governor’s office come down on them. Just like people who live in North Carolina and Georgia, South Carolinians deserve the ability to vote and make their voice heard in an efficient and convenient way that fits in with their busy schedules,” McLeod added.
McLeod said that the entire debate on this issue demonstrates the culture of misplaced priorities that keep South Carolina near the bottom. “We should have early voting, that’s a no brainer. There shouldn’t even be a debate. Instead of fighting over this, we need to be working to create jobs and improve our schools. That’s what people expect from their elected officials. Once again career politicians in Columbia have failed us.”
###
Sorry, Mullins, but I still don’t hold with it. To avoid retyping what I said before, here’s an excerpt from one of my last columns at The State(the one in which I dismissed both sides on the photo ID debate):
While I’m at it, I might as well abuse a related idea: early voting.
We’ve had a number of debates about that here on the editorial board, and I’ve been told that my reasons for opposing early voting are vague and sentimental. Perhaps they are, but I cling to them nonetheless.
I’ve written columns celebrating that very experience, such as one in 1998 that quoted a recent naturalized citizen proudly standing in line at my polling place, who said, “On my way here this morning, I felt the solemnity of the occasion.”
I believe in relating to my country, my state, my community as a citizen, not as a consumer. That calls for an entirely different sort of interaction. If you relate to public life as a consumer, well then by all means do it at your precious convenience. Mail or phone or text it in — what’s the difference? It’s all about you and your prerogatives, right? You as a consumer.
Now I’m sure young Mr. McLeod is perfectly serious and sincere in advocating early voting. Set aside the canned, trite, generic populist language that seems to plague his releases (“The current crop of career politicians in Columbia;” yadda-yadda — all that’s missing is a reference to “good ol’ boys”). He means it, as do most Democrats.
I had a conversation about this with Capt. James Smith at a fund-raiser that Doug Jennings and Joel Lourie had for him at the erstwhile Townhouse last week, the same day that his op-ed on the subject ran in The State.
I explained my communitarian opposition to the idea, and he said what about older folks who have trouble waiting in line? I said they can vote early now; my parents always do. He said they won’t be able to do so in the future, with the Republicans now limiting the absentee voting that already occurs. And I said “Aw, the Republicans just did that because you provoked ’em.” And he laughed. Then he acknowledged I was probably right that what the GOP members had done probably would not stand — where would Republicans be with all the old white people mad at them? But in the meantime, he seemed resolved to take what advantage he could from their tactical error. (Finally, I told James that at least the remaining editors on the editorial board of The State saw things his way — I was the holdout on early voting.)
Anyway, I hear what James and Mullins and the rest are saying, but I am unpersuaded. They point to the long lines back in November, and I say so what? I celebrate the long lines as signs of a vigorous representative democracy. I ran across this chart the other day (let me know if you have better ones) that show that in the ’08 election, S.C. went from 50th to 41st in voter turnout, with a 9.8 percent increase over 2004. This is the Obama effect that Democrats celebrate, and they want to present it as a symptom of something that needs fixing? Sorry, that doesn’t add up for me. If participation were on a downward slide, they might have an argument. As things stand, they don’t.
In the latest bombshell to drop in the 2010 race for the GOP nomination for governor, Rep. Nikki Haley is running, according to multiple sources close to WR.
Haley, who would be the “Sanford candidate” that S.C. political observers have been waiting for, has allegedly been telling friends that she is running and is starting to build a campaign staff. Earlier, it was rumored that she might have been a possible candidate for state treasurer.
As of right now, it is unknown who she is going to, to run her campaign. She is also in a bit of a hole, with U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett and Atty. Gen. Henry McMaster both sporting about $1 million in their respective war chests. As of her last disclosure report, Haley has only a little over $36,000 in the bank.
Candidates are already lining up to run for her House seat, including 2008 Senate candidate Katrina Shealy.
… and something just fell into place for me. I ran into Nikki at Starbucks a couple of weeks ago, and she introduced me to “Caroline” from her campaign. (At least, I think it was “Caroline.” Very young, even standing next to Nikki. That MIGHT be her in the background of the photo at this link.)
To which I responded, “Campaign? Already?” To which Nikki laughed a sort of “you know how it is” laugh. And I went away accepting that even for S.C. House members, the race has become this perpetual.
But maybe that wasn’t it at all, huh? Maybe Nikki was planning a big move.
I hope not. I like her as a House member, even if she does vote with the governor. I like that she actually tried to reform payday lending, for instance.
But if she ran as the “Sanford candidate,” that would just be too awful. I don’t want a nice person like Nikki to run as the “Sanford candidate.” I don’t want ANYBODY to run as the “Sanford candidate.” The very idea of there being even the slightest possibility of a continuation of these eight wasted years is appalling.
The whole point of the 2010 election is that we finally have the opportunity to get a governor who believes in governing. It’s the whole point, people. It’s why I started writing columns about the candidates as soon as they started emerging, much earlier than I normally would. We’ve got to get this one right.
Just keep repeating, folks: “We won’t get fooled again.”
In order to clamp down on politics-as-usual in the governor’s office, Mullins McLeod has made the following pledge to the people of South Carolina.
(1) No PAC Money. Corporations and special interests use PAC money to buy influence. Mullins McLeod will ban PAC money from his campaign.
(2) No Future Run for Office. Our current governor spends all his energies focused on his own political advancement. Mullins McLeod will change that by swearing to return to the private sector once his time in office is done.
(3) A Ban on Lobbying by Administration Members. When citizens volunteer to serve in office, it shouldn’t be for the future hope of making money from influence-peddling. Mullins McLeod will require senior staff members to forswear any future employment as a lobbyist while he remains in the Governor’s office.
(4) Honesty and Transparency. Our governor spends too much valuable time bickering over whether economic development and jobless numbers are correct. Mullins McLeod will cut through this impasse by bringing in outside accountants and non-government experts to produce honest figures – which will allow all sides to come together and focus on creating jobs to tackle our record high unemployment rate.
You know what? Not to criticize Mullins, but hasn’t it sort of become “politics as usual” for politicians to promise no more “politics as usual?”
And is “politics as usual” our problem? Actually, I don’t think so. I think one of our problems is that since 2002 we’ve had extremely unusual politics in the form of Gov. Mark Sanford, and it hasn’t served SC very well. He practices a sort of anti-politics, a negation of the practice of working with other human beings to try to find solutions to common problems.
Today at my Rotary meeting, Joel Lourie spoke. He said a lot of things, but one of the last thing he said was this:
Unfortunately, “politics” can be a bad word.
I view politics through the eyes of my parents. They taught me that politics can be a way of bringing people together to find commonsense solutions to our problems.
And I pledge to you to continue to do that…
What we need is for the kind of politics that Joel Lourie believes in to become “politics as usual.”
Friday afternoon, two declared candidates for governor and a third who MAY seek the office in 2010 spoke to “New Democrats” over at The Inn at USC. (The difference between a “new” Democrat and and “old” Democrat seemed slight at the gathering. Rather than coming across as a sort of Third Way alternative, Phil Noble’s forum featured party chairwoman Carol Fowler as moderator, and most of the questions she posed were perfectly orthodox, partisan, us-vs.-them boilerplate, along the lines of asking the candidates to explain why South Carolina must reject those wicked Republicans and elect a Democrat. The candidates all did their best to oblige, which meant none of them was showing his best side, from my Unparty perspective.)
You’ve read at least a little bit here (and on my former blog) about Vincent Sheheen and Mullins McLeod. I thought I’d devote this post to a portion of what the third man, House Minority Leader Harry Ott, had to say.
Harry’s vision of how to run was more old Democrat than new — and by “old” in this instance I mean, pre-1968 Southern.
“Some of you may totally disagree with what I’m gonna say,” he warned, then went on to explain what he thinks a Democrat must do to become governor:
“Number One… we’e got to have somebody who has really good family values,” by which he meant someone comfortable talking about his faith. “You’ve got to have somebody of faith, who’s willing to go to the Upstate and say, ‘I’m a Christian.'”
The candidate must also be “somebody that relates to the value that South Carolinians put on guns.” Noting that he was raised around guns down on the farm, he added, “Don’t throw any rocks at me, but I’m an NRA member, and I’m proud of it. People in South Carolina like their guns.”
“You’ve got to be a strong supporter of public education,” but you have to be able to tell the SCEA that you have no stomach for defending the status quo. “We can’t sit back and say what we have is good enough.” He cited particularly the need to reduce the dropout rate.
As far as the family values are concerned, “I’ve been married 32 years, I’ve raised two sons and have two grandsons; I believe I measure up.” He believes he measures up on the other standards as well.
Anyway, that’s a small taste of the approach of Harry Ott, who adamantly insists he is NOT a candidate yet… but could become one.
Another Democrat has openly expressed interest in next year’s race for governor:
Calling for Change, Mullins McLeod Announces Run for Governor
“We Deserve a Governor Who Focuses on Creating Jobs — For a Change,” says McLeod
In a letter to delegates to this weekend’s South Carolina Democratic Convention, Charleston attorney and successful small businessman Mullins McLeod announced his candidacy for Governor today. McLeod is originally from Walterboro, SC and is a graduate of Wofford College and The University of South Carolina School of Law.
In the letter, McLeod says that the state’s current political leaders have “proven themselves powerless in the face of record unemployment” and says that it is “abundantly clear that South Carolina needs a new direction.”
“The current crop of career politicians in Columbia have given us the second highest unemployment rate in the country and done little to help our public schools. We need a governor who will fight for jobs, and stand up for the people of South Carolina. That’s not going to happen if we turn to the usual crowd of politicians,” said McLeod.
McLeod added that, unlike some South Carolina Democrats, he will not back down from his Democratic Party label. “They continue to lose elections because they don’t stand up for our progressive values and fight back against Republican smears.”
“I’ve spent my entire career fighting for working families in this state. I believe that it’s time South Carolinians had a Governor who will fight for them, and a Governor who focuses on creating jobs — for a change.”
McLeod also encouraged delegates to visit his campaign’s web page at www.mullinsmcleod.com.
I don’t know much about Mr. McLeod, beyond the fact that he could hardly come up with a name that shouts “South Carolina” any louder (Maybe “Beaufort Ravenel?” How about, “Charleston Shealy?”), and I read his recent online op-ed piece.
Meanwhile, over on the GOP side, I see that The Greenville News has done a story about Furman prof Brent Nelson, about whom I wrote previously. I was a little confused, though, because the G’ville paper said “Nelsen hasn’t formally announced a campaign,” whereas I thought he had. But then, even after more than three decades of closely observing politics, I get confused over the whole “official announcement” thing.
Columbia, SC– South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler issued the following statement today in response to Congressman Gresham Barrett’s meeting with Columbia City Council regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Earlier this year, Barrett spoke out against the federal stimulus bill, and he joined the state’s other Republican members of Congress in voting against it, but today he said he supports stimulus funds for local governments.
“Gresham Barrett is showing himself to be hypocritical in his early campaigning for governor. He was vocal about his opposition to the stimulus, but now that this view has proven to be unpopular in our state he’s modified his stance. That’s not going to work with voters in 2010. The only thing we need to know from Mr. Barrett is whether or not he supports Gov. Sanford’s rejection of $700 million in stimulus funds primarily dedicated to public education. Decisions need to be made quickly to avert thousands of teacher layoffs and other deep cuts in our schools. South Carolinians don’t want or need another Republican governor who’s willing to play politics with the lives of real people.”
Maybe some of y’all could explain this to me: Why would Democrats resent Gresham Barrett, who had opposed the stimulus, now helping local governments get their share? Don’t they want him to do that? Or is criticizing a member of the other party SO important to partisans that they have to criticize the guy as “hypocritical” when he tries to do the right thing? In other words, is hitting the other side more important than S.C. communities getting the benefit of the stimulus.
It’s not even inconsistent. As rational people keep pointing out, the stimulus debate is over. Now it’s time to make sure that South Carolina gets its share of something that South Carolinians will have to pay for whether we get the benefit or not. This is obvious to rational people, whatever party label they wear — unless they are one of the dwindling band of Sanfordistas.
Those of you who have trouble understanding me when I talk about how parties foment conflict purely for the sake of conflict, see if you can understand me now. This is what I’ve been on about. Yeah, I agree that we don’t need another governor, of any party, “who’s willing to play politics with the lives of real people.” But isn’t that what you’re doing when you place criticizing the opposition ahead of making sure everybody’s on board in getting the stimulus funds to real people in SC?
THE COLUMN I’d prefer to be remembered for — my fond reflection on how great it has been to work here with Robert Ariail — ran on Friday. But I hope you’ll forgive me if I close my career at this newspaper with a tough-love piece about unfinished business in South Carolina. Keep in mind, I say these things because I do love my state dearly, and I want the best for it. I always have.
None of these issues will come as a surprise to you. I’ve gone on and on about them for years. These are things we need to do if our state is to reach its potential — to put it more bluntly, to catch up with all those other states whose people are healthier, wealthier and (apparently, given our resistance to reform) wiser than we are.
Each of these items is interwoven with the others; each could be a book (one that I’ve written, on these pages). But here’s the short version:
Improve our schools. Stop talking about nonsensical distractions — such as our governor’s proposal to pay people to pull their children out of our schools — and fix the schools. The only way we will ever raise incomes and overcome the legacy of our economy having been built upon slavery is to make sure everyone has a decent education. And the only possible way to do that is through a statewide system of public schools, with the more affluent areas underwriting the more depressed ones. Public schools are the only ones we the people control, and they have to do whatever we decide they should do. Here are some of the changes we should implement: Pay teachers more for better performance, not for initials after their names; eliminate waste and reduce incompetence by cutting the number of districts from 85 to no more than one per county; empower principals to hire and fire. Let’s stop talking, and get these things done.
Restructure state government. Right now, most of the executive branch is fragmented into scores of tiny islands that answer to no one. Make the executive branch accountable to the elected chief executive, so that our next governor (and here’s another thing for our to-do list — elect a better governor) can pull our limited resources together and get state agencies working together to accomplish the agenda upon which he (or she) is elected. Our current system was designed, intentionally, to resist change. We have to replace it to move forward.
Restructure local government. To give you but one example — the real-world economic community that we informally name “Columbia” consists of more than a dozen municipalities, two counties, seven school districts and an absurd tangle of independent little jurisdictions such as fire, recreation, water and sewer districts. The technical, legal city of Columbia — a mere fraction of the real community — is “governed” in a way that is guaranteed to shield both city administrators and elected officials from accountability. Statewide, we need to make it easier for local governments to consolidate and annex, and get rid of the more than 500 special purpose districts that unnecessarily complicate governance on the local level.
Set local governments free. Let the people elected to run the governments closest to the people run them, without interference by state legislators. The ways that the people who should be minding state business (and you’d think they’d have enough on their plates) meddle in local matters are legion. In some communities they appoint school board members (in Dillon County, a single lawmaker — who happens to be an employee of the school system — determines who will be on the school board). In others, they set school budgets. Collectively, legislators put local governments statewide in a ridiculous bind, writing impossible rules for how and even how much they can tax. Local people know what their communities need; leave them alone.
Let our colleges and universities drive our economy. The presidents of our three research universities have made strides, cooperating to an extraordinary degree. It needs to become the focused policy of this state to use our public institutions of higher education to attract the best and brightest, keep them here and foster research that puts us on the cutting edge of wealth-creating innovation. That means funding the endowed chairs program at twice the level that we did when we were actually investing in it, and restoring support for the schools themselves. We are 40 years behind North Carolina and Georgia. We won’t catch up in my lifetime, but we need to start trying.
Overhaul our tax system. Figure out what state government needs to do, the things that only it can do, then determine what that costs, and devise and implement a fair, balanced and reliable way of funding it. That means scrapping our entire tax structure, and making it serve all of the people of this state, rather than overlapping, competing, narrow interests.
Some of these things are tough; others are less so. But they are all essential to getting our act together in South Carolina. To help us warm up for the harder ones, I suggest we do the following immediately:
• Raise our lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax by a dollar, bringing us (almost) to the national average, and saving thousands of young lives.
• Remove the Confederate flag from the State House grounds.
While those last two are easier to implement, they are essential to proving to the world and ourselves that we are serious about building a better South Carolina. The reasons that have been offered not to do those two, simple things are not reasons in any rational sense, but rather outgrowths of the mind-sets that have held us back since 1865.
Which is long enough.
Mr. Warthen was vice president and editorial page editor of The State through Friday. He worked at the paper for 22 years. Find his new blog at bradwarthen.com, or e-mail him at [email protected].
anyway, asked, “Did you not hear me on the radio?”
