Category Archives: Social media

John McCain didn’t like the heat in Lee Bandy’s kitchen

On a previous post, I quoted Aaron Sheinin telling a story about how, after “Brad and Cindi and Mike and Warren finished their wonk nerd questions” in editorial board interviews, Lee Bandy would weigh in with something that made the guest politico squirm.

Today, fellow alumnus Bill Castronuovo reminded me, over on Facebook, of video I shot of Lee making John McCain very uncomfortable in our boardroom in August 2007.

You don’t see Lee (hey, I had enough trouble keeping a camera trained on the candidate while taking notes and presiding over the meeting; two cameras were impossible), but that’s his voice you hear asking the question that brings out McCain’s dark side. Since the mike is facing away from Lee, you might have trouble hearing the question. I can’t make out parts of it myself, what with McCain talking over Lee before he could get it all out. But here’s the audible part:

What went wrong with your campaign? You were sailing along… you had a wide lead over everybody else… now you have to fight for your political life.

As you see, the senator did not like the question a bit.

To set the stage: McCain was considered practically down and out in this stage of the campaign for the GOP nomination. A few months before, he had been the unquestioned front-runner. But things seemed to have fallen apart for him. A few weeks earlier, I had posted this report (also with video), headlined “McCain goes to the mattresses.” In the video, McCain staffer B.J. Boling (one of his few remaining at this low point) said they were going from a huge production to “an insurgency-type campaign.”

In the end, it worked. McCain managed to win in SC, and go on to win the nomination. But at this point in the campaign, the candidate was in no mood to take questions about how badly he was doing from that pesky Lee Bandy…

Tweeting from ULI’s Midlands Reality Check

9 Replies

Here’s what the Midlands look like now, translated into ULI’s Lego language.

That’s where I am this morning, so excuse me if I’m not keeping up with y’all for a few hours.

It’s a worthwhile exercise, I believe — 300 community leaders from across eight counties gathering to talk about growing by choice, not by chance.

I’ll catch up with y’all when the exercise is over. If you’re interested in the meantime, follow @BradWarthen on Twitter…

Why do political flacks risk the hazards of Twitter? Because they HAVE to

1 Reply

Talk about your nightmares.

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer made an observation Tuesday on Twitter about how the changing media world was adding to political polarization in the country. Then he tried to add, to @jmartNYT, “also a much bigger factor on the right.”

Only his finger slipped, and he typed an N rather than a B on “bigger.” (Look at your keyboard; they’re right next to each other.) This was on an official White House Twitter account, mind you.

The Tweet was deleted, and he apologized. And the world moved on.

But then, some “veteran politicos” on the Hill started wondering why a senior adviser to the President was fooling around with anything as dangerous as Twitter anyway?

POLITICO explained, as would we, that he has little choice:

For years now, Twitter has served as the public square for political journalists, the place where the conventional wisdom is shaped before it turns into “the narrative.” Communications aides have always monitored that conversation closely, and some have long had an active Twitter presence. But many — top White House spokespeople, especially — often felt safer limiting their own remarks to carefully edited statements shared via press release. As a public forum, Twitter was too informal, too risky, too off-the-cuff.

Increasingly, however, flacks have come to see Twitter as a necessary tool in their communications arsenal. Instead of waiting to respond to reporters’ inquiries, Twitter enables them to influence reporters’ thinking and nip negative coverage in the bud.

“Twitter, like cable news, is another medium where the conversation in Washington gets shaped,” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, told POLITICO. “Given the current media environment, we engage in real time so that as many folks as possible understand our perspective. Twitter is simply another resource to get our message out, and we generally like to avail ourselves of every opportunity to do just that.”

Brendan Buck, the press secretary for House Speaker John Boehner, said Twitter was “what the Speaker’s Lobby used to be. You want to find and talk to assembled reporters, open your Tweetdeck.”

Absolutely.

I am reminded of Trav Robertson who dealt with media for the Vincent Sheheen gubernatorial campaign in 2010. I ran into him (at Starbucks, of course) some months after Sheheen narrowly lost that contest, and he confided that there was one thing that he had been unprepared for: the fact that the old “news cycle” was gone, and that he had to pump out information, and counter stuff that was out there, 24/7.

I was surprised that he was surprised, and wondered if that played any role in Sheheen’s defeat. Probably not, but it was a close race, for a Democrat in South Carolina…

OK, this complaining about closing national parks has gone on long enough…

74 Replies

Another conversation with Bill Connor over on Facebook.

Bill posted:

Yesterday, I took my son to the Cowpens Battlefield to help him put together a report he needed for school. We’ve been there before, I as we have made trips to all the Battlefields in SC (and beyond). We knew about the gov’t shutdown, so didn’t expect the National Park building to be open. However, we thought for sure we could walk the battlefield, as we have done before. WRONG. Just like the open air memorials in DC (like WWII and Iwo Jima memorials), someone gave guidance to put locked gates on the road leading to the battlefield!! I guess there was a concern someone would “steal” a tree or piece of grass!! These open air memorials and Battlefields belong to the American people, and I’m sick of watching the stupid political games being played. No reason to prevent US citizens from visiting on their own, and this is a symptom of what’s wrong. This is a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” I shouldn’t need “permission” to walk a US Battlefield.

He got a bunch of people agreeing with him, with comments about “tyranny” and “denial of freedom.” But one great thing about Bill is that his friends aren’t all of the same mind, and he engages in respectful dialogue with people who disagree with him. Another commenter said:

…and yet someone (now being paid to sit at home) is responsible for supervising, guarding and maintaining these national treasures. If they need a staff when they are open, then they need to be closed when that staff is ordered home. Get the Teavangelicals to open the government and you won’t have a problem — or that issue — to complain about.

To which Bill replied:

John, I’ve been to the Iwo Jima USMC memorial and never seen anyone on “staff” while I walked around it. Very difficult to steal a 500+ ton marble statue. Same with the WWII memorial, Vietnam Memorial, and the open battlefields. I can understand the museums and places requiring Federal employees. In fact, it requires more money to come put up a ring of barrier around these sites that to allow Americans to walk through as usual. You and I know this is about the Obama Administration playing political games to make the shutdown appear worse.

Finally, I weighed in with this:

If I were in charge of the battlefield, I would definitely not allow people on it if there were no staff present. People could get lost, could have heart attacks, could set fires, could drive their vehicles onto it and cut doughnuts into the grounds. You really don’t have to think hard to think of a number of good reasons not to let people onto the grounds without someone on duty. It’s a bit silly to say “steal a blade of grass.” You sort of have to not WANT to see the good reasons in order to fail to see them.

And Bill replied:

Brad, a bit tough to get lost on the Cowpens Battlefield if you have ever seen it (and think of the real danger of getting lost at Yellowstone, etc. in the thousands of square miles, regardless of whether they are “open”). People can have heart attacks anywhere. You don’t close many public areas despite the fact people “can” set fires, etc. Warnings could be posted “enter at your own risk. violators of ………… will be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law, etc. etc.). I could go on, but let’s just leave the battlefields and national parks/forests alone. What about the friggin USMC Iwo Jima Memorial??? Every time I’ve gone to DC I’ve driven by it and walked up to it without seeing any Federal employees around. Spending more money to put “barriers” around these Monument is political gamesmanship of the worst kind.

I acknowledge I haven’t been there. I’m accustomed to battlefields you CAN get lost on, such as Shiloh and Gettysburg. But I stand behind my other points. If the nation goes to the trouble to preserve and maintain a piece of real estate for posterity, you don’t just let people wander on it without someone being around to prevent trouble, or deal with it if it arises.

But bottom line, all of this moaning about shutting down monuments somehow being dirty pool ignores the simple fact that this shutdown is completely unnecessary. And unlike so many things that can be laid at both parties’ feet, this one is entirely the fault of the side that Bill and many of his assenters agree with.

Just pass a clean resolution without a lot of irrelevant nonsense in it about Obamacare, and we don’t have to talk about parks and monuments being closed.

Happy Birthday to Sheriff Leon Lott, the federal income tax, and anyone else born on this particularly auspicious day

8 Replies

Well, I got my annual birthday card from my twin, Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott.

He’s a thoughtful guy, although in truth, it’s not that hard for him to remember, even though he’s getting older now. He and I were born on the same day, right here in South Carolina.

The coincidences between Leon and me abound. For instance, we’re both known and admired for our rugged good looks. He passed a series of demanding fitness tests to be named the SC Law Enforcement Officers’ Association “Toughest Cop” — twice. I have been named “South Carolina’s Toughest Editor” multiple times. Or I would have been, if such an award existed. He once got three standing ovations at Columbia Rotary, in the midst of the national controversy over his having busted Olympic champion Michael Phelps for smoking dope in Columbia; I got one such ovation — when I got fired from the newspaper, which makes you wonder what they were applauding.

And a few moments ago, when I called to thank him for my card and wish him a happy right back, the lady who answered the phone was named “Janell.” My mother and one of my daughters are named “Janelle,” although we spell it differently. And Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln. (Although, despite urban legend, Lincoln did not have a secretary named “Kennedy.”)

But wait: I’m not done. Taegan Goddard reports the following today on his Wonk Wire:

Happy 100th Anniversary to the Federal Income Tax

Today is the 100th anniversary of the federal income tax. President Woodrow Wilson signed the legislation into law in 1913, concluding a process begun four years earlier by President William Howard Taft.

Paul Caron: “The new tax applied only to those with very high incomes. There was a personal exemption of $3,000 for individuals (equivalent to $71,000 today) and $4,000 for married couples (about $94,500 today) but none for dependents. Additionally, all interest and state and local taxes were deductible. After that, the following rate schedule applied to both individuals and couples.”

Some of my libertarian friends will find it particularly meaningful that the income tax and I share a birthday, although Leon and I are slightly younger. Y’all all join me now in a rousing hip, hip huzzah for former Columbian Woodrow Wilson…

Or don’t. No skin off my nose.

I will now thank a partial list of folks for wishing me a happy birthday so far today: Five Points businesswoman and community leader Debbie McDaniel, frequent candidate Joe Azar, Chapin Mayor Stan Shealy, former Mayor Bob Coble, ex-coroner Frank E. Barron III, Rabbi Marc Wilson, lobbyist Robert Adams, Patrick Cobb from AARP (fitting, huh?), Randy Pagem (director of PR at Bob Jones University), veteran political reporter Steve Piacente, radio host Jonathon Rush, SC Treasurer Curtis Loftis Jr.

There were 63 in all. What’s the etiquette on this — thank each individually, or all at once?

Sheriff Lott called me back while I was typing all this. He and I agree that this just doesn’t make sense — when other people are this age, they’re old. At least, that’s always been the pattern in the past. It’s weird…

Obamacare, the Constitution and the Bible: A Facebook conversation

21 Replies

Just thought I’d post portions of a conversation I jumped into over on Facebook.

First, Bill Connor posted:

In watching the fight to defund Obamacare, I have this to say. I am a Christian first, as I believe the Bible is the inspired word. Therefore, it is Truth. That said, the Bible is not silent about the role of government and it’s sphere of authority. Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 give the mandate for governmental authority. That mandate is for the “sword” of protection. Protection from external enemies, and protection from lawlessness (law enforcement, Courts) from within the nation. The government is about force in protection. The Church is given the mandate to care for those in need. The Church does not possess the power of the sword, as “Charity” means love. God wants men to give freely and without coercion when it comes to taking care of the less fortunate in society. When Government exceeds its sphere and gets involved with church functions (as in Obamacare, among other things like welfare, etc.) it destroys the idea of Charity. Forcing someone with the sword to give to another is not a Christian ideal. Our founders believed in the Biblical spheres of authority for Church and State and the Constitution makes this law. The Constitution enumerates powers to Government, and those powers do not include Church type functions. Government is to be restrained by the Constitution to the “Sword” functions. Otherwise, Government essentially takes over the Church and all else and attempts to become “god”. That is a reason while I believe the Biblical position to to oppose Obamacare. We care about those in need. However, we are to give to those truly in need through Charity (Love). We did not give the government the power

After a bunch of other people had had a say, I posted:

Bill, in a representative democracy, we vote to elect people to decide what government does. When enough people are elected to decide to undertake something like universal health care, then that’s what we do. If enough people are elected who don’t want to do that, we don’t do that. That’s how the system is supposed to work. It’s really a stretch to make like the government is something outside ourselves coercing us to do something. We, the people, acting through our elected representatives, have decided to do this with the money that we will all pay into it. Does that mean all Americans wanted to do this? No. There probably hasn’t ever been a single action by the government of the United States that all Americans favored. We’re all in the minority on something. But what we do is accept that fact, and work to have our preferred candidates win the next election. In the meantime, we accept the lawful actions of those who have already been elected. We certainly don’t declare lawful actions illegitimate. Nor do we claim, with very thin evidence, that it’s contrary to the Bible. On that last point, I’m not seeing anywhere in the Bible where it says we can’t pool our resources as a people and provide health care for all, and I’d be shocked to find it. Near as I can tell, in terms of saying what the civil government should do, the Bible is pretty silent on something like Obamacare. That leaves the decision up to us and our elected representatives.

Then Bill responded:

Brad, first I appreciate you posting thoughtful note, even though I disagree. Daniel spelled out my opinion exactly. The reason we have the Constitution is to protect certain rights from the whim of the majority. In this case, we had a very quick period of time in which Democrats controlled the House and POTUS. The founders intended to restrain gov’t to its legitimate functions (drawn from the Biblical worldview) and Obamacare exceeds those Constitutional and Biblical limitations.

The another reader (Ltc Robert Clarke) responded:

Brad is right in that the law was passed following our system….but since not a single person in the opposition party supported it, it is bound to face stiff resistance. The people house holds the pursestrings and they should be able to cut the $ off? If you are going to do something this big, best to do it as a bipartisan effort.

And finally, I said this:

Yes, that is best. But when is the last chance we had in this country to do that? Both parties operate on the strategy of getting 50 percent plus one, and then doing whatever they like — which sets off the other party in paroxysms of desperation, because both parties look upon the other, and all its works, as completely lacking in legitimacy. Both parties need to chill, and accept the fact that sometimes people they disagree with are going to win an argument, and just try to win themselves next time around. It’s really getting overexcited to see Obamacare as some sort of Gotterdammerung, the end of all that is good and holy and American and Constitutional. It’s just not. It’s a fairly ugly, pieced-together mish-mash that IS so ugly because there is such opposition to taking the simple approach that Britain and Canada have taken. This is the kind of mess that our hyper-polarized politics produce. It may be too much of a cobbled-together mess to work. But we’ll find out when it’s implemented. It’s going to work, or it’s not going to work. Or it will work in some ways, but not in others. But we won’t know until it’s been in place for awhile.

I didn’t want to get into arguing about whether our Founders intended the Constitution to be “Biblical.” I preferred to stick to this not being the end of the world, or even of the country.

Another great Brooks column, on the nature of moderation

59 Replies

In response to my praise of David Brooks’ column from earlier in the week, Cindi Scoppe Tweeted this:

Cindi Ross Scoppe‏@CindiScoppe

.@BradWarthen It’s a very good column, but if it’s the best you’ve seen in years, you obviously missed THIS one http://nyti.ms/QJ87fm

Well, she knows what I like to read, which shouldn’t be surprising, since I first became her editor in 1987.

The column, from Oct. 25, 2012, was headlined “What Moderation Means.” Excerpts:

First, let me describe what moderation is not. It is not just finding the midpoint between two opposing poles and opportunistically planting yourself there. Only people who know nothing about moderation think it means that.

Moderates start with a political vision, but they get it from history books, not philosophy books. That is, a moderate isn’t ultimately committed to an abstract idea. Instead, she has a deep reverence for the way people live in her country and the animating principle behind that way of life. In America, moderates revere the fact that we are a nation of immigrants dedicated to the American dream — committed to the idea that each person should be able to work hard and rise.

This animating principle doesn’t mean that all Americans think alike. It means that we have a tradition of conflict. Over the centuries, we have engaged in a series of long arguments around how to promote the American dream — arguments that pit equality against achievement, centralization against decentralization, order and community against liberty and individualism.

The moderate doesn’t try to solve those arguments. There are no ultimate solutions….

The moderate creates her policy agenda by looking to her specific circumstances and seeing which things are being driven out of proportion at the current moment. This idea — that you base your agenda on your specific situation — may seem obvious, but immoderate people often know what their solutions are before they define the problems.

For a certain sort of conservative, tax cuts and smaller government are always the answer, no matter what the situation. For a certain sort of liberal, tax increases for the rich and more government programs are always the answer.

The moderate does not believe that there are policies that are permanently right. Situations matter most. Tax cuts might be right one decade but wrong the next. Tighter regulations might be right one decade, but if sclerosis sets in then deregulation might be in order….

Very, very good stuff. I can see why Cindi would like it, and not only because Brooks uses the trick of an inclusive “she” rather than the traditional inclusive “he” to indicate a hypothetical person whose gender doesn’t matter, which is something Cindi does.

More to the point, it should be easy to see why I would like this column as much as the one I praised earlier this week. Both of them speak for me, and the way I see the world. (Which is an argument for why Brooks should have used “he” instead of “she.” Hey, there are bits where he should have just gone ahead and written “Brad.”) There are particularly sharp insights in both columns, expressed in ways that had not yet occurred for me. Some of the highest praise I’ve gotten from readers over the years is when they say, “You write what I think, but don’t know how to say.” Brooks did a better job of explaining some things that I believe than I have been able to do.

I particularly appreciate this statement: “The moderate does not believe that there are policies that are permanently right.” That’s pretty much what I’ve been trying to say in everything I’ve written about the UnParty and the Energy Party and the Grownup Party. (Brooks later says that moderates are misunderstood because they don’t write manifestos. Well, I’ve at least tried to do so….) This is such an important point because there are so many deluded souls out there who fervently believe that there are policies that ARE right in every instance. Promising, for instance, always to vote against tax increases (or, as Brooks said, for higher taxes for the wealthy) is as arbitrary as promising to vote “yes” on all bills that come up on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

I don’t know that I like that column from October better than the Snowden one. But they are both really, really good, and I wish everyone would read them. They say things that are profoundly true, but counterintuitive for too many Americans. These things need to be said as often as possible, and by someone who says them as well as Brooks does.