Category Archives: Character

‘Hillary-style attacks’

We at the UnParty continue to be fascinated at the ways in which party-line thinking warps perception…

You may have noticed that Democrats talk ominously and often about the coming "Republican attacks." There is much mumbling about "Swiftboating" and "Karl Rove," and other things that to bear no rational relationship to the fact that the Democratic nominee will be facing John McCain in the fall.

As is often the case with ideological mythology, almost anything is justified in the cause of warding off these dread calamities that lie ahead. Hillary Clinton uses the belief that such atrocities are on the way as an excuse to pound Barack Obama with various bludgeons that the wicked GOPpers will certainly hit him with sooner or later. The message here is that those monsters on the right have already thrown everything they have at HER ("having now gone through 16 years of being on the receiving end of what the Republican Party dishes out"), thereby giving her immunity or something. (I think you have to believe in the mythology to follow the reasoning.)

In the black-and-white world that gives rise to such thinking, there is no difference between Karl Rove and John McCain. Anyone who consents to be called a Republican is equally evil, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln. That McCain, who has been a victim of such excesses as the Democrats fear, might be different does not enter into the equation.

Will groups on the Right do unconscionable things against the Democratic nominee in the Fall? You betcha, just as MoveOn.org and its ilk will do to the Republican — a fact that purveyors of the Coming Debacle seem to overlook. What each side will do in the name of ideology will be reprehensible, as always — that’s why I’m an UnParty man. Sadly, I don’t expect much from Democrats and Republicans.

But sometimes, it just gets beyond ridiculous, such as when Joe Klein refers to "the Republican-style attacks that Hillary Clinton has been previewing…"

No, Joe. This is not a preview; this is real life, happening in real time. And it’s Hillary doing it. These are, quite obviously and demonstrably, "Hillary-style" attacks. Or perhaps we should say, "Stephanopoulos-style attacks." Here’s a sample, from Wednesday night’s debate:

And if I’m not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn’t done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died. So it is — you know, I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about. And I have no doubt — I know Senator Obama’s a good man and I respect him greatly but I think that this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising.

And it goes to this larger set of concerns about, you know, how we are going to run against John McCain. You know, I wish the Republicans would apologize for the disaster of the Bush-Cheney years and not run anybody, just say that it’s time for the Democrats to go back into the White House. (Laughter, applause.)

Unfortunately, they don’t seem to be willing to do that. So we know that they’re going to be out there, full force. And you know, I’ve been in this arena for a long time. I have a lot of baggage, and everybody has rummaged through it for years. (Laughter.) And so therefore, I have, you know, an opportunity to come to this campaign with a very strong conviction and feeling that I will be able to withstand whatever the Republican sends our way.

Not the SHE would say such things about Obama, he being such a good man, but you just can’t trust those damned Republicans. Folks, how simple do you have to be to miss the fact that SHE JUST SAID THESE THINGS?

What’s really pathetic is that they’ve got Obama buying into this line, and I would expect him to know better. Klein quotes Obama as saying, "That [debate] was the rollout of the Republican campaign against me in November…"

No, it was the real thing, happening in April, and it was Democrats doing it. Can’t you see that? Folks, this is why I trash parties all the time — they turn our brains to oatmeal.

You want to see a "Republican-style attack?" OK, here’s a real-life one that came in today:

Wednesday’s Democratic debate provided insight into Barack Obama’s positions on key foreign policy issues. As president he says he would immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq- even if he were strongly advised against this by our nation’s top military commanders. He would also hold direct talks with the Iranian regime- a regime that does not recognize Israel and is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Iran’s president has even called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

During the debate, Barack Obama once again refused to condemn former President Jimmy Carter- who publicly supports Obama- for holding talks with the Hamas terrorist group, a group supported financially, politically and military by Iran.

Barack Obama’s foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders. Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America."

We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq and will hold unconditional talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

John McCain’s foreign policy provides a stark contrast to the policies of Barack Obama. As president, John McCain will provide the leadership we need to win the war against Islamic extremists. We need your help today to reach out to Americans across the country to spread the message of John McCain’s plan for your national security. Please follow this link to make a financial contribution to our campaign today.

Yep, it’s another one of those McCain fund-raising e-mails I’ve been complaining about lately. It’s pretty critical, all right, but you’ll note that it’s built around policy differences. Nothing about bitter xenophobia in Middle America, or Bill Ayres, or Jeremiah Wright. And you know, McCain had to go out of his way to find something in that debate to comment on other than those things, since most of the debate centered on them.

That doesn’t mean McCain won’t point to the fact that he doesn’t see average Americans as bitter; in fact I think he already has. But now, he declines an obvious chance to join Hillary in piling on.

I just thought maybe somebody should point that out.

Hear Peter Beattie’s speech

2 Replies

To hear former Queensland Premier Peter Beattie’s speech to the Columbia Rotary Club last Monday — to which I referred in my Sunday column — go to this page, then scroll down to the calendar. Under April 7, you’ll see "Peter Beattie, former Premier of Queensland, Australia."

Under those words, you’ll see three icons. Click on the middle one — the one that features the image of a speaker — to call up an audio recording of the meeting. Let the full audio download, then skip over the preliminaries (including my presentation of "Health and Happiness") and restart the playback roughly in the middle (or to be precise, 38 minutes, 36 seconds in). That’s where Mr. Beattie starts speaking.

This may sound stupid, but one of the things that I enjoyed about talking with Mr. Beattie was listening to his accent. To my unschooled, untraveled ear, it made him sound like a guy who, instead of talking about seizing opportunities to move into a new economy, ought to be out hunting crocodiles, either for educational purposes or for profit. I mean that in a good way.

But I didn’t put it that way in my column Sunday because over the years I’ve picked up on the fact that some Australians consider that sort of accent declasse — sort of the Down Under equivalent of our Southern or "country" modes of speech — and I didn’t wish to insult Mr. Beattie. It could be that it’s a different sort of accent altogether, and I’m not hearing the difference.

But when I hear it, it has no negative associations. I equate it with strength of character — trustworthiness, forthrightness, the sort of personality that shrugs off adversity. In any case, it’s a mode of speech I like to listen to.

Runyan concession letter

3 Replies

Catching up with e-mail, I ran into this from Wednesday:

CAMERON A. RUNYAN

02 April 2008
Dear Mr. Rickenmann,
Congratulations on your re-election to the Columbia City Council. Like me, I am sure that you are very grateful to your many supporters. Although I needed to limit my run for this important office to only a few months and ran a campaign built on small donations and many volunteer hours, I am pleased with the result. Our joint appearances raised many important issues, addressed a number of significant concerns, and challenged voters to consider what priorities they want to see addressed as we look to the future of our great city.
At times our conversations were spirited – as they should have been. We disagreed on many matters. And that is as it should be. We owed our constituents our directness, our honesty and our zeal as we challenged each other and offered differing visions for the city. We each presented a unique set of experiences and skills to be applied to Office of City Council Person.
While my support grew steadily throughout the campaign from 11 percent in its first days to 42 percent last night, it is clear that a majority of voters considered you worthy of a second term. I hope it is one marked by an overriding concern for the needs of our citizens.
I stand ready to be of assistance as you and your fellow council members grapple with how to ensure that every tax dollar is spent carefully with citizens able to access information related to this easily and in a timely manner. I stand ready to be of assistance as you all weigh in on the future development of Five Points especially in regards to the clean up of the recently identified contamination at the Kenny’s site and as you gather all the pertinent information regarding the best use of the property. I stand ready to be of assistance as the Council addresses safety in our city through innovative gang intervention programs, an expansion of the number of police officers on the streets, better pay and benefits for our officers to encourage retention, and the study of the establishment of a police reserve/auxiliary like those in our county and in so many other cities in this state.
I believe in local political action as the first step in any national movement toward reform. I will stay actively involved and committed to my city and its people. Call on me if I can be of help. I look forward to continued engagement with you and your fellow Council Members in the years ahead.
Respectfully,
Cameron Runyan
PO Box 1933 • Columbia, SC 29202

Last-minute ploys in city council race

22 Replies

Since I haven’t decided what I think about it myself, let me ask you: What do you think of the last-minute attacks in the Columbia City Council at-large race?

Two examples of what I’m talking about: Cameron Runyan holds a press conference to claim that incumbent Daniel Rickenmann had a conflict-of-interest on recent tentative decision to approve a six-story development in Five Points. There was a story about that in the paper the other day.

Then, on Sunday, the above flier shows up on windshields outside Bethel AME Church. (This was reported on in today’s paper.) There is no date on the photo, and little explanatory information. But to describe it as simply as possible, it purports to show Mr. Rickenmann at what has all the marks of a Kappa Alpha fraternity party. But I suppose it could be just about anything. As to whether that’s Mr. Rickenmann, well … all those preppy white boys tend to look alike to me. As I said awhile back, I think Cameron Runyan looks like Daniel Rickenmann, so don’t go by me.

Here’s what today’s news story said:

The fliers showed a picture of Rickenmann at a fraternity party while
he was a student at USC. He and a group of fraternity brothers, some
dressed in Confederate uniforms, are posing in front of a Confederate
battle flag. In the picture, Rickenmann, dressed in a tuxedo, is
toasting the camera with a drink.

Or, you could just look at the picture above.

No one has taken responsibility for the flier — neither Hamas nor the Symbionese Liberation Army has come forward, and Mr. Runyan denies it outright.

Both of these attacks came after we had endorsed Mr. Runyan for the seat, and we had no interest in running anything about them in editorial. We don’t even have an editorial position on the (relative) high-rise in Five Points — I’m at odds with my three associates on that one — much less what role Mr. Rickenmann should or shouldn’t have played in the decision thus far.

As for the "Confederate" picture… even if we had raised it to denounce Mr. Runyan (or whoever distributed it; I don’t know who), it would have focused so much negative attention on Mr. Rickenmann that it would look like we, as Runyan supporters, were piling on. (Add to that our usual reluctance to air any new charges in the last day or two of an election, when it’s too late for the accused to give a fair answer.)

Anyway, it all came out in the end for Mr. Rickenmann, so congratulations to him and his supporters. I just provide this post as a place for y’all to discuss the last-minute stuff.

Tom Davis predicting Rod Shealy attack

24 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 Replies

Tom_davis_021

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

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

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

Harry then and Harry now

3 Replies

A news item this week provided an unusually striking opportunity to trace the descent of the King’s (or potential King’s) English:

First, Shakespeare’s Harry:

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:

And then, our own latter-day Harry expressing the same sentiment:

"It’s nice just to be here with all the guys and just mucking in as one of the lads."

Oh, well. The real Henry V might have said it much the same way, the Bard notwithstanding.

Harry

McCain’s apology for his jerk supporter

27 Replies

Several things strike me as interesting about the incident yesterday in which John McCain ended up apologizing for and condemning a supporter who spoke before him at a campaign rally — some loudmouthed right-wing radio guy who kept using Barack Obama’s middle name and excoriating him and Democrats in general:

First, the headlines — in The Washington Post, it was "McCain Supporter Ridicules Obama. In The Wall Street Journal, it was "McCain Apologizes for a Supporter’s Attack on Obama." Not important; the difference in emphasis just struck me as interesting.
Second, this is going to keep happening. As "conservatives" (a word that jerks like this one don’t deserve) get over their snit and climb on board with the McCain campaign between now and November, they’re going to bring this kind of garbage with them. Ditto with the more angry, partisan Democrats who will start supporting Obama once it is clear that Hillary Clinton (such Democrats’ preferred candidate) is truly out of it.
Both McCain and Obama owe much of their appeal to a desire on the part of voters to put this kind of thing behind us as a country. As they try to consolidate their bases, bringing in the fulminators, independents will be watching both of them closely to see how they handle it. It will be quite a highwire act — two highwire acts, actually.
This one was handled fairly well, on both sides. McCain said what he said, and Obama’s spokesman said, "We appreciate Senator McCain’s remarks. It is a sign that if there is a McCain-Obama general election, it can be intensely competitive but the candidates will attempt to keep it respectful and focused on issues."

That’s what I’m hoping for, at least.

‘The Pulse’ is probably white

11 Replies

As a highly experienced professional observer of all kinds of stuff I’d just as soon not have seen, I’m going to go out on a limb here and help Mayor Bob narrow down the options a bit on the identity of "The Pulse:"

I’m pretty sure they’re white.

This is based on anecdotal inference, mind you, but I offer my intelligence estimate with a high degree of confidence.

You may or may not have noticed a brief, bottom-of-the-page editorial we ran a week or two ago (the kind we call a "backup," if you’ll forgive the jargon), along these lines:

E.W. Cromartie

IT’S DISAPPOINTING that filing closed for Columbia City Council
elections without anyone stepping up to challenge long-term Councilman
E.W. Cromartie.

While
Mr. Cromartie has done much to help his district, he also has done
plenty to damage the public’s trust and give citizens reason to worry.

On
one hand, Councilman Cromartie is responsible for helping revive areas
such as Read Street and the old Saxon Homes public housing community
property. He also pushed a jobs program to train residents in the
empowerment zone. But Mr. Cromartie has also set a terrible example of
common citizenship. Over the years, he’s failed to pay taxes on time,
been delinquent on water bill payments, overspent his council expense
account and parked in handicapped spaces.

Elected officials, like
many of us, encounter difficulties sometimes. But when someone
willingly offers himself for public office, he should be held to a
higher standard of trustworthiness. Mr. Cromartie has not measured up…

And so forth. This editorial was no big deal to us. It didn’t say anything about Mr. Cromartie that we hadn’t said before. It’s just that one of us noticed that he had skated without opposition, we agreed that that was a shame given his record in office, and we did the edit. It ran on a Saturday. By Monday, I had forgotten about it.

Others had not. All day Monday, people came up to me whenever I was out in public (at breakfast, at Rotary). That’s always nice, but there’s praise and there’s praise. This editorial had not been a big deal, and really wasn’t worth that much comment — at the expense of other things we had made a bigger deal about, which were NOT getting mentioned so enthusiastically.

And after all these years, you develop the ability to read between the lines of praise as well as criticism. This praise fit into a certain pattern.

Next day, I mentioned all this mentioning to Warren. Warren said HE had been hearing from folks all the previous day, too. Then I mentioned that all the people who had praised the editorial to me had been white. Why did I mention that? Because of the pattern I had seen in the praise. These folks were saying, in their words and facial expressions and gestures, what I had heard and seen white Columbians say about Mr. Cromartie for years (I can’t swear it’s ONLY been white folks, but that’s been the overwhelming tendency — his black critics tend to be quieter). No, I’m not saying there was anything racist in any of this. I’m just saying that this is something I get a lot from white readers — a particular sort of long-suffering frustration with a black officeholder who gets returned to office time and again by the voters in his single-member-district, no matter what he does.

As I read back over that paragraph, I know I haven’t explained what I mean in a way that will be understood by everyone. But I’m trying to describe something for which we have no common vocabulary. People who have dealt with it a lot and seen the things I’ve seen may understand me. Others will not.

Warren knew what I meant. He shared with me the fact that all those who had contacted him had been black. And they had not been going out of their way to praise the editorial. Some had been critical; others had just mentioned it in a neutral way.

This is the kind of thing that perpetuates itself. Officeholders like Mr. Cromartie tend to stay in office because most public criticism of them tends to come from whites, which enables him to come across as a victim with a lot of black voters.

For Warren and me, the problems we have with Mr. Cromartie’s performance in office aren’t about race. For too many other people, they are. That’s one of the things that makes a candidacy like Obama’s so exciting — it really isn’t about race, whereas far too many elections still are.

Anyway, you may or may not have seen this post at ‘The Pulse,’ based on our backup editorial. There’s nothing wrong with what The Pulse is saying about Mr. Cromartie. I agree with it. Good point. And yes, it is indeed frustrating that "because E.W. has been so long entrenched in his seat, he can get away with things like this."

But certain undefinable things about that post caused me to leap to a conclusion: ‘The Pulse’ is white. Or at least the writer of that post is. Let’s get a second opinion… based on our previous conversation, I pointed the post out to Warren. Yep, he said. He’s "pretty sure" they’re white.

If we’re wrong, I’ll be glad to apologize for being so presumptuous. I’ll be glad to do so, because it’s actually a relief to be proved wrong about such things. But I’m pretty sure we’re not.

Read My Lips: ‘No New Taxes’ is a stupid, irresponsible thing to say

47 Replies

George H.W. Bush’s "no new taxes" pledge was a watershed moment for me. It was an idiotic thing for a reasonably bright man who knew better to say, and we know why he said it, right? To charm the Reagan revolutionaries, who might otherwise have listened to all that "wimp factor" talk.

But it was more than that to me. It caused me to become permanently disenchanted with campaign promises in general. No one knows what kinds of decisions he will face in office. There is something very phony about pretending to know, and presuming to predict what you will do. You end up with such absurdities as the latest George Bush spouting against nation-building, then spending most of his time in office trying to do just that (although botching it badly enough, for most of that time, to convince us he was never that into it).

This idea developed further as I moved from news to editorial in the early ’90s. News is about "What did he say; what did he do; what did they other guy do; did their actions match their words?" and other stuff that just makes me tired now. I began to think more about what candidates, and far more importantly, office-holders should do. I thought more and more about the nature of representative democracy, and came to appreciate the system more deeply. And the more I thought about it, the more I came to appreciate character over specific policy proposals. I think our system works best when we elect a candidate we trust to make good decisions come what may. I care less about the specifics of policy proposals (which in most cases will never become reality in that form), and more about the quality of the individual proposing them. Past actions count a lot. So do words, in the sense that they reveal the kind of person the candidate is. The fact that a candidate is the kind of person who would want to do a certain thing will matter more than the specifics. So would the intangible qualities revealed in the way the candidate communicates his or her ideas. For that reason, the fact that Obama speaks of approaching challenges as one nation, and is able to sell that approach to voters, contrasted against Sen. Clinton’s world view of life as a constant struggle against Republicans, matter more to me than the specifics of, say, their respective health care plans. If their health care plans were polar opposites, it would mean something. But they’re not, and I don’t care to quibble over them. This approach can be extremely frustrating to such people as today’s caller.

It does make a difference to me when a candidate lacks a serious proposal to address health care. I criticized John McCain on this point several months back. But as important as this issue is to me, it’s not a make-or-break one in considering the presidency. Truth is, no candidate but Dennis Kucinich wants to do what I want to do on the issue — and Rep. Kucinich cancels that out by putting me off on other issues. Among the Republicans, Mitt Romney probably came the closest to wanting to do anything good — but that wasn’t nearly enough, and it didn’t cancel the reasons NOT to support Romney. (Biggest reason? Rather than run as a guy who’d done something smart on health care in Massachusetts, he tried to pander to every impulse to be found in his party, and tried to get ahead by pulling other candidates down. Character.)

This brings us to what John McCain said this week: "No new taxes." This was a reprehensible thing to say. I know McCain is a national-security guy and just isn’t into the stuff that the anti-tax part of his party obsess over. That’s one of many things I like about him. But that doesn’t excuse him from throwing them a bone to this extent, even if he did it so badly that it wasn’t convincing (as Nicholas Kristof says, "he is abysmal at pandering").

Now let’s pause for a moment to make sure you understand what I’m saying. The tax haters don’t understand why I say it’s inexcusable to say, before you’re even in office, "No new taxes." That’s because they think the only thing to do with a tax — ever, under any circumstances — is to cut it, and they think anyone who doesn’t agree with their extreme must be their extreme polar opposite, which to them means that person, in one of their favorite phrases, "never saw a tax he didn’t like." They really say things like that. It doesn’t bother them a bit that such accusations are insupportable, and that in fact evidence exists to the contrary. Their world view is just that simple, and just that wrong.

McCain’s world view is not that simple, and therefore it is profoundly wrong for him to say what he said, even if he just said it to shut them up so we can talk about more important things (understandable, but still not excusable). Perhaps he believes that there never will be a need during a McCain presidency to raise a tax, so what’s the harm?

Here’s the harm: Let me put it in terms that he might understand, because they would touch more closely upon his own deeply held values. Think how stupid, how grossly irresponsible, it would be for the man who would be commander in chief to say, "I will never take military action" in office. See what I’m saying? You might like to think you’d never have to send another soldier into harm’s way, and you might want voters to know you’re the kind of guy who likes to think that. Perfectly understandable. But perfectly wrong. The would-be commander in chief of the world’s one superpower just can’t take force off the table like that.

Mind you, this is not a perfect comparison — a president has greater leeway in taking military action than he does in making tax policy (properly speaking, the purview of Congress; all the president can do is make non-binding proposals or wield the blunt instrument of the veto — he can’t even veto line items). But my point is that the thing that’s wrong here is not the policy question itself. Peace is a fine thing. Not raising taxes is a fine thing.

But you cannot know what future situations will call for, and it’s wrong to try to tie your hands in advance. And it’s particularly wrong to do it to win votes.

It’s not the policy; it’s the character. And saying "no new taxes" this way places a stain upon John McCain’s. (It also makes him look desperate; if he’ll say that to appease the extremists, would he actually consider such a disastrous choice as Mark Sanford for veep? It was the desperation and the irresponsibility in this statement on taxes that caused me actually to worry about something I had dismissed as merely ridiculous before.)

Does the stain disqualify him? Not in my eyes. His virtues far outweigh this sin. And consider that the pandering, hands-tying statements that Sens. Barack and Clinton routinely make regarding Iraq are far more egregious. I am somewhat reassured to believe that both of them know better, but it doesn’t make me think more of their characters.

Nor does it cause me to dismiss them altogether — particularly not Obama, whose character seems so much better suited to the office than Mrs. Clinton’s.

All of us are stained; no one is qualified to throw the first stone. But I do pick up these stones as I find them, and place them on the balance. As I weigh them, I’m still very glad we endorsed John McCain and Barack Obama. The one perfect guy isn’t actually running.

Today’s audio feedback

2 Replies

As you know, I keep trying to get folks who send me their thoughts and observations via e-mail either to submit them for consideration as a letter to the editor, or to come to the blog. I’m one of the world’s worst time managers, but as bad as I am, I DO try to limit the amount of time spent on purely private communications. Bring it out into the open, and let’s talk — that’s my approach.

That’s a little trickier to do with those who leave their thoughts at length on my voicemail. Trickier, but not impossible. Here’s my phone call of the day. This lady had a LOT to say about the relative merits of Barack Obama as compared to Hillary Clinton. The short version: She likes Hillary. Obama — well, she manages to compare him to George W. Bush. How? Well, listen. Here’s the audio clip.

As you will see, she explains that she called me to protest, although belatedly, our endorsement of Obama. Apparently, she explained at such length that she overran the rather generous amount of time afforded by my voicemail. Well, her voice will be heard now — at least by those of you who have the patience.

Just another slice of daily life in the editorial department.

Put-up or shut-up time for bud

30 Replies

This started as a comment back on this post, but I’m elevating it to post status:

OK, bud, put up or shut up time: So which party is it? I’ve made it absolutely clear to you over and over that when I use the term "partisan," I don’t use it in the sense of "having an opinion about an issue" — which seems to be your favored sense. I’ve made it clear that I am speaking of slavish identification with a political party (or the attendant disease of unvarying devotion to the "left" or "right," which increasing means the same thing in this country).

"Partisan," as it is used on this blog and as it is used about 99 percent of the time in this country, refers to sticking up for your party — and we talking Democrats or Republicans here, since the Libertarians and others aren’t really a factor — at all times, and always denigrating people of the "opposite" party. It means surrendering your ability to think to party platforms. It means thinking it really MATTERS whether someone is a Democrat or a Republican.

So, bud — what’s my party? Democratic? Republican? What’s my ideology: Left? Right?

Either state it, and support it, and let the other readers judge your thinking on the matter, or drop this business of taking a relatively esoteric sense of the word and using it for no other purpose whatsoever than to insult me. You know that’s what you’re doing, and there’s no other possible reason to do it than to have that effect. You know that partisanship is loathsome to me, and unless you have a profound reading comprehension problem you know WHY. I’m pretty sure you’ve never met anyone who has explained his aversion to partisanship more than I have. This means what you are doing is saying, "What does Brad despise most?" and deciding to call me that, which is a form or argument on the intellectual level of "I know you are, but what am I?"

You know that ad hominem attacks are verboten on this blog. You know that in particular, I don’t allow it from anonymous commenters. I have bent way the hell over backward for you on both points, mainly because I am the object rather than someone out there.

But I’ve had enough of it. Either support your assertion of my oh-so-obvious hypocrisy — and that means showing that I am precisely the sort of partisan that I myself condemn, in the common sense in which I use the term — or cut it out. Now.

What I do almost every waking level of my life is tell the world exactly what I think and why I think it. I am not going to provide a free forum for someone to repeatedly say that I am a liar about one of my most strongly held positions. Not unless he can back it up. This is his chance. He either does so, or starts addressing the substance of what I say without the name-calling.

Why would Sanford be a disastrous choice for McCain? Don’t get me started

31 Replies

Alternative headline I rejected: "Why I think Mark Sanford is a big phony." I considered that for one reason: It got a lot of attention the last time I applied that thought to a politician, and that’s what this situation calls for. The nonsense we’re hearing about Mark Sanford being considered as a running mate for John McCain is nothing but buzz — buzz that Mr. Sanford himself has carefully laid the groundwork for over the years, stroking media types inside the Beltway while neglecting South Carolina. It’s a thing without substance, amplified by Sunday talk shows. But in politics, buzz begets buzz, and before the volume on this particular noise rises too high, allow me to point out a few things.

Earlier today, I called someone I know who was close to the McCain campaign in South Carolina and said, "Consider this to be a crisis line call. I need you to reassure me of something very quickly…" The person I called laughed, and said, "I know exactly why you’re calling." This person had heard the buzz too, and thought it just as ridiculous as I did. He went on to say there was no way such a thing would happen. Good to hear. And it’s what I would expect to hear — there’s no way the John McCain I’ve described and praised in The State and in this forum could make such a mistake. But this is a matter of such import that I don’t believe in leaving anything to chance.

On the offhand slight risk that something like this could happen, let me offer just a few of the reasons why it shouldn’t. I’m not offering these in any order, so take them any way you like. Nor is this list all-inclusive. I’m just trying to get some of these things on the record:

Before putting Sanford on a long list, much less a short one, McCain should ask some of the true-blue conservative Republicans who helped him win the S.C. primary what they think. Start with House Speaker Bobby Harrell and Attorney General Henry McMaster. And demand that they be absolutely, brutally honest. Tell them not to let any misplaced notions about Reagan’s "11th commandment" get in the way. I haven’t asked either of them about this, but I suspect that the honest assessment of either of those leaders would lead to the same conclusion: Don’t even think about it.
It occurs to me that the first person Sen. McCain would ask would be Lindsey Graham. And in most things, that would be a wise call. But I submit that as smart as Lindsey Graham is, he has not been here in the trenches, watching with frustration as Mark Sanford has frittered away the very real chance he had of making a positive difference as governor. Don’t get me wrong — I think Sen. Graham’s honest assessment would ALSO be that he should steer clear of Sanford. I’m just saying that those who’ve had front-row seats right here in SC since 2002 have much more relevant, up-to-date information.
Some would superficially say Sanford would be a good match for McCain — aren’t they both "limited government" conservatives? But here’s the glaring difference: John McCain has devoted his life to public service, and believes in going to great lengths to make sure government performs its vital role in society as efficiently as possible. Mark Sanford is not a good-government guy (as we thought he was when we endorsed him in 2002). He is an anti-government guy. He exudes contempt for the public sector and all who devote themselves to it. This is something that it takes time with Sanford to understand. I didn’t realize it myself until he’d been in office several months. When it finally hit me, I confronted him about, saying essentially: You ran as a "conservative," but you’re not that at all. You’re a pure libertarian, with all that entails. He did not disagree. This may sound like I’m awfully slow on the uptake, and maybe I am. But it’s easy to be color-blind in this range. Modern conservatism tends to have its strongly libertarian components, so it’s easy to miss when a candidate or officeholder crosses the line into radical libertarianism, to the expense of commonsense conservatism. At least I began to realize it in his first year in office, and didn’t have to wait until he vetoed the entire state budget in 2006.
Let’s elaborate on that veto for a moment. It was a watershed event. If you had doubted where Sanford was coming from before, you would have no excuse for doing so afterward. I urge you to go back and read my column on the subject. In that veto, Mr. Sanford demonstrated more clearly than ever that being a hero to the Club for Growth is far, far more important to him than the business of actually governing South Carolina. If his veto had been upheld, there would have been no government in South Carolina — no highway patrol, no prison guards, no anything. Of course, Mr. Sanford will say that he knew the Legislature would override him. What that says is that he relied upon the Legislature to be responsible, using that confidence as license to make a supremely irresponsible, completely ideological gesture. In that moment, he threw away what little credibility he had earned with his obsessively detailed budgets, which we had praised for doing what the Legislature should do: Set priorities, holding some government functions as higher than others. All that was thrown away with a stroke of the pen, which told us all that was just so much abstract posturing. But the governor was just expressing his disillusionment with the process, you say? Well in that case, why not resign from office? That would make the point in a more dramatic, and more effective, way, without abdicating stewardship of the state.
But he wouldn’t do that — resign, that is — because that would mean he was no longer positioned to be picked as someone’s veep. And Mark Sanford’s tenure as governor all points to that being his motive. It makes sense of all that doesn’t add up otherwise. Take his supercilious manner toward the Legislature… Taking those two pigs into the lobby makes a great anecdote if your plan is to develop a national reputation as an anti-pork crusader. And if you did it after all other ways of communicating were exhausted, it might even have some validity. But ask the conservative Republican lawmakers who run General Assembly whether Mark Sanford has done the due diligence in trying to work for them to the betterment of South Carolina, and rest assured: The majority would say the stiff-arming contempt that was the central feature of the piglet publicity stunt reflects the governor’s default mode of dealing with lawmakers of his own party.
That contempt toward his own fellow Republicans should not be seen, in UnParty terms, as a potential virtue. Yes, it has tickled me at times to see how Mark Sanford sneers at party hoopla, despising parties as I do. But there is no upside to set alongside this contempt — no record of reaching out to, and working with, Democrats or independents, either. Sanford’s independence from his party is not that of the stalwart iconoclast, but of the radical individual who needs no one, and acts accordingly. The political career of Mark Sanford has been all about Mark Sanford. This is not that he is an egomaniac; it is that this is his philosophy. He thinks everyone should be equally focused on self, and private concerns.
An illustration of that point: Back during the 2002 campaign, I understood Mr. Sanford’s oft-stated wish to make South Carolina a better, more welcoming place for his sons to grow up in as being standard politicanspeak for, "I want to make South Carolina a better place for ALL children to grow up in." But no. If you look at his policy positions, he really meant HIS sons. And he wanted to advance policies that encouraged everyone to think first of advantages to them and their own, rather than to South Carolina as a whole. An illustration of THAT…
… Take his position with regard to education. First, he has no interest in PUBLIC education whatsoever. One of his two great policy priorities (the other is reducing the income tax, to which I will return) is to divert state funds to pay people to take their kids out of public schools, thereby reducing public support for the schools, which leads to less funding, which leads to the reduction of the one biggest item in the state budget. His ideological defenders would say, "No, it’s not about STATE funds; it’s about letting taxpayers keep their OWN money." But that speaks to my point. The governor and his ideological ilk look at public policy as CONSUMERS, not as CITIZENS. A consumer holds to the ridiculous notion that the taxes a parent pays toward supporting public schools are a sort of user fee; therefore if the parent sends HIS kids to private school or homeschools, he shouldn’t have to pay the taxes. But folks, public schools don’t exist merely as a service to the kids who attend them at a given moment, or to their families. If they did, we wouldn’t HAVE public schools, since only about a quarter of taxpayers have kids in the schools at any given time. We have public schools because universal education is a crucial goal of the society as a whole. We have public schools in order to create an educated society, so we have people with skills to fill the overwhelming majority of jobs in the state. We have the schools so that kids have a chance of becoming informed, constructive citizens, voters and taxpayers, rather than rotting away on street corners or in prison. On the most basic level, we have them so that all of us — from toddlers to retirees — can live in safe, prosperous communities, rather than in a Somalia-like environment of despair. And it is one of those few things that the market would never, ever provide on its own, because only society as a whole — rather than private actors — can profit from providing universal education (as opposed to targeted service to segments of the market, which can be profitable to a provider.)
To repeat a point I made in my column Sunday, this same kind of Philosophy of the Self is what informs the governor’s other great policy priority: Cutting the state income tax. Our Legislature is full of conservatives who LOVE cutting taxes, but relatively few of them would cite the governor’s choice — the income tax — as their priority. For one thing, it’s not relatively high. But the governor chooses that one for reasons related to what someone at the state Chamber of Commerce once said to me about the S.C. Policy Council: It doesn’t speak for business, or anyone who is creating jobs or might create jobs and wealth for the community. It speaks for people who have put all that behind them, who have made their pile and just want to shelter it from taxes. So would the governor’s approach to tax policy. This is also his economic development policy, almost entirely. He simply does not believe in the government investing in anything like endowed chairs; he believes the way to stimulate the economy is to make this a more attractive place for those who place legal tax evasion first and foremost.
Nothing Mark Sanford has done in his life, in either the public or private sector (and he’s spent very little time in the latter, so no balance for the ticket there), demonstrates any qualification or aptitude to be serve as president, should it come to that.

Disregard all political considerations for a moment: For the reasons above, and many more, placing Mark Sanford a heartbeat away from the presidency would be a great disservice to the nation. But if you want to consider the politics:

If McCain can’t win South Carolina without Sanford on his ticket, he should quit now. While I believe Barack Obama would break the patter of recent decades to campaign here (after the turnout he inspired in the primary, he could hardly do less than to put in an appearance) and would have an outside chance, it would still be McCain’s to lose. And Hillary "Old School" Clinton wouldn’t even try here.
McCain should never make the mistake of thinking Mark Sanford is the kind of guy who would get him in good with the portion of the base that he needs to win over. Think about it: Who is it that GOP voters have been voting for as the McCain alternative? Mike Huckabee. Gov. Huckabee is, on many levels, the opposite of Mark Sanford. Consider this one aspect: Mark Sanford is the hero of the Club for Growth, for all of the reasons I cited above — they love a guy who prefers anti-government posturing to governing, and their membership tends to consist of kinds of people who are independently wealthy to the degree that they see themselves as not needing the rest of society, and wonder what value other see in any sort of government. Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee is anathema to the Club for Growth, and the feeling is mutual — he calls it the Club for Greed.
The rise of Gov. Huckabee to the point of becoming the ONLY Republican alternative to Sen. McCain reflects a yearning in the base for something Mark Sanford could not satisfy. Mike Huckabee is no country-club conservative, but — as he puts it himself — a Boys and Girls-Club conservative. He is someone who shares the appreciation that ordinary people have for society’s institutions and the important role that they play in our lives. He knows that regular folks rely on institutions — including government — to provide things that mere individualism cannot offer. This is why he was even willing to go along with a tax increase to make sure the state adequately provided the basic services citizens rely upon. As he also says, Mr. Huckabee reminds voters of the guy they work with. The Club for Growth is like Mitt Romney — it looks like the guy who wants to lay them off.
What’s the one issue that has been most damaging to McCain this year? It’s illegal immigration, and the huge resentment of it out in the base. Is Mark Sanford a likely spokesman for that resentment? Of course not. That’s not a Club for Growth, fat-cat type of issue by any stretch. Once again, Huckabee would be a far more likely asset in this regard. (But don’t think this is about pushing Huckabee — it’s just that he’s the guy most often mentioned, so he comes first to mind, and when he does, he stands head-and-shoulders above Sanford on point after point.)
McCain would have good reason to want to counter an Obama candidacy with someone younger and more representative of "change." But Mark Sanford is one of the few people he might choose who actually have less in the way of accomplishments in public office than Sen. Obama. And remember that there is an inspirational, populist element in the appeal of Obama (and of Huckabee as well). Sanford would not bring that. As lacking in success as his tenure as governor has been, it looks better than his six years in Congress. All he accomplished there was making headlines for sleeping on his futon — a fact that perfectly encapsulates his career (plenty penny-pinching publicity stunts, few actual accomplishments).
Remember, we’re not talking about a guy who achieved a lot in the private sector, either. He managed to make a nice little pile without having a big impact on the business world, and then he essentially retired. Sanford is no Mitt Romney. Sanford has spent most of his last two decades in public office; if he hasn’t accomplished anything in public office, what has he accomplished? The answer: not much.
An argument could be made that a governor would help balance the ticket. And for a longtime senator, that’s true. But why this governor? Why a governor who is essentially an anti-governor? Why not someone like the governor of Florida, who not only could help deliver a critical swing state (remember the election of 2000), but who actually supported the McCain campaign when it counted.
That brings me to my last point for the moment (I know I’m leaving things out, but at some point I’ve got to go home for the day). In classic Mark Sanford style, our governor sat out the recent primary. At a time when both U.S. senators and other top Republicans laid their reputations on the line stating preferences at a critical moment in our state’s and nation’s history, at a time when most Republicans in the state were working as hard as they could for the candidate of their choice, Mark Sanford kept his theoretical options open by staying out of it. His apathy was palpable. There was nothing in it for Mark Sanford, so why make the gesture. Far better to choose someone who endorsed ANOTHER candidate (that could at least add balance) than someone who did not care whom was nominated.

I’m sure that the above rambling list will add to further discussion, and I will have additional points to make. For now I will close with the thought that there is a galaxy of reasons why Mark Sanford would be an awful choice for veep, and no good reasons to the contrary. Y’all take it from there.

A dialogue about Hillary

23 Replies

Hello Mr. Warthen:

Thank you for your reply. I posted to this effect in response to the blog entry in question, the one along the lines of "Watch Out, Hillary’s in Victim Mode." With all due respect, I feel it was totally unprofessional, snarky and uncalled for. Several others flamed you for it in the comments section, and you replied apologetically, to your credit, to one of them – "redd," I think it was.
As I said in a second comment, in response to your apology of sorts, I know Mrs. Clinton. I had the pleasure of working on her campaign staff in 1992 on the Clinton-Gore ’92 campaign. She was kind, gracious, courteous and considerate to us several young ‘uns from around the country who had dropped everything to come help her and him. I have seen a side of her you most likely have not. She is not a two-dimensional cartoon villainess. She is a very bright, forceful, intense advocate for the causes in which she believes, and yes, she can be tough as nails. When was the last time that was a fault in a political leader.
I could go on – but the notion that she is somehow evil and that Obama is pure as the driven snow is a bit much to take. Did you see where he turned his back on her last night, even as she had the good grace to extend a hand in friendship and good grace to Sen. Kennedy, who had just endorsed him? Do you forgive his campaign for fanning the flames of a race war so as to win South Carolina, based on Bill Clinton calling his claims of purity on the Iraq War a "fairy tale"?
All I am saying is they’re both playing tough, at times dirty political hardball. Neither campaign is peopled with saints. They will, however, either of them, almost certainly do a better job than has Mr. Bush, given the opportunity. Be fair. That’s all. Personal invective of the sort you directed toward her should be beneath someone of your station.
My two cents.

Christopher A. Stratton, Esq.
West Hartford, CT

From: Warthen, Brad – External Email
To: Christopher Stratton
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:00 PM
Subject: RE: Who’s the real victim?

Thanks for going to the trouble to further share your thoughts (mind if I post them?).
I think if you go back before this past week, you won’t find a whole lot of criticism of Sen. Clinton from me. The closest you’ll find will be my column openly worrying about the fact that a Clinton nomination would worsen polarization in the country. And if you can spot anything "snarky" in that — anything other than what I just said, an expression of concern (my distaste for our nation’s increasing partisan divisions is long-established).
Over the past week, however, I’ve formed an increasingly negative impression. You can probably track it day by day on my blog. It really got started AFTER our editorial board meeting with Obama. I’ve just been more and more alarmed at the idea of her winning the nomination, and more and more glad we chose Obama.
Maybe the things I’m reacting to were always there; or maybe it’s stepped up in the past week (which seems to be the conventional wisdom). Or maybe before last week, I was just trying so hard not to choose between them before our meetings that I let a lot of stuff slide. I don’t know. I do know that I’ve taken a different tone the past week, and that it reflects what I’ve been thinking…

Hello Again, Mr. Warthen:
I very much appreciate your kindly following up on my thoughts and comments, and I respect that your general bent appears to be more deliberative and thoughtful than the taunt against Sen. Clinton which was my introduction to you. And yes, of course, please feel free to post my remarks from the prior e-mail below.
I think the difficulty here is the translation between the more private, extraordinarily decent Hillary I have seen up close on several occasions and the sometimes over-intense Hillary that comes across in public. I think she may not see herself as the world sees her (as is true for so many of us, but for so few of us does it matter so much as it does for her). She has certain natural tendencies which don’t come off super well before a broad audience. She is a very, very intense figure. She is brilliantly intelligent and passionately committed to her causes. And she has the courage and the confidence of her convictions. And because of the courage and confidence, she ordinarily trusts her natural reactions, which at times are, to put it bluntly, to kick fanny and take names – to vanquish her opponent via sheer intelligence and intensity, in the first instance, and by other means at times as well. This is a role that suited her well as the wife of a major political figure, a sort of enforcer for her husband and an intellectual heavyweight who could also simply outsmart and out-argue dadgum near any foe.
Now, though, those tendencies can come off as over-intense and scary when she is gunning to be the top dog in our country – and in the world for that matter. I think she may be starting to see that, but she is having to feel her way through this minefield in front of the entire world and is not extraordinarily sure-footed about it, and this has somewhat shaken her confidence – she doesn’t know when to trust her instincts and when not to. Add to that that she is up against an opponent who, sheerly as a stump salesman and presence, has the agility and grace of a lead dancer in the New York City Ballet. (The problem I have with Mr. Obama, whom I admire greatly and sincerely, is not with his talent, it’s with his seasoning, his reliability, his depth of experience and understanding. For me, Hillary is money in the bank on policy, a deeply smart, sensible, practical hand. Oddly enough, it is a bit of a conservative, cautious streak in me that is part of why I am supporting her. Personal loyalty is part of the equation for me, but by no means all.)
Speaking of personal loyalty, Mr. W, please note that it is no coincidence that so many people who work or have worked for Sen. Clinton are fiercely loyal, and it’s not due to some brainwashing regimen, to that I can personally attest. She is extraordinarily gracious, courteous, respectful, considerate and loyal. She is a very fine friend to have and is widely loved, not merely liked, by those who spend more than a little time in contact with her. I have heard it said many times that people who have known them both have a pronounced tendency to favor her over her husband, and – remember – it was he who long ago said, back when they were finishing law school, that she, not he, should be the one who ran someday for president. I think he was deeply wise on many levels in that insight. (I think he was a very fine president on policy, by and large, but I think his personal flaws and weaknesses – and not just the philandering business – greatly undermined what could have been a far more successful presidency than it was.)
So, catching my breath here for a moment, if she does win election to the presidency, Mr. W, I think Ms. Clinton will diligently and energetically do the rather extensive clean-up job that our federal government needs. She, better than nearly anyone, knows the extent of the damage and the fixes and repairs that need to be put into place across the broad expanse of our federal government. She will pursue these improvements and repairs with great energy, consideration and intelligence. With utmost respect, I do not believe Senator Obama can match her in these regards. She is, in my considered opinion, on balance, the better choice, but that is not to say that others cannot reasonably disagree. (I would, though, so love to see a ticket headed by her with him as the VP and still and yet hold out hope that this can happen – remember Sen. Kerry rather disliked Sen. Edwards and JFK and LBJ were not exactly chums.)
Lastly, what I have difficulty abiding is numerous supporters of Sen. Obama’s viewing this as a clear cut, obvious choice between good and evil. It is not, and that is foolish. There are too many people whose tempers are running too hot. I hope we can heal this rift in our party, to which both sides have contributed far too much. It is highly counterproductive.
That’s my bit for tonight.

Cheers,

Christopher A. Stratton, Esq.
West Hartford, CT

Kathleen Sebelius sounds kind of like UnParty material

20 Replies

Until a couple of days ago, I had never heard of Kathleen Sebelius. That may seem odd since I once had charge of the political reporters at the largest newspaper in Kansas. But that was more than 20 years ago, and I long ago shook the dust of that place from my shoes, thank the Lord.

Then on Sunday, I heard this advance feature on NPR about Gov. Sebelius, who was to give the Democratic response to the State of the Union address. I was ready to be displeased in principle, because I’ve always thought those responses to be an offensive institution in practice as well as in theory. The Constitution requires a state of the union message. The "response" is just partisanship for partisanship’s sake; it has existed mainly to have an argument.

But I was pleased at what I heard about this governor who has "spent years learning how to get along with her political opponents," and the piece on the radio seemed to promise something different this time, more along the collaborative lines of the recent economic stimulus deal.

Then came her actual response the next night, which is worth reading. An excerpt:

Good evening. I’m Kathleen Sebelius, governor of the state of Kansas, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. I’m a Democrat, but tonight it really doesn’t matter whether you think of yourself as a Democrat or a Republican or an independent or none of the above…

And so I want to take a slight detour from tradition on this State of the Union night. In this time, normally reserved for a partisan response, I hope to offer something more: An American response. A national call to action on behalf of the struggling families in the heartland and across this great country. A wake-up call to Washington, on behalf of a new American majority, that time is running out on our opportunities to meet our challenges and solve our problems….

Nice beginning. You’ve got this UnPartisan’s attention. Sure, she goes on to give a challenge to the president that is very Democratic in nature, and he as a Republican is bound to take exception to parts of it. And sure, she gets in the usual antiwar licks. But she presents it all in terms that an independent like myself can respect, instead of spewing the usual vile mess we hear out of Washington. I’ve got no problem with Democrats and Republicans setting different sorts of ideas out in competition with one another. I just want them to do it in a way that doesn’t make me want to turn a hose on them.

So — lots of UnParty points for Gov. Sebelius. How could she top that?

Like this: by endorsing Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president who embodies the same kind of "One Country" approach that she tried to invoke in her address Monday night.

The only way she could possibly top herself would be to endorse John McCain as well, he being the natural Republican counterpart of Sen. Obama. Sure, I know that’s asking a bit much, like whipped cream on top of hard candy. But just think: If she did that, we’d have to give her the UnParty nomination for president on the spot!

Sebelius_state_of_the_wart

Romney outgunned McCain 10 to 1 in Florida, and still lost

13 Replies

At least we don’t have to worry about whether pore ol’ Mitt Romney was able to get his message out in Florida. Check out this WashPost story, "After Romney’s Barrage, McCain Stands Tall:"

In Florida, as he did in other early states, Romney blanketed the airwaves with ads financed partly by his own fortune. According to Nielsen Co., Romney ran nearly 4,500 ads in Florida by Monday, compared with 470 by McCain.

How much longer do you suppose it will take Gov. Romney to get the fact that the voters aren’t buying what he’s trying to sell — or perhaps I should say, aren’t willing to sell what he’s trying to buy?

This was brought to my attention by McCain backer Bob McAlister, who observed, "It is absolutely stunning that our guy overcame such odds. I don’t know if that’s ever happened — being outgunned on the air 10 to 1 and still win convincingly. It just shows that character and integrity can still trump glitz."

So Hillary can’t make a concession speech in S.C., but she publicly celebrates a meaningless win in Florida?

19 Replies

Actually, I just said pretty much all I had to say in the headline.

Saturday night, I initially posted this with the headline saying, "HIllary’s concession speech." Then I realized it was just an e-mailed statement, so I changed the headline to reflect that, expecting the actual speech momentarily. It didn’t come. I saw Edwards give his concession/nonconcession speech (not quitting, although what he’s going on for, I don’t know). But no Hillary.

Did I miss it? I was busy being on live TV and all, so maybe I missed it. Did y’all see it or hear it? I ask because it seemed pretty bizarre for her to be cavorting about on a stage transported by a campaign "victory" that gave her no delegates, in a state which the Democratic candidates had pledged (and I’m using the term "pledge" here loosely) not to campaign in, in a "contest" that was obviously a measure of starting-point name recognition.

If Obama had campaigned there, do you really think she would have run away with it? Seems doubtful, but I’d be interested to hear arguments to the contrary.

Anyway, either I’ve missed something (which is highly probable), or this sequence of events — no concession on Obama’s stunning victory in S.C., celebration of the meaningless win in Florida — would seem to be terra incognita in the Clintons’ exploration of the limits of gracelessness.

Obama’s full victory speech

5 Replies

Catching up with stuff now I’m back at the office, here is a copy of Barack Obama’s wonderful victory speech from Saturday night. That is, this is a copy of the prepared remarks. You can view the video here:

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama

South Carolina Primary Night

Saturday, January 26th, 2008

Columbia, South Carolina

Over two weeks ago, we saw the people of Iowa proclaim that
our time for change has come. But there were those who doubted this country’s desire
for something new – who said Iowa was a fluke not to be repeated again.

Well, tonight, the cynics who believed that what began in
the snows of Iowa was just an illusion were told a different story by the good
people of South Carolina.

After four great contests in every corner of this country,
we have the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of
Americans we’ve seen in a long, long time.

They are young and old; rich and poor. They are black and
white; Latino and Asian. They are Democrats from Des Moines and Independents
from Concord; Republicans from rural Nevada and young people across this
country who’ve never had a reason to participate until now. And in nine days,
nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are
tired of business-as-usual in Washington, we are hungry for change, and we are
ready to believe again.

But if there’s anything we’ve been reminded of since Iowa,
it’s that the kind of change we seek will not come easy. Partly because we have
fine candidates in the field – fierce competitors, worthy of respect. And as
contentious as this campaign may get, we have to remember that this is a
contest for the Democratic nomination, and that all of us share an abiding
desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration.

But there are real differences between the candidates. We
are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We’re
looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington – a status quo that
extends beyond any particular party. And right now, that status quo is fighting
back with everything it’s got; with the same old tactics that divide and
distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are
health care they can’t afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.

So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we’re
up against.

We are up against the belief that it’s ok for lobbyists to
dominate our government – that they are just part of the system in Washington.
But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and
this election is our chance to say that we’re not going to let them stand in
our way anymore.

We are up against the conventional thinking that says your
ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to
the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and
judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a
common purpose – a higher purpose.

We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause
politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make
college affordable or energy cleaner; it’s the kind of partisanship where
you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea – even if it’s one
you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for
our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

We are up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say
anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly
what’s wrong with our politics; this is why people don’t believe what their
leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance
to give the American people a reason to believe again.

And what we’ve seen in these last weeks is that we’re also
up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the
habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation. It’s the
politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon. A
politics that tells us that we have to think, act, and even vote within the
confines of the categories that supposedly define us. The assumption that young
people are apathetic. The assumption that Republicans won’t cross over. The
assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor, and that the poor don’t
vote. The assumption that African-Americans can’t support the white candidate;
whites can’t support the African-American candidate; blacks and Latinos can’t
come together.

But we are here tonight to say that this is not the America
we believe in. I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a
white South Carolina or a black South Carolina. I saw South Carolina. I saw
crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white
children. I saw shuttered mills and homes for sale that once belonged to
Americans from all walks of life, and men and women of every color and creed
who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud
flag. I saw what America is, and I believe in what this country can be.

That is the country I see. That is the country you see. But
now it is up to us to help the entire nation embrace this vision. Because in
the end, we are not just up against the ingrained and destructive habits of
Washington, we are also struggling against our own doubts, our own fears, and
our own cynicism. The change we seek has always required great struggle and
sacrifice. And so this is a battle in our own hearts and minds about what kind
of country we want and how hard we’re willing to work for it.

So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy.
That change will take time. There will be setbacks, and false starts, and
sometimes we will make mistakes. But as hard as it may seem, we cannot lose
hope. Because there are people all across this country who are counting us; who
can’t afford another four years without health care or good schools or decent
wages because our leaders couldn’t come together and get it done.

Theirs are the stories and voices we carry on from South
Carolina.

The mother who can’t get Medicaid to cover all the needs of
her sick child – she needs us to pass a health care plan that cuts costs and
makes health care available and affordable for every single American.

The teacher who works another shift at Dunkin Donuts after
school just to make ends meet – she needs us to reform our education system so
that she gets better pay, and more support, and her students get the resources
they need to achieve their dreams.

The Maytag worker who is now competing with his own teenager
for a $7-an-hour job at Wal-Mart because the factory he gave his life to shut
its doors – he needs us to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our
jobs overseas and start putting them in the pockets of working Americans who
deserve it. And struggling homeowners. And seniors who should retire with
dignity and respect.

The woman who told me that she hasn’t been able to breathe
since the day her nephew left for Iraq, or the soldier who doesn’t know his
child because he’s on his third or fourth tour of duty – they need us to come
together and put an end to a war that should’ve never been authorized and never
been waged.

The choice in this election is not between regions or
religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it
is not about black versus white.

It’s about the past versus the future.

It’s about whether we settle for the same divisions and
distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for
a politics of common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared
prosperity.

There are those who will continue to tell us we cannot do
this. That we cannot have what we long for. That we are peddling false hopes.

But here’s what I know. I know that when people say we can’t
overcome all the big money and influence in Washington, I think of the elderly
woman who sent me a contribution the other day – an envelope that had a money
order for $3.01 along with a verse of scripture tucked inside. So don’t tell us
change isn’t possible.

When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and
Latinos can’t join together and work together, I’m reminded of the Latino
brothers and sisters I organized with, and stood with, and fought with side by
side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don’t tell us change
can’t happen.

When I hear that we’ll never overcome the racial divide in
our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom
Thurmond, who’s now devoted to educating inner-city children and who went out
onto the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign.
Don’t tell me we can’t change.

Yes we can change.

Yes we can heal this nation.

Yes we can seize our future.

And as we leave this state with a new wind at our backs, and
take this journey across the country we love with the message we’ve carried
from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire; from the Nevada desert
to the South Carolina coast; the same message we had when we were up and when
we were down – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope;
and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we
can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a
people in three simple words:

Yes. We. Can.

Race doesn’t matter!

28 Replies

Since I was doing the live gig at ETV last night, I missed a lot of the action at the Obama victory rally. I heard his wonderful speech, and that was about it.

But afterwards, I spoke to Inez Tenenbaum, and it seems I missed a lot that it would have been great to have witnessed. One, which I’ll just mention and move on, was when Bill Clinton appeared on a screen and the crowd booed, probably the only negative moment in that night of joy. But it marked an important moment, in terms of S.C. Democrats rejecting the kind of hyperpartisan, do-anything-to-win approach to politics that the former president, Sen. Clinton, and their supporters (think Don Fowler) embodied. As Inez said, "Would you ever have imagined a crowd of South Carolina Democrats booing Bill Clinton?" Until last week, no.

But that sour note just served to emphasize the alternative that had just been embraced so emphatically by South Carolina voters — the joy, the hope, the welcoming, the affirmation that filled the hearts of the hundreds of thousands who came out to vote for Barack Obama.

And that led to what had to be the high point of the night — indeed, a high point in South Carolina history: That room full of people, black and white, young and old — but predominantly young — chanting "Race doesn’t matter! Race doesn’t matter!"

People who had long been involved in struggling to make South Carolina a better place for all people, only to be disappointed so many times as things dissolved in acrimony, looked at each other in disbelief, with chills running down their spines. They truly never thought they would see the day.

This was more than just a bunch of charged-up supporters giving a team cheer. It was THE message of the day. A half million people had turned out, thousands upon thousands of them who had never voted before or hadn’t voted in years because they were so turned off by politics as usual, and the overwhelming majority had chosen the man who embodies the fact that race doesn’t matter. He embodies it in his own life — a man with a white mother and a black, immigrant father, who grew up in Hawaii (and if you haven’t lived in Hawaii — I graduated from high school there — you can’t imagine the degree to which our whole mainland black-vs.-white thing makes NO sense to the people of the islands) and abroad, a man who can’t be pegged, either in his skin or his mind or soul, as being THIS or THAT.

And he embodies it in his message, as he so eloquently encapsulated in his victory speech (and as soon as I get the full text I’ll post it here).

They were, in advance, repudiating the divisive, identity-politics, racist message that the Clintons will try to see between now and Super Tuesday (I understand that Bill has already said something like well, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, too, as I had predicted he would). The very fact that the man whose message was the Race Doesn’t Matter got 80 percent of the black vote speaks volumes. That that was the chant in this moment of victory — rather than some cry of triumph on the part of blacks, or women (the majority of whom ALSO went for Obama), or any other demographic group — marked this as a tremendous moment in American history.

And that it happened HERE, in South Carolina, where once the majority of the state’s population was enslaved, where the Civil War started, where so many live in deep, inherited poverty, after all the scorn we have had to endure from the rest of the country over our race-based pathologies — what a wonderful, triumphant day for the people of this state!

Yesterday, we overcame so much. Thank God for this. We have overcome so much. Now, South Carolina has set the most positive example that can be set for the rest of the nation. I pray that the rest of the nation will understand the message. It has to; it just has to.

Because Race Doesn’t Matter!

Our interview with the winner: Obama speaking to our editorial board

3 Replies

All week, I wanted to stop and edit some of the video I shot during our editorial board interview with Barack Obama Monday morning, but, well… it’s been a busy week.

I finally tried to start putting together a post on it this afternoon, but my internet connection at home crashed. So, now that it’s all over for South Carolina, I’m sitting here on the air at ETV using their Web connection, and putting up some rough unedited clips. Better late than never, right? No? Whatever. I thought you still might like to hear the man who won so hugely here talking at some greater length than what you get on the Boob Tube usually.

As regular viewers will know, my little camera only shoots three-minute clips at a time, which means they can stop and restart in odd places. But I’ve put together four sequential clips here, with only one or two seconds of real time between them, from the opening moments of the meeting.

What you’ll see here in these four clips is Sen. Obama responding to our standard opening question we use in all candidate endorsement interviews for all offices. It’s simple: We ask him to state why he’s running, and why he should be the one to get the nomination — and in this case, presumably, the presidency. Sometimes we couch in terms of a 10-minute version of the candidate’s stump speech.

This serves two purposes. First, we editors don’t get out on the trail the way reporters do, so it’s good to hear the overview of how this candidate chooses to present himself. Second, it helps us cut through the sound-bite, 24/7 news headline of the moment and step back and take a broader view of who this candidate is and what his campaign is about.

Also, it gives us a sort of base line for the rest of our conversation, as we dig further into what the candidate is really about.

The four clips include Obama’s full answer to that question, minus the second or so intervals it takes for my camera to start rolling again after it shuts off at the end of a three-minute clip. A little way through the fourth one, the senator starts answering our second inevitable question that we ask specifically of presidential candidates, which always takes roughly this form: What is America’s proper role in the world, and how should it go about playing that role?

The first segment is at the top of this post. The other three follow:

Part II:

Part III:

Part IV:

Perhaps when things slow down, I can put up some further parts of the interview, for posterity. Anyway, what you see above is the candidate who made such a tremendous impression on our editorial board — and obviously, on South Carolina voters.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits

Category Archives: Character

‘Hillary-style attacks’

Hear Peter Beattie’s speech

Runyan concession letter

Last-minute ploys in city council race

Tom Davis predicting Rod Shealy attack

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

Harry then and Harry now

McCain’s apology for his jerk supporter

‘The Pulse’ is probably white

E.W. Cromartie

Read My Lips: ‘No New Taxes’ is a stupid, irresponsible thing to say

Today’s audio feedback

Put-up or shut-up time for bud

Why would Sanford be a disastrous choice for McCain? Don’t get me started

A dialogue about Hillary

Kathleen Sebelius sounds kind of like UnParty material

Romney outgunned McCain 10 to 1 in Florida, and still lost

So Hillary can’t make a concession speech in S.C., but she publicly celebrates a meaningless win in Florida?

Obama’s full victory speech

Race doesn’t matter!

Our interview with the winner: Obama speaking to our editorial board