Category Archives: Civility

DeMint is now officially Too Big For His Britches

Folks, this is really embarrassing. Throughout our history, U.S. senators have not exactly been known for modesty. Fritz Hollings, for instance, was no shrinking violet. Being one of only 100 in the country, with some pretty weighty constitutional responsibility, can go to one’s head. Add in the tradition going back to ancient Rome, and you have a formula for bombast.

But I have never heard or read of any one senator taking upon himself such a megalomaniacal presumption as what Jim DeMint has taken upon himself with this latest move:

U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., in an extraordinary move, has warned the other 99 U.S. senators that for the rest of the legislative session this year, all bills and nominations slated for unanimous passage must go through his office for review…

Normally, senatorial ego is limited by the understanding that there are 99 others just like you, which is the wellspring of senatorial courtesy. The notion that the world does not revolve around YOU is something that we start teaching our children as we’re trying to get them beyond the Terrible Twos. Most of us pick up on it by the time we reach the age of majority, at least to some extent.

But if Jim DeMint had ever been familiar with this concept, he has forgotten it.

Contrast this obnoxious cry of ego, if you will, to the quiet way that Lindsay Graham has worked behind the scenes to have a salutary effect on foreign policy since the election of Barack Obama. Despite the imperative of satisfying his left wing, I keep seeing Obama do things in Afghanistan and elsewhere that show a marked pragmatism, a reassuring wisdom. And apparently, Sen. Graham is one of the main reasons why:

A new book by The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward describes U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham as playing a central role in the formation and execution of President Barack Obama’s war policy in Afghanistan through his close ties to Vice President Joe Biden, Gen. David Petraeus and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

The book by the former Watergate reporter, Obama’s Wars, contains vivid and previously undisclosed portrayals of Graham’s closed-door conversations and confrontations with Obama, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other key figures.

Petraeus, the former commander of U.S. troops in Iraq who now holds the same post in Afghanistan, describes Graham as “a brilliant and skillful chess player” whom the general admires for his ability to navigate the power channels of Washington.

Talk about your polar opposites — the ball hog vs. the guy who just wants to make sure his team wins. And his team (and this might come as a shock to Jim Demint) is the United States of America, NOT the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, which Sen. DeMint seems to think is his country.

And what is Jim DeMint trying to accomplish in all this, aside from self-aggrandizement? Note this in The Washington Post:

Consider the case of Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, the new Republican kingpin and enforcer on Capitol Hill. DeMint claims he was misquoted by Bloomberg Businessweek last week as saying that his goal for the next Senate is “complete gridlock.” But you’d never know it from the way he’s behaving during the Senate’s do-nothing, pre-election legislative session. DeMint makes no apologies for saying that there’s no place for bipartisan compromise or consensus or some “watered-down Republican philosophy,” as he put it. For DeMint, this is war. The only acceptable outcome is total victory, and any Republican who dares to disagree will be treated as a traitor during the next election cycle.

And of course, he’s trying to get in a position to accomplish all this by such moves as supporting such candidates as Christine “Witchy Woman” O’Donnell.

I’ve never been more proud of Lindsey Graham, or more embarrassed by Jim DeMint. This moment has been coming, but I never suspected it would go this far.

Area man says he’s not Alvin Greene

My apologies to The Onion for using their “Area Man” gag, but since they stole it from those of us who actually used that lame, unimaginative, oddly comical construction many times without irony in the rush of getting a paper out every day, I guess I’m entitled.

Darrin Thomas

Anyway, even though this is from Rotary before last, I still wanted to share with you the story that Darrin Thomas shared with us when he did Health & Happiness Sept. 13.

Here’s the audio in case you’d like to listen to it.

Here’s a summary: First, he skilfully misdirected us by making us think this was another case of his being mistaken for Steve Benjamin. He’s had a real problem with that, and having confused white folks (at least, I assume it’s always white folks) repeatedly for that OTHER black man in a suit, we thought that was what this was about.

But it wasn’t.

It began with a trip to the supermarket, during which he noticed that an elderly woman standing near the turnip greens was staring at him with disdain — a look he hadn’t seen since he was in parochial school. He turned his attention to inspecting the produce, but when he looked up again, there she was, still staring at him “with this awful look.”

Finally, he decided to inquire. He said “Ma’am, have I done something wrong?”

She shook her head and said loudly, “You’re an embarrassment to our state!”

Flabbergasted, he said, “Pardon me?”

She repeated that he was an embarrassment to the state, and to everyone who had ever worn a military uniform.

He said, “Ma’am, I don’t understand, and I think you’ve mistaken me for someone else.” By this time, several people had gathered around to witness the exchange.

Then the old woman said, “I’m no Republican, but I hope and pray that Jim DeMint destroys you…”

He took a moment to regain his composure, then said “Ma’am, I’m not Alvin Greene.”

She replied, “Yes, you are. [This next part is hard to hear because of the laughter of Rotarians, but I think she goes on to say…] I’ve seen you on TV many times. I know who you are.”

He denied it again, and said, “I can prove it to you. I’m not Alvin Greene.”

She said, “I don’t want to hear it. Get away from me!”

He was stunned, embarrassed and frustrated. He concludes: “Unfortunately, my family won’t eat this week, because I left the entire basket, and simply walked out…” He then conducted a tutorial on “How to distinguish Darrin Thomas from Alvin Greene:”

  1. “I was never in the military.” The closest he got was when he wore a Boy Scout uniform.
  2. “My idea for economic development would never include the creation of an action figure in my likeness.”
  3. “While I did many things to procure dates while I was a student at the University of South Carolina, showing a young lady pornography was not one of them.”
  4. If he were unemployed, yet had $10,000 in the bank, “Please know I would not invest in a campaign.”
  5. “Thanks to my English teacher in high school, Darrin Thomas speaks utilizing complete sentences.”

He got a big round of applause. He deserves it, for being able to laugh at this.

Kennedy-Ayers affair holds lesson for Tea Party

I really hope that Nikki Haley, Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Joe Wilson and every adherent of the Tea Party reads that last post I shared with you. It contains an important lesson.

These people are fond of equating liberalism with dangerous radicalism. And they’ve pulled previously sensible Republicans along with them into this nasty habit of thought (if you can call it thought).

But the tale of how Bill Ayers honored Sirhan Sirhan for killing liberal icon Robert F. Kennedy, and how Bobby’s son, now a pillar in his community, led a board (likely chock full of liberals, although I don’t know that) to deny an honor to unrepentant terrorist Ayers because of what he did, is instructive.

It shows liberals as mainstream people who uphold fundamental standards of decency in their communities, just as real conservatives — in the traditional sense of the word; not the way Sarah Palin and her ilk use it — would do.

Dangerous radicals are beyond the pale. Sensible liberals, and conservatives, are the people who point out that fact.

Therein lies the difference. So knock it off with the demonization of people who are NOT beyond the pale.

Negative Nancy? She’s negative? SHE’S negative?

Wow. Wow. Wow.

Just got yet another release (it’s a daily ritual) from Joe Wilson that is all about Nancy Pelosi rather than the 2nd Congressional District race.

And this one calls her “Negative Nancy” in the head:

Help Send “Negative Nancy” A Message

What would you do if the policies you cherish and forced on the country caused mass unemployment and economic despair?Chances are, you would admit defeat, apologize profusely to the public, and then proceed to jump in a hole so deep that you would land in China (where your liberal agenda may actually be popular, so everybody wins).

However, Nancy Pelosi and her liberal friends lack the humility to retreat quietly into the night. Instead, “Negative Nancy” constantly barrages voters with tired rhetoric and liberal talking points. She would rather attack conservatives who voice your opinion than admit defeat.

Since we know that this is the way liberals operate, it should come as no surprise that Nancy Pelosi is coming to Charleston this weekend to make a speech. She is absolutely committed to punishing true conservatives like Congressman Joe Wilson, who have the integrity to stand up to her job killing liberal agenda.

“Negative Nancy” is planning on coming to our state from her lofty perch to energize her liberal allies. She thinks that with enough money and tired rhetoric she can defeat conservative ideals.

Help Joe Wilson stop the barrage of negativity coming from Pelosi and her liberal friends. Please click here now to support Joe and help him reach his goal of $25,000 this week!

Sincerely,
Dustin Olson
Campaign Manager
Joe Wilson for Congress

Wow, again. Release after release calling her every bad name you can think of, and you call HER “negative.” Wowee.

I think you might want to go back to calling her “liberal” over and over and over and over and over. At least that’s true, for whatever relevance it has.

Howard Dean’s Scream will now be forgotten

For one thing, ex. Gov. Dean is really a pretty calm, well-behaved guy most of the time. At least, that’s the way he impressed me both times he came in to see our editorial board. The Scream, in his case, was but a momentary aberration.

But not so with this guy.

The first thing I thought as I watched the above clip was, “Everybody who sees this will forget about ol’ Howard’s indiscretion.” The second was, “This makes all of our candidates here in SC look good. Even Alvin Greene, who only howls when provoked.”

NPR characterized him as the “Craziest Stump Speech Ever Candidate,” which pretty much captures what I see when I watch it.

You’ll be relieved to know Phil Davison did NOT get the nomination for treasurer in Stark County, Ohio. The GOP has been moving toward the angry fringe this year, but thank goodness, not quite this far…

Was original draft of cartoon ‘an ethnic slur’?

Robert Ariail, noticing that I had posted his recent cartoon on the blog, sent me the original version, which he said he withdrew from dissemination because someone thought “it would precipitate claims of an ethnic slur.”

Robert wanted to know what I thought. I responded:

I see nothing wrong with that, Sahib.

Seriously, I know where they’re coming from — they’re worried that the evocation of India might make people think you’re saying something you’re not, and distract from the message — although I think they’re being oversensitive.
I wish I could post this on the blog to see what my readers think — but that would probably put you in an uncomfortable spot, wouldn’t it? So I won’t.

But Robert said he didn’t care, so I’m asking y’all.

For comparison, here is the culturally sanitized version again, below…

Joe just can’t (“liberal!”) help himself (“liberal, liberal! Pelosi, liberal!”). It’s like Tourette’s…

When I saw that Joe Wilson had put out a press release talking about incentives to create jobs, I thought Great! Some substance! A release in which I won’t have to read any fulmination about “liberals” and how they’re the root of all evil! After all, a jobs plan has to be pragmatic thing, meant to address the broad complex of practical, real-world problems leading to our current economic malaise.

Silly me:

Wilson Urges Job Creation Incentives as Unemployment Rises

(Washington, DC) – Congressman Joe Wilson (SC-02) today released the following statement after the Department of Labor announced the unemployment rate rose to 9.6 percent and the U.S. economy lost jobs for the third straight month:

“I’m not sure where Administration officials are spending their summer, but here in South Carolina, this is certainly not the ‘Recovery Summer’ we were promised.

“For 16 straight months, unemployment has been above nine percent.  Why the Administration and liberal leadership in Congress isn’t talking about job creation plans each and every day is beyond belief.  People are hurting and the time to act is now, not later or in another 16 months,” said Congressman Joe Wilson.

Congressman Joe Wilson has outlined a job creation plan that offers incentives to small business owners to hire more employees and gives American families more money to invest.  See his plan here and pass it along to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

###

The boldfacing is Joe’s, not mine.

He just can’t help himself. It’s like Tourette’s or something. He’s incapable of completing a thought without reference to “liberals” or “Pelosi.” Just watch, and see if I’m not right.

Randolph and Mortimer Duke, redux

This afternoon at Rotary I found myself seated next to Boyd Summers, Richland County Democratic Party chairman. (Just to be ecumenical and UnParty, I also chatted with Richland County Republican Chairman Eric Davis after the meeting, so there.)

It was noted that he and I were wearing essentially the same tie, although mine was bow and his was not. Sort of a Palmetto variation on the old Brigade of Guards regimental stripe.

Anyway, having arrived way early for the meeting (I rode with Lanier Jones from ADCO, and as an ex-president of the club, he goes early), I had time for a digression. So I noted that we were like the Duke brothers, Randolph and Mortimer. I had to explain that the Duke brothers were the partners in Duke and Duke, the fictional Philadelphia commodities brokers in “Trading Places,” and that in every scene, they were wearing ties made from the same material, only Randolph (you know, Randy, like Randy Jackson of the Jackson five) wore a bow and Mortimer wore the more boring sort of tie.

When I was done with the explanation, John Durst said wow, you really notice detail, don’t you? I allowed as how I did, but that’s not really true. I mean, how could anyone NOT notice something like that — especially when one has seen the flick a certain number of times?

After the meeting, I got John to use my Blackberry to shoot the above photo, to record the moment. Aren’t you glad I did?

By the way, Joe Wilson noted to me that he, too, was wearing a similar tie. I nodded, but I was humoring him. His was like Boyd’s, except silver (as in, “Silver Elephant”) in the places where it should have been dark red. Obviously, Joe misread the memo.

Sorry Nevada, but your name is an actual word

I love this resolution submitted by Harry Mortenson (D-Las Vegas) of the Nevada legislature:

Whereas there are two common pronunciations of the name of our great state:

(1)   the provincial pronunciation utilized by approximately two-million Nevadans, using a flat A-sound — a sound not unlike the bleating of a sheep, and;

(2)   the cosmopolitan or Spanish pronunciation used by the other seven-billion inhabitants of our planet, using a soft “A” intonation—not unlike a sigh of contentment, and . . .

Whereas it is becoming a continuous, prodigious, and daunting task for the two million colloquial-speaking inhabitants to interrupt and correct the other seven-billion inhabitants of the Planet who utilize the Spanish/cosmopolitan pronunciation . . .

Therefore; be it resolved, that henceforth, there will be two acceptable pronunciations for the name of our great state:

(1)    the preferred pronunciation will be the colloquial pronunciation, and;

(2)    the less-preferred pronunciation will be the charitably-tolerated Spanish/cosmopolitan pronunciation.

I regret that he came down on the wrong side of the issue by choosing the wrong pronunciation as the preferred one, but I like that he had a strong sense of irony about it. He realizes that the way Nevadans pronounce it sounds to a literate ear like Anthony Hopkins seeming to make fun of an American accent by the way he said “chianti” as Hannibal Lecter. It’s jarring.

You know, I believe that South Carolina would be a lot better off if more of our lawmakers had a sense of irony about our own states foibles. If only we would all resolve to lighten up and “charitably tolerate” those whose ancestors did NOT fire on Fort Sumter. We need to clone James L. Petigru.

Mistaking feeling for thinking in American politics

I enjoyed reading an op-ed piece in the WSJ this morning headlined “A Muslim Reformer on the Mosque,” with the subhed, “The warriors for tolerance and the antimosque crusaders are both wrong.”

Some bits I particularly liked… this:

Election-year politics, ratings-hungry media and deep personal fear foment raw emotion. In such an environment, “I’m offended” takes on the stature of a substantive argument. Too many Americans are mistaking feeling for thinking.

And this:

As a proud New Yorker as well as a reformist Muslim, I think, and not just feel, that this would be a fitting salute to the victims of 9/11. It would turn the tables on the freedom-hating culture of al Qaeda. And it would subvert the liberty-lashing culture of offense.

Perhaps you’re noting there’s a certain theme in what I like. Of course, I kind of helped you out by boldfacing the important points.

That first one should be made into a bumper sticker:

Too many Americans are mistaking feeling for thinking.

Maybe we should streamline it:

Don’t just feel. THINK.

It can be truly said of so very many things. Sure, I can speak from the gut when I don’t really know what I’m talking about. I did it back here. But I was aware that I was doing it. I told you I was doing it. Am I always that self-aware and candid about it? No. We are infallible. I mean, fallible.

But I try to lobby for thinking whenever it occurs to me to do so. That’s what I was doing back here. A few threads back, I was accused by Kathryn of making like a Vulcan. To which I could only respond, “Captain, Kathryn is being illogical.”

Yeah, we need some passion in public life. But we could use a LOT more Spock.

We got a fever in American politics, and the only prescription is more Spock.

Just ran into Nikki Haley. She looked well…

I ran into Nikki Haley at lunch today, at M Vista on Lady Street. She was there with Rob Godfrey and Tim Pearson of her campaign.

I think it was the first time I’d conversed with her since that time at Starbucks on Gervais shortly after the 2008 election. That day, she had a young woman in tow whom she introduced as being “with my campaign,” and I thought that was odd. The ’08 campaign was over, and it was early for a House candidate to be having meetings about the next campaign. I was probably the most shocked guy in South Carolina when it came out a month or two later than she was running for governor — it just seemed so totally unlikely that she would see herself as ready for that. It was the beginning of me seriously wondering about Nikki…

Anyway, Nikki was pleasant and charming as always when I went up to chat with her today. I don’t think Rob or Tim were all that thrilled to see me, though. They certainly didn’t smile, but then we guys don’t, do we, under such circumstances? Nikki did, but then ladies do.

We didn’t talk shop. She did the standard thing polite people do when other topics are awkward — she asked after my family. Then she asked how I was doing, and I told her that I was with ADCO and having lunch with my colleagues over there, and gave her one of my ADCO cards. She said I was probably glad not to be at the paper any more, and I thought that was perceptive of her. Or a good guess. Maybe it was just an understated slap at the paper; I don’t know. So I asked how she was holding up, and she said great, and I said something about how things had probably gotten a lot less crazy in the last few weeks, and she agreed. And then she asked me again about my family. So I began to dismiss myself, thinking I should wish her all the best but wanting to be honest, and ended up saying something totally inane like, “Well, as long as you’re enjoying yourself; that’s the thing…”

My ADCO friends thought it odd that I had gone to speak with her. Maybe they thought I was showing off, as in That Brad! He’ll just do any crazy thing! But that’s because they only know about Nikki and me through what I’ve written on the blog lately. They don’t realize that I’ve known her for years, and we’ve always had a very cordial relationship. I’ve happily endorsed her twice — in 2004 and 2008 (those were the only elections in which she had opposition), and always enjoyed chatting with her. I always had good hopes for her — before she embarked on her quest to become the new Mark Sanford and darling of the Tea Party, South Carolina’s answer to Sarah Palin. Which is deeply unfortunate.

So it was nice to see her, even though there was that slight awkwardness.

There is nothing wrong with this cartoon

In fact, it’s quite awesome.

I missed it when Robert put it out week before last, and I’m glad it’s been called to my attention now. It’s hard to imagine a more pointed evocation of exactly what’s wrong with Nikki Haley. Or one of the things wrong with her, anyway.

What might be harder to imagine, to a sensible person who understands the concepts of satire and the idioms of topical visual communication, is the controversy it engendered.

It wasn’t all that much, of course. Just intimations that he was essentially calling her a “raghead.” Or check this one out, helpfully headlined, “Reminder: Nikki Haley is a Secret Muslim Whore.” An excerpt:

Now, just a month after Haley’s victory, one Republican cartoonist has emerged from his gutterto dredge up the same vile race-baiting and sexism that failed to derail her primary campaign. In a cartoon published Tuesday (pictured above), Robert Ariail portrays the Indian-American gubernatorial candidate as a bikini-clad pageant queen in the first panel and a niqab-clad Muslim in the second.  The cartoon explicitly echos previous race-, religion-, and gender-based attacks against Haley, a practicing Methodist raised in the Sikh tradition by her immigrant parents.

Ariail depicts Haley as a radical Muslim posing as an all American pageant contestant so she can put one over on voters.  He claims that’s totally different than when State Senator Jake Knotts described Haley as “a raghead that’s ashamed of her religion trying to hide it behind being Methodist for political reasons.”

All utter … let me think of a nice word… nonsense. An ironic side note: Robert’s used to getting this kind of … nonsense… from the left, so at least this is a change of pace, reflecting the extreme right’s recent and sudden discovery of the power of Identity Politics.

Silly as it all was, Robert was nevertheless asked by a local TV station to account for himself, which he dutifully did:

The cartoon on Ms. Haley is, I think, pretty straight forward: It contrasts her campaign’s message of open government and transparency ( which I support ) with her recent closed-door meetings, her refusal to release House e-mail accounts and her explanations on consulting fees and what she did to earn them. The cartoon is neither salacious nor an ethnic or religious slur. I came up with the idea of her as “Miss Transparency” wearing the title sash and bikini and chose the burqa as the best clothing metaphor representing the opposite of transparency. The burqa is a visual metaphore I’ve used before to make similar points. It is not about Ms. Haley’s religion- after all, she was a Sikh, not a Muslim, before she became a Christian. Anyone who claims this cartoon is an ethnic or religious slur is deliberately misconstruing its simple, issue-oriented meaning.

Robert Ariail
robertariail.com

I appreciate Robert’s extreme patience in providing this “hold-you-by-the-hand-and-explain-the-obvious” explication, but it almost ruins the cartoon for me that he had to. Explanation is death to comedy. And if there must be an explanation, I prefer the one that Robert suggested to me when I told him this morning I might post something about the foolishness that some chose to read into the cartoon. He suggested that I tell y’all, “Robert’s not thinking about s__t like that” when he does his thing. Please excuse his technical newspaperman jargon.

My message is, this is everything a cartoon should be: It makes an excellent political point that needs to be made, and it provides a laugh along the way. Good job, Robert.

Oh, one other thing. Today Wes Wolfe raised a new question about the cartoon (which is what got me to thinking about it): After saying that “After discussing the piece with friends, we decided that was perhaps not the best way to go” (which suggests to me he might need some new friends), Wes suggested that the cartoon may have had something to do with Robert parting company with The Nerve, the S.C. Policy Council Web pub Robert had done some cartoons for recently — since, you know, Nikki’s their kind of gal.

Well, that seemed unlikely to me, and Robert confirms: When you go back to work for the MSM, you can’t still be associated with what is essentially a propaganda entity. It’s just not a good fit. So he chose, wisely, the Spartanburg paper over The Nerve — and those folks understood, and they parted on good terms — as Wes notes. And now Robert’s back doing what he ought to do.

Finally, a bonus: Robert’s gotten into hot water over burqas before, ALSO over a hilarious, pointed cartoon that had absolutely nothing wrong with it. It was the one making fun over the controversy in the Legislature over young female pages being dressed too provocatively. The hoo-hah over that one at least led to something good — a conversation between me and Robert about how everybody seemed to be after him with the torches and pitchforks, which in turn led to the cover of his last book.

Anyway, for your enjoyment, a look at that earlier “offensive” cartoon:

‘Finish Him Off’: Things getting rough in the 2nd District

Whoa! Not to be outdone by the “You Lie!” guy, his opponent in the 2nd Congressional District is getting a bit overwrought in his rhetoric. I just got a fund-raising release from the Rob Miller campaign urging supporters to help “finish him off” — referring to Joe Wilson. In fact, that was the headline on the e-mail: “Finish Him Off.”

Totally aside from the implied violence of the phrase, there’s the additional problem of inaccuracy. It invokes a picture of Joe lying on the ground at death’s door awaiting the coup de grace. But near as I can tell, Mr. Wilson is poised to do what he usually does — get re-elected.

By the way, Kevin Geddings is out of prison

A couple of weeks back, on a Saturday, while I was sitting in an auditorium at the Swearingen engineering center learning cool stuff about the Web at ConvergeSE, I got a DM from a Twitter friend letting me know that Kevin Geddings was getting out of prison up in North Carolina.

My source, who is apparently a good friend of Geddings, was thrilled. She felt like his conviction had been bogus. I didn’t comment on that, but I found it interesting to know that he was out. I almost blogged about it while I was sitting there, but I decided I’d better wait until I could confirm it.

But I was busy with other things, and it slipped out of my mind… then it struck me today — I hadn’t heard any more about it. So I got back to my source, and she said there hadn’t been much. A blog mention or two. Something on Charlotte broadcast media. Actually, I see that there was a wire story on thestate.com, although I missed it if it was in the paper. An excerpt:

RALEIGH, N.C. — A judge on Tuesday ordered a former North Carolina lottery commissioner convicted of five counts of the honest services law released from a Georgia prison.

U.S. District Judge James Dever III said Kevin Geddings should be set free as he seeks to have his 2006 conviction vacated. The decision came just hours after prosecutors said Geddings should be released.

Geddings was found guilty of honest services mail fraud for not disclosing his financial ties to a company that was expected to bid for North Carolina’s lottery business. In May 2007, he was sentenced to four years in federal prison. The U.S. Supreme Court last week struck down parts of that law. It ruled that criminal convictions are only valid in cases if bribes or kickbacks are involved, and not merely conflicts of interest.

Obviously there’s a word or two missing in that lede, but I don’t know enough about the case to fill in the missing words. I didn’t really follow Kevin’s career after he left SC.

So he’s out? Fine. Whatever the merits of his conviction — and I have no opinion on that — we don’t need to be filling prison beds with non-violent offenders.

Not that Kevin wasn’t a menace to society in his own way. A menace to South Carolina, anyway. Kevin Geddings is the guy who advised Jim Hodges — who had been one of my favorite lawmakers when he was in the House — as he ran on a platform of establishing a state lottery, financing the campaign with video poker contributions. Since we opposed both of those things — and had always respected Jim Hodges because he was such an articulate opponent of those things — this turn of events caused us to oppose his candidacy. Then, after he won the election and we were looking forward to supporting the positive things Jim wanted to do (and there were positive things, despite the lottery stuff), Geddings advised him to have nothing to do with us. I’m not sure whether that was because of our position against the lottery, or just because Geddings didn’t want the governor paying any attention to anyone’s opinions but Kevin’s. Or maybe it was because when I had lunch with Geddings early on and explained to him that I didn’t have a Jim Hodges problem, I had a problem with Kevin Geddings and the influence that he had on the governor.

Anyway, the governor followed that advice. If you think there was distance between Mark Sanford and the editorial board in recent years, you’re forgetting the poisonous relationship we had with that office during the Hodges years.

Well, all that’s behind us. When Jim and I see each other now, we get along just fine. But the warming of our relationship didn’t happen until Kevin Geddings was out of the picture.

So anyway, now that he’s out of prison, I wish Kevin Geddings well in the future — as long as he stays out of SC politics.

Whoa! On his last day, Mayor Bob bites back

There has been little love lost between Mayor Bob Coble (who today becomes former Mayor Bob Coble) and Kevin Fisher since Kevin ran against him several years ago.

So it is that there is some sharp criticism of Bob in Kevin’s column about his departure from office. Sharp, but not out of bounds. In fact, much of it is written with the same crusty, edgy sort of good will that went into his column about me when I left the paper. I enjoyed his column about me, but then, I’m in the political criticism business. (Also, I was a couple of sheets to the wind from free beer when I read it, at Goatfeathers on the night that I left the paper.) I can enjoy a column for being well-done, even if it isn’t exactly hagiographic. In fact, I’d probably object if ol’ Kevin started to put a halo on me.

Bob responds in a way that makes me smile because of the irony of it. Part of Kevin’s criticism of him is that Mayor Bob was TOO nice. Oh yeah, says Bob?, and responds by giving him some sharp elbows in this letter to the editor:

Dear Editor,

Kevin Fisher writes in his latest op ed piece that, “everybody likes Mayor Bob. I know I do. And he knows I do. Moreover, I dare say he likes me.” – Kevin Fisher City Watch (Sept. 5, 2007). I do like Kevin. Moreover, I admire Kevin for his political courage. If I had gotten the number of votes he received in the last two City elections after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money, I would have been too embarrassed to keep writing those columns in The Free Times. But Kevin, despite the humiliation and complete rejection by the voters, soldiers on with “Joe Azar” like determination. He is one tough hombre.

I’m gonna miss this repartee between these two wacky kids…

The Greene family reunion T-shirt

Heard about these the other day, and reTweeted something about them. I even facetiously told my wife that’s what I wanted for Father’s Day.

But not really. My sense of enjoyment of the absurd doesn’t extend to enjoying the fact that SC politics is this dysfunctional. I think it’s too sad.

Republicans, however, sick of being (deservedly) the punch line for so long, are just enjoying the heck out of it. The above is from Shell Suber, via Facebook.

“Stupid bloody cabaret”

That headline comes from John le Carre’s Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Bill Haydon, a character given to dry sarcasm among other vices, utters the words upon leaving a meeting in which there had been much posing and preening for show, but little point:

“Stupid bloody cabaret,” Bill remarked, waving vaguely at the mothers. “Percy’s getting more insufferable every day.”

That phrase entered my mind as I read in The Wall Street Journal about the ritual conducted in Congress yesterday when the boss of BP was called on the carpet:

Mr. Hayward stuck to his plan. He sat for hours on Thursday, alone at a witness table, parrying questions from indignant members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in a deliberate monotone.

Over and over, he said he wasn’t involved in the decisions preceding the accident and declined to speculate on causes until investigations were complete.

Summoning executives of companies caught up in financial or legal trouble to receive televised scoldings is a ritual of U.S. politics. Detroit auto titans, Wall Street bankers, and the head of Japanese auto giant Toyota Motor Corp. have all done time in Congress’s dock as lawmakers looked for someone to blame for the calamities of the past two years.

Such proceedings are not designed to accomplish anything, beyond the public embarrassment of the guest of honor. Never mind that those subjected to such treatment so often richly deserve the treatment. The whole thing strikes me as inappropriate in a country devoted to the rule of law.

If we wish to prosecute, haul the guy into court. If we wish to make BP pay, make them cough up a huge amount of money. Which we had already done, and appropriately so. If we need to obtain information from them, this is hardly the forum for doing so. Quite the opposite, in fact. A fact-finding gathering would have the people there who could actually answer the question, and investigators better equipped to ask them than these politicoes.

This is about lawmakers preening before the cameras, exhibiting their righteous indignation to the folks back home. This is the modern equivalent of the public stocks, and the congressmen are the ones in the crowd who want to be seen as the first to heave a rotten tomato, or a dead cat, or a stone at the person thus restrained.

Mind you, I feel no pity for Mr. Howard. This is what he gets paid the big bucks for. What disturbs me is, what an inadequate way this is to deal with the problem. It makes my country’s system of addressing problems look tawdry and empty.

I’m probably going to displease my Democratic friends with this one, because as I read further down in the story, I see they were the main ones showing off their indignation. But that was just today. Some other day, with some other subject, it would be all about Republicans trying to humiliate someone they were angry with.

It’s the process that seems inconsistent with a rational way of dealing with this horrendous problem. And like so many things that I find objectionable in our society, this is about television. Remove the cameras, and this event wouldn’t be happening — or would be very different. Actually, I take that back. It’s not television per se. In an earlier era, they’d have been showing off for the newsreel cameras. It’s just that with television, constituents with nothing better to do can watch it in real time.

You doubt that it was pointless, beyond venting emotions? Then tell me — what effective action did the session lead to? What WAS the point? What has been done, as a result of that show?

You want me to tell you what the real-world consequence of that grilling was? BP’s stock went up, because its CEO “survived” the process. Really.

You know what I’d like to see? All these members of Congress in their chamber, seriously debating a real, sensible Energy Policy, one that helps us move beyond dependence on the BPs of the world. That would be useful. But I guess that’s just too hard.

The Fix lists Top Five nastiest SC races ever

We are truly legendary, to the point that political junkies sit around up in Washington dreaming up Top Five lists about us, a laHigh Fidelity, such as “The five nastiest South Carolina races ever.”

At least, Chris Cillizza at the WashPost‘s The Fix does.

And it’s a pretty good list even though it’s awfully heavy on stuff that happened during my own career. He does, to give him credit, give a mention to the legendary Preston Brooks, but the Top Five are all 1978 or later.

Given that limitation, it’s a good list. He counts them down thusly:

5. 2002 Republican governors runoff: This is the one I wrote about yesterday (at least, I wrote about the GOP effort to come together AFTER this nasty battle), between Mark Sanford and Bob Peeler. Peeler’s campaign, run by party regulars, was inexcusable, as Cillizza correctly recalls: “In one particularly memorable Peeler ad, a Sanford look-alike is shown stripping a soldier down to his underwear to illustrate Sanford’s alleged attitude toward military funding.” Yep. I remember it well.
4. 1978 4th district race: The abominable campaign against Max Heller, featuring anti-Semitic push-polling by Carroll Campbell’s pollster. I was in Tennessee at the time covering Lamar Alexander and Jake Butcher, but I’ve heard plenty about this from my good friend Samuel Tenenbaum over the years.
3. 1980 2nd district race: Also before I came home to SC, but I knew the players later: Lee Atwater, on behalf of Floyd Spence, told the press that Tom Turnipseed had been hooked up to “jumper cables” — a reference to shock treatments he had received for depression as a teenager.
2. 2010 Republican governors primary: That’s the one we just lived through. Or rather, are still living through. If we live.
1. 2000 Republican presidential primary: The filthy tricks that George W. Bush’s campaign used against John McCain to stop his candidacy and give Bush the momentum to go on and win the presidency. Not sure this was necessarily the nastiest by SC standards, but it certainly had the most profound impact on the world. I firmly believe that otherwise John McCain would have been our president on 9/11 and thereafter, which would have been better for us all. That knowledge of how South Carolina let the world down was very much on my mind when we pushed for McCain’s victory in the 2008 primary. (I also felt responsible because the newspaper — over my strong objections — endorsed Bush over McCain in 2000.)
They keep talking about us. And they will continue to do so, until we turn our backs on all this stuff. Which is why I’m rooting for Vincent Sheheen.

Will GOP be willing to come back together?

The Republican Party theoretically has all the advantages looking toward November, in the gubernatorial election as well as in others: After all, more than twice as many people took a Republican ballot yesterday as voted in the Democratic. Even though she didn’t win her primary outright the way Vincent Sheheen did, Nikki Haley still got a lot more votes than he did. Her 49 percent represented more than 204,000 votes. Sheheen’s 59 percent represented only 110,000.

And the embarrassment over the winner of the Dems’ primary for U.S. Senate shows that’s a party that still has a way to go to get its act together.

But if the GOP continues to be as bitterly divided as it has been lately, if she can’t put all the bickering behind her, that advantage could melt away as Republican get discouraged and stay home, and independents move toward the more upbeat, unifying figure of Vincent Sheheen.

If history is the only guide, she has nothing to worry about: Republicans ALWAYS put their differences behind them after the primary.

But will they this year?  I mean, seriously, have you ever seen it get this nasty before? And not even because of anything any of the candidates did. But the things that were done around them — the words of Will Folks, Larry Marchant and Jake Knotts, and the accusations and counter-accusations that came in response to what they said — revealed some bitter fissures that seem unlikely to heal easily.

Will the mainstream Republicans who have been so roundly criticized by Nikki actually line up behind her? I mean, her campaign from the start has been from the beginning more of a crusade against them than against Democrats. One is reminded of Democrat Pug Ravenel, who in 1974 called the Establishment Democrats who ran the Legislature a “den of thieves” — in response to which they took him to court and had him stripped of his nomination and dropped down the memory hole, a series of events that led a fed-up electorate to choose the first Republican governor since Reconstruction.

I find myself remembering something else closer to the present day. In 2002, Mark Sanford won a bitter runoff campaign to become the GOP nominee. I was greatly gratified over that, and pretty disgusted with the mainstream Republicans who had run a campaign that I felt sometimes went outside the bounds. (If you’ll recall, I strongly supported Sanford at the time. I thought he was the kind of good-government advocate that Nikki portrays herself as today.) Well, he showed them, right?

But as unpleasant as the campaign was, immediately after the runoff — I’m remembering it as the next day or so — leading Republicans from throughout the state, representing all his primary opponents, gathered on a dais outside of party headquarters for a big kiss-and-make-up ceremony at which they pledged their undying loyalty, and their unflagging efforts to get him elected in the fall. I was struck by some of the people who showed up — even Glenn McConnell, who doesn’t give governors of either party the time of day normally (McConnell’s party is the Senate more than the GOP).

I was there, and I wanted to talk to Sanford for something I was working on, but didn’t get a chance to talk to him. I did run into Jenny, and asked her to give him the message that I was looking for him. He called me later on his mobile from a car leaving town.

I said something like, “That was some event, huh? They’re really lining up behind you.” And while I don’t have the exact words in front of me, he said something life, “Yeah, well. I suppose one has to do those kinds of things.” He was MIGHTILY bored, and his voiced just dripped contempt for these former rivals who had showed up to promise to fight for him. He obviously saw himself as someone apart from and above the whole GOP solidarity thing.

Now, you know, I can’t stand political parties, and I think party loyalty is one of the most harmful forces in American politics — it fosters intellectual dishonesty, requiring that adherents always agree with the most foolish thing that a member of their party says, and disagree with the wisest utterances of their opponents. And I liked that Sanford wasn’t a typical Republican in that regard.

But even I was put off by his condescension. It was really obnoxious. But at the time, I brushed past it, moving on to the reason I had wanted him to call me. And it was just such an ODD moment — you know how it is sometimes when somebody says something really odd and off-key, and you just move past it — that I didn’t know how to take it or what to say about it.

Now I do. Now I’ve seen, over and over, the kind of contempt in which Mark Sanford holds those poor saps who came out to support him that day. Now, that remark doesn’t stand out as a stray anomaly. It fits.

More than that, they’ve seen it, too. And they are bound to be wary of lining up behind someone else who shows every sign of wanting to be just like Mark Sanford, someone who hasn’t even waited to become governor to alienate them and run against them.

So I wonder: Will the usual thing happen? Will the GOP close ranks and line up behind Nikki Haley? And will they be saps again if they do so?

If I were endorsing, I’d endorse Vincent Sheheen

Ignore what I wrote in that last post. It does Vincent Sheheen a great disservice, by suggesting the reason to pick a Democratic ballot and vote for him tomorrow is simply because of the mere absence of negativity in his campaign.

He deserves a much more positive endorsement than that, for the simple reason that he is far and away the best candidate running for governor in 2010, a year in which we badly need new and visionary leadership in the governor’s office.

Of course, I put myself in a bind a couple of months back, when I sorta kinda decided not to endorse candidates as a blogger. I had all sorts of good reasons not to: No one was paying me to take all that aggravation. No longer representing the voice of the state’s largest newspaper (at least, that’s what it was when I was there), I had no institutional obligation to do it. And while doing it for the newspaper was business, if I did it on my own blog it would be personal, with all the many levels of messiness that entails. Then there was the unstated reason: For the first time ever, I found myself in a situation in which there would be a personal cost of sticking my neck out. A year’s unemployment had shown me how reluctant employers can be to take on someone with as much well-documented baggage as I have (much of it from having taking a stand FOR this powerful person, and AGAINST that one). And I was about to start trying to sell advertising, with the only thing I had to sell being my own brand and how it was perceived — and there is no surer, more infallible way to infuriate close to 50 percent of the public than to choose one candidate over another. Did I not owe it to my family to try to launch this enterprise on a sound footing, and not undermine it by making arrogant (at least, that’s how a lot of people perceive endorsements) pronouncements that would inevitably alienate? After all, I could be honest about what I think about candidates without taking that formal, irrevocable step.

Lots of good, solid, self-interested reasons not to endorse, right?

Well… sometimes one must stand up and be counted, even when one is not being paid to do so. Remember how, when Grace Kelly demanded to know why Gary Cooper had to make a suicidal stand against Frank Miller and his thugs when he wasn’t the marshal any more, he explained “I’ve got to, that’s the whole thing.“? Full of nuance, that Gary Cooper. Anyway, this is an “I just gotta” moment for me, minus the gunplay (we hope).  There are things more important than my own self-interest, or the good of the blog. One of them is South Carolina’s crying need for new leadership at this point in its history.

Ours is still a poor state. On all sorts of measurements of economic and social and physical well-being, from income to health, we continue to be last where we want to be first, and first where we want to be last. We continue to have a political culture, and institutional structure, that reinforces that dynamic, and resists change more steadfastly than the government of any other state. Our government was designed by landed slaveholders to preserve the status quo, because that’s what benefited them. Those men are all gone, but the system of government designed to serve them still exists, and holds us back.

We are also held back by a lack of trust of each other, and a lack of faith in the idea that together, we can overcome the challenges that face us. This manifests itself in the phenomenon we see being played out so dramatically in the Republican primary this year, as the candidates — even candidates I would think would know better — compete to see who can be the most negative, the most rabidly anti-government. What does it mean to be anti-government, in this context? It means to deny faith in our ability to get together, people of different attitudes and philosophies, and work through our differences to build a better future to share.

The radical individualism that all of the Republican candidates embody this year — especially Nikki Haley, the front-runner — has been tried in South Carolina, over and over. Our current governor, Mark Sanford, is easily the most ideologically pure manifestation of that philosophy ever to hold that office.

It is painfully clear after eight years of Mark Sanford — whom I enthusiastically endorsed in 2002 — that such an “I, me, mine” approach to governance does not work. One cannot govern effectively when one holds governing in contempt. That should have been obvious then. It’s certainly obvious now.

Vincent Sheheen offers the positive alternative. Not the “big-government, liberal” alternative that the propagandists of the GOP will accuse him of offering (not because of anything he advocates, but because that is their reflexive, automatic reaction to everything), but a sensible, moderate South Carolina-friendly approach unencumbered by radical ideology of any kind. Before he began this campaign, he was pushing his own proposal for restructuring our government to make it effective and accountable for a change. It is a pragmatic approach that would actually have a chance of becoming law if a governor were behind it. Rather than throwing unacceptable ultimatums at the Legislature and reveling in lawmakers’ rejection, Vincent Sheheen would actually work with lawmakers of both parties (he has a proven ability to do so) to make his proposal a reality. Instead of a governor who can’t even work with his own party and doesn’t want to, imagine how wonderful it would be to have one who works amicably with both?

Now, many of these same things can also be said of Jim Rex. He, too, has a positive, teamwork approach. He’s worked across party lines in advancing his public school choice initiatives, and has formed alliances with some of the most conservative Republicans in trying to improve the way schools are funded in South Carolina. But, because it’s been his job, his policy experience in office has been limited to education. And while better education may be the thing South Carolina needs most, it’s not the only thing; Vincent Sheheen’s experience with public policy is broader, despite his youth.

And in this election, when we have such a need for new beginnings, his youth is an advantage.

That I would say that would surprise some people who have worked most closely with me. I was the grumpy eminence grise on the editorial board who would ask a young candidate, “How old ARE you, anyway?” with a tone that suggested they hadn’t lived enough to be ready for the office they were seeking.

But it’s time now for a generational change. And among the 39-year-old Sheheen’s strengths is the fact that he offers us that.

An old friend, sensing I was leaning that way — because I’ve been honest about what I think of candidates, however much I’ve resisted a formal endorsement — asked me several weeks ago why I would choose Vincent over Jim. I answered as follows, after protesting that I was not, repeat, NOT going to endorse:

Now between you and me, I’d go with Vincent. So you inferred correctly.

Several reasons:
1. You know that with me, it’s seldom about the sum of policy positions. I would be hard-pressed to tell you [off the top of my head] what their policy positions are, beyond the fact that nothing has jumped out at me as bad. Rex has a plan for spending cigarette tax money that I’m not sure about, and I know Vincent’s all about restructuring, to cite a couple of differences that jump to mind. And the restructuring is a biggie.
2. So that leaves us with character, and I think the character of both is fine. But I’ve seen Vincent grow during this campaign in terms of his ability to connect with voters, while Rex is still that trustworty elder statesman who I’d be OK with as governor, but who isn’t likely to inspire. Vincent generates a newness, a sense of a new generation taking over from all the nonsense of the past, that is appealing. And he wears it well; he has his head on straight.
3. Vincent could work with the Legislature. He’s one of them, and that helps make up for being a Democrat. He would come in with lawmakers knowing that about him. He could make a difference. Rex is the guy that they’re accustomed to thinking of as “that ONE statewide Democrat,” and they just won’t be as likely to want to engage with him.
4. Vincent could win in November. Normally I wouldn’t mention that, but this year it’s important. The Republicans are all running so hard to the right, trying so hard to convince us that, in varying ways, they will be Mark Sanfords — even Henry, who should know better — that this year I just don’t see anything good coming out of any of them becoming governor. We so desperately need a break from what we have. And that makes it vitally important that the Democratic nominee not only be someone who’d be an improvement over what we have, but who could WIN in the face of the odds, which are always against the Democrat.

Let me stress again the generational factor. South Carolina needs a fresh start, a real break with its recent past. Vincent embodies that the best. This is a decision I’ve come to gradually, in my own holistic, intuitive way, but I’ve tried to spell it out as systematically as I can for you.

To elaborate on that: Rex radiates the aura of a civic-minded retired guy who’s willing to “give back” if there’s no one else to do the job. Vincent wants to build a better South Carolina, the one that he and his young children will live in. Makes a difference.

It occurs to me that I do my readers a disservice by sharing those thoughts privately with one friend, but not openly with them. So there it is. It may seem to be high on intangibles and low on specifics, but that’s because I had already reached the conclusions that on the specifics, I’ve concluded that Vincent is sound. That makes the intangibles — the ability to inspire, the ability to be positive rather than negative — of great importance. We didn’t worry about the intangibles (such as his aloof manner, his sleep-on-the-futon quirkiness, his hermitlike aversion to the company of other Republicans) with Mark Sanford, and look where it got us.

As I’ve explained before, none of the Republicans is offering us anything positive for our future. That puts me in the unaccustomed position of not having a preferred candidate on that side. But there is no doubt that there is a Democrat who stands well above them all, as well as being a stronger candidate than any in his own party.

That candidate is Vincent Sheheen.

At least, that would be what I’d say if I were endorsing.