Category Archives: Contact report

Laurin and Nancy at the social media symposium

Laurin is presenting, Nancy is going over her notes, and I'm trying to think up some mayhem that will get me sent to the principal's office. Just like school.

Last night, I participated in a symposium on politics and social media at Francis Marion University. Which was great. Trouble is, I was on a panel with Laurin Manning and Nancy Mace. And they were better prepared than I was.

See, I thought it was going to be just a panel discussion, so I had jotted some notes about points I wanted to be sure to hit on, and showed up. Laurin and Nancy had slide shows, and got up and made presentations. So I had to, too. No problem, really, because I can fill any amount of time… I talked about the old blog and why I started it and how it related to my old MSM job, and the new blog and how it’s going, my Twitter feed (dang! I forgot to mention I’m one of the Twitterati!), how I hate Facebook (it’s the AOL of this decade), “Seinfeld,” my Top Five Baseball Movies, and I don’t know what all.

Then at some point, I realized I’d gone on enough, or more than enough, and shut up. Which I think was cool, but it was way less polished than what the other panelists did.

You know how, when you were in school, there were these girls (and sometimes traitor guys) who always showed up with their homework done? And raised their hands and asked for more work, for extra credit? And when the teacher had been out of the room, and came back, they told her what you had been doing while she was gone? It was like that. Laurin and Nancy were good.

But I survived to the actual panel discussion part, and that went well (I think), so all’s well that ends that way. As it happened, I enjoyed it.

I especially enjoyed learning from Laurin and Nancy.

Laurin was sort of a mentor for me when I started blogging in 2005, and she was well established with the legendary Laurinline. She later was part of the unstoppable Obama social media machine of 2008. Recently, she’s blogged at SC Soapbox.

Nancy, the first female to graduate from The Citadel (how’s that for intimidating?), is founder and CEO of The Mace Group, LLC. She’s also partners with Will Folks in FITSNews— she does the technical side, and leaves the content to Will.

I’m not going to share with you all the cool trade secrets they imparted, because knowledge is power, and I want it all to myself. But I will share this anecdote that they told us about:

You know how Will started his blog? By accident. He was actually trying to post a comment on the Laurinline, and got so confused in trying to do so that he inadvertently set up a blog of his own. Really. That’s the way Laurin and Nancy tell it. The site is much more technologically sophisticated now with Nancy involved, and has more than a million page views a month — compared to my measly traffic, which has only broken a quarter of a million a couple of times. (That’s it. That was my display of humility for this month.)

Anyway, that’s why I was in Florence.

Cameron Runyan, candidate for city council

13 Replies

It all starts with a good breakfast. Cameron Runyan keeps to a strict diet, which he told me about while I was eating my grits and corned beef hash (with ketchup). Then, when he started going on about his exercise regimen, I almost walked out in protest.

If anybody else is going to run against Cameron Runyan for the at-large Columbia City Council position being vacated by Daniel Rickenmann, he or she will have to get started soon. Because Cameron is already running hard, with the election not until April 2012.

To hear him talk about it, you’d think it was tomorrow. But he took a bit of time out of this busy week of fund-raising to chat with me this morning.

Before I get to that, here’s the first release he sent out about his campaign, just as a beginning point of reference:

RUNYAN TO RUN FOR CITY COUNCIL

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Columbia businessman Cameron Runyan on Thursday announced that he will run for Columbia City Council in the April 2012 municipal election.

“After a great deal of thought and prayer, and after discussing it with my wife Jenni and my family, I have decided to offer myself as a candidate for City Council,” Runyan said. “I believe my experience as a private business person and as an engaged member of the community makes me uniquely qualified to serve all of Columbia.”

Runyan, 34, will seek the at-large Council seat currently held by two-term Councilman Daniel Rickenmann, who will not run for re-election.

Runyan enters the race with a fresh perspective on the challenges facing the city.

“I want to help build a clean, safe, strong city that my daughter is proud to call home for her entire life,” Runyan said. “We can make Columbia great, and I feel that I can play an important role in doing that as a member of council.”

Runyan’s platform will center on public safety, job creation and leadership.

“There is so much potential for our city, but there’s a lot of work to be done,” said Runyan. “We’ve got to crack down on crime, grow our city’s economy, and get our unemployed residents back to work.”

Added Runyan, “We also face environmental concerns, education concerns, and transportation concerns. It will take strong leadership to address these and other important issues. It will take strong leadership to move our city forward. I am ready to lead.”

Runyan plans to hold an official campaign kick-off in the coming weeks.

###

You’ll recall that Cameron ran for this seat several years back. Or you may not. The way I remember it, all the available oxygen in that election got sucked up by the District 3 race between Belinda Gergel and Brian Boyer. That one was a corker. A lot of money was spent, and heat generated. Which was weird, because it was just a district election.

Cameron doesn’t quite remember it that way. He thinks he got enough attention, he just didn’t have the resources. He remembers doing well in District 3, which he hopes to do again, while doing better than he did in District 4. He says “I got my clock cleaned” in 1 & 2. He’s determined not to let that happen again.

You know what? Rather than take the time to try to weave this into an elegant narrative, with all the necessary transitions, I’m going to throw some bullets at you — in the interest of getting this post done:

Cameron thinks one disadvantage he had in 2008 was that he was so young (and inexperienced), at 30, compared to Daniel. That made me smile. I had this habit, back at The State, of asking a certain question of candidates I thought seemed barely old enough to vote, much less presuming to run for office and run things: “How old are you?” I asked it of young Mr. Rickenmann when he first ran. But we endorsed him anyway. Over my grumblings. It was one of those occasions when I let the rest of the board override me. I tended to remember things like that so I could hold it over my colleagues’ heads when they claimed that I always had my way. “Oh, yeah?” I’d ask. “How about when you made me endorse that Rickenmann kid?” But I digress.
Daniel also had the advantage of incumbency, which will not be a factor this time, conveniently for Cameron.
If you do the math, you realize that Cameron is now 34. Yep, the age of one of my kids. But he seems older because I’m used to seeing him around now — he’s at the Cap City Club most mornings, which was where we spoke today. He’s also somewhat calmer. After his endorsement interview last time around, I did something I seldom do — give the candidate feedback on the interview. I told him he seemed unusually… intense… in his criticism of his opponent. I mentioned that because I had a concern: Could he get along with other people on the council if elected, or would he always be at war with somebody. He assured me then that he would be cool. And he does seem a good bit cooler now.
When I first met him, Cameron was in the nonprofit world. He was working on the private side of the guardian ad litem program. Now he’s a financial planner. Interesting contrast there.
Economic development will be a key message in his campaign. I asked what he meant by that. He mentioned having a “structured incentive plan,” getting the council and mayor more involved in ecodevo, and taking better care of the businesses we already have. On that last point — he said the city needs to get more business-friendly in its permitting processes.
He grew up in Hampton County, where his father was an attorney. His Dad, incidentally, was raised in Nigeria. His father was a Baptist missionary.
He’s being helped in this campaign by Heyward Bannister, Adam Fogle (who, as you know, may be the funniest South Carolinian on Twitter) and the Quinns.
Most morning, you can see him sitting at his table at Cap City, reading his iPad. Which was how I found him this morning (see below).
He has disgustingly healthy habits. While I consumed my grits and corned beef hash, with ketchup, he broke his fast with fruit and oatmeal. He only eats meat once or twice a week. He engages in some sort of intense morning workout that was painful to hear about.
He says that government on the local level exists for only one reason: because “collectively, we can get more done than we can individually.” I think that sounded more collectivist than he intended. Later, he said he thought it was important to “balance collective responsibility and individual responsibility.” That sounded sufficiently communitarian (official battle cry: “Rights and Responsibilities“) that I asked it he had studied that school of thought. Like most people, he had not heard of it. Amitai Etzioni needs to get a better press agent.

On that last bit: I had lunch with Ashley Landess, head of the S.C. Policy Council, the other day, and mentioned communitarianism to her as well. You will not be shocked to hear that she had not heard of it either (neither, by the way, has the spellchecker on WordPress). But I figured it wouldn’t hurt to tell her about it. Yeah, I know — I am indeed the eternal optimist.

I thought this was a fairly cool image, even though you can see me in the reflection. Or maybe BECAUSE you can see me in the reflection.

Back off! I’m armed, and I have really big hands!

20 Replies

Today at Rotary, our speaker was from FN Manufacturing — you know, the plant in the northeastern part of our community that makes the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (the weapon that replace the legendary BAR), the M240 medium machine gun, and the ubiquitous M16. Among other things.

And I learned quite a bit. I learned that FN owns Browning and Winchester, for instance. Interesting stuff.

Including stuff that I didn’t realize I was learning at the time, but which came in handy.

Before the meeting, I was hefting and examining some of the wares on a table in the back of the room. And when I say “heft,” with some of them I mean heft. Our speaker would tell later about how the steel version of the M240 — or was it the 249? — weighs 28 pounds (without ammunition), and when they came out with a lighter, titanium version, the Army essentially said, “Great! Now our soldiers can carry five pounds less!” and the Marines said “Great! Now our Marines can carry five pounds more ammo!”

Anyway, as I was holding and examining a SCAR adapted for sniper use with a scope almost as long as the weapon (it looked something like this, and reminded me of “Vera,” which if you’ll recall was Jayne Cobb‘s very favorite gun), Kathryn Fenner walked by and said, in a tone calculated to cool my enthusiasm, “They’re not giving free samples…”

Turns out she was wrong. At the end of the meeting, there were two door prizes — a scrimshaw knife, and this lovely charcoal lighter. To get them, you had to answer correctly a question based on the talk.

Apparently, I was the only one who was listening when the speaker said the Columbia plant is 188,000 square feet. No, I didn’t write it down. I just heard, and remembered. (I did write down that the M240 — or was it the M249 — bears a warranty up to 100,000 rounds. Of course, it can fire 1,100 rounds a minute.)

You just never know when an odd sort of memory is going to pay off.

Let’s double the downloads on this one, OK?

Filling young minds with wisdom (lots and lots and lots of it…)

14 Replies

Busy day — speaking this morning, speaking tonight. Yakkety-yak. In fact, if you’re the last-minute type, you might want to attend the Politics and Media Conference at The Riley Institute at Furman tonight. I’m on a panel with some media types, followed by another panel with Bob Inglis and Vincent Sheheen. In fact, I’d better run if I’m going to get up there (no Virtual Front Page today, I’m afraid). They’ll feed me if I get there in time. But before I go, about this morning’s appearance…

Kelly Payne, the former state superintendent of education candidate who teaches a “Current Issues” class at Dutch Fork High School, is one of those… intense kinds of teachers you may remember from your own schooldays. A teacher with certain expectations. I remember them, because slackers like me tended to run afoul of them sometimes.

Anyway, Kelly asked me to come out today for a second time to speak to her class, so I guess it went OK the first time. I wanted to go straight to questions and answers, knowing the kids would have questions (I prefer that as a speaker; I don’t have to think as hard), but she asked me to talk for a few minutes first about “SC Politics,” so I started speaking nonstop about why we’re so different, why people say “there’s the South, there’s the Deep South, and there’s South Carolina,” starting with Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper and John Locke and the colonial period an The War and what followed, generally explaining to them in FAR more detail than they want to know why we have some of the problems we have, and why we are SO resistant to changing that fact, and…

… once they were good and glassy-eyed, I asked them to throw their questions at me. Because I knew they had some. In most high school classes I’ve spoken to (admittedly, I don’t do it often; I generally shy away from anything earlier than post-grad, because there’s only so much of that bored-kids look you can take), you can wait awhile for a question.

But not Kelly Payne’s class — because of what I said about intensity, and expectations and such.

I knew there were questions because they were printed out on the lectern in front of me, pages of them, with kids’ names attached. They were to ask them in order. So we got started. Unfortunately, the 90-minute class was over before we could get to all of them. In fact, we only got to the first eight. I like to give thorough answers. Anyway, here are ALL the questions, since they bothered to compile them:

Hailey

1. Explain the difficulties you’ve experienced in transitioning from being a full-time journalist to your current activities.

Horace

2. Since you were last here the media hasn’t made much progress in gaining the public trust. What will it take for it to improve at doing so?

Venisha

3. When you were an editor at the paper, did you have other editors to check your grammar and spelling to keep you from making mistakes?

Hannah Jane

4. How significant a factor are your feelings about a topic when you write a story? If you’re really angry or really happy about a topic do those emotions impair your objectivity?

Jaquarius

5. How can social media be an effective tool in reporting? What social media platforms do you use (e.g., texting, Twitter, Facebook) to deliver news content?

Ruby

6. What do you miss most about your old job at the paper?

Eric

7. Do blogs really move public opinion or do they just provide “some fun” for people in the Echo Chamber to take anonymous shots? Is there any way to assure a little more fairness in blogs?

Taylor

8. What do you think about requiring public officials who hire bloggers to shill for them to disclose those relationships in order to improve transparency and increase public trust?

Katherine

9. If elected officials make blog comments hiding behind assumed names, wouldn’t the publics’ interest in transparency and its desire for more civil conversation be better met by calling on those public officials to “man-up,” take ownership of their comments, and stop hiding behind assumed names?

Kelsi

10. How do you rationalize disagreements between your religious convictions and

your political beliefs? (i.e., gay rights)

Marshall

11. What should the response of the United States be to Gadahfi’s suppression of his own people?

Taylor

12. You’ve criticized the Governor for her appointment on the USC Board of Trustees. Please explain why you don’t believe that election outcomes matter.

Katherine

13. You seem very focused on the need for the Governor and her team to guard against “gender politics” yet your profession admonishes society on the need to be “gender sensitive.” Please explain this dichotomy.

Kelsi

14. Eleanor Kitzman recently spoke to our class and we loved her. Why do you criticize her for defending the Governor’s honor and performance given the Governor selected her for that position?

Lexie

15. Why do you think being loyal to the Governor makes Eleanor Kitzman disloyal to the other four Budget & Control Board members?

Shaun

16. The Governor has talked about more transparency with legislative votes and the Treasurer has talked about “calendar transparency.” Which of these ideas do you think is the most sophomoric?

Christian

17. Given that Senator Sheheen and the Governor are about the same age, why is he more appealing to young people?

Kenneth

18. What do you think should be done to keep deep pockets from having an excessive influence on election outcomes? (i.e., Bloomberg, Schumer, candidates supported by Howard Rich, etc.)

Christie

19. How soon do you think it will be before we see meaningful restructuring in state government?

Ben

20. Which of our Constitutional Officers would it make more sense to appoint? Explain your reasons.

Hailey

21. What’s your opinion of eliminating the Budget & Control Board and replacing it with a Department of Administration reporting to the Governor?

Andrew

22. Give the best reason to support and the best reason to oppose the Voter ID Bill?

Kenneth

23. Please explain the post you recently wrote on daylight savings time.

Evan

24. What is the legacy you hope to leave?

25. What do you think about paying teachers based on classroom outcomes?

26. Why are the two major political parties so segregated along racial lines?

27. How can South Carolina Republicans be so diverse as to have elected two Republican Senators that are so different in their ideology? (Lindsey Graham, Jim DeMint….earmarks)

28. I’m optimistic about the next generation of public servants — my fellow classmates and me– who will soon by making decisions that impact our daily lives. What advice can you give us as we move in this direction?

Frankly, with that many questions, I could have talked for a month. But it was great. Been pressed for time, I was really antsy this morning about all I had to do, and ran late and got lost (turns out that Kelly Payne doesn’t teach at Dutch Fork Middle School, which I went to first — they have a nice office — even though I’d been to the right place previously), and I was rattled.

But driving away, I felt nice and relaxed. Ninety minutes of high-speed, non-stop, stream-of-consciousness talking does that for me. It probably doesn’t do all that much for the people listening (so it’s nice when they HAVE to sit there and listen, or get a flunking grade), but I find it… calming. Probably why Freud was such a hit back in the day.

If I don’t hit the road, they won’t feed me in Greenville. As Vincent Sheheen’s Uncle Bob always used to say to bring interviews to a sudden stop: Gottagobye.

And yes, that IS a picture of me, speaking to the class last year, in the upper left-hand corner. Kelly's like that. Very thorough.

There should not BE public-employee unions

18 Replies

At Rotary today, I had grabbed my food (kielbasa today, with peppers and onions, which I love) and was looking for a seat and Jack Van Loan waved me over to his table. He wanted to get my thoughts on this Wisconsin situation.

I sort of had to disappoint him. I explained about my person idiosyncrasy, about how little stock I put in Other People’s Politics (Down With O.P.P., indeed), which in this national-media saturation era (in which partisans across the country see every local controversy as another battle in the titanic war between Good and Evil — with their end of the spectrum being good, of course), we hear WAY too much about. Except that I hear less than others, because I block it out.

That is, I block out all but what I can’t help picking up through osmosis. And on this, the only thing I had picked up was that it had to do with public employee unions.

So all I could offer Jack was this:

I don’t think there should be public-employee unions. So I guess, on this issue, that sort of puts me on the side of that Walker guy. But that’s about all I know.

To me, working for the government — local, state or federal — is PUBLIC SERVICE, and you should have no loyalties except to the public. You know, like those “permanent government” civil servants in Britain, who serve as well as they can the elected officials of whichever party happens to hold power. Or, come to think of it, every employee below the political appointments in this country.

Private sector unions are one thing. I’m not crazy about them, and never wanted to belong to one. I never wanted a third party between me and my employer. (And yep, I still feel that way after being laid off — so much for those of you who think political positions inevitably arise from personal experience. Although, of course, as a vice president of the company I wouldn’t have been in the bargaining unit anyway.)

But at least in the private sector, we’re talking about people being out for themselves and trying to gain some leg up in a disproportionate power arrangement.

With public service, there should be no being out for yourself and whatever advantage that you, or people like you, can gain. It should be about the public service. It shouldn’t be about serving oneself, or a political party, or a union. It should be about serving your community, state or nation — which means serving the people, who ARE the community, state or nation, properly understood.

And to me, unionization gets in the way of that, big-time. It’s kind of an alien concept to me, as a South Carolinian. I was really taken aback when I ran across the historical plaque pictured below in Pennsylvania. Wow. A state that celebrates that. It surprised me. (I was about to make the categorical statement that we don’t HAVE public employee unions in SC, but it seems like I ran into some exceptions to that recently. I just can’t remember where. It was someplace really obvious… Dang it, I’m ALMOST sure there are no such unions here, but…)

And that’s all I’ve got to say about that. (Unless y’all provoke me into saying more.)

They may be right proud of public-sector unions in Pennsylvania, where I shot this, but we don’t hold with ’em down heah.

My exchange with “Jayne Cobb”

30 Replies

Today, we descend into the dubious ground of celebrity name-dropping…

One of my favorite things that’s ever been on television was “Firefly,” the space western (you have to watch it to grok that description) that lasted less than a season several years ago — which says about everything that needs to be said about commercial television.

My favorite character on the show was Jayne Cobb. Actually, he’s my public, admitted favorite character. My actual, secret favorite is Kaylee, but being a happily married guy, I don’t want to admit that, so my official favorite is Jayne.

Jayne is, that is, was played by Adam Baldwin, who has a Twitter feed that differs from other Hollywood actors’ in that you won’t read Tweets like, “Yoga class was awesome today! Off to a lunch, then rehearsal.”

Mr. Baldwin tweets about politics, and from a decidedly, shall we say, muscular conservative perspective (even though he apparently once Tweeted this).

Last night, I saw this post:

@adamsbaldwinAdam Baldwin

“Repressive Tolerance”: http://bit.ly/efIXeq ->http://bit.ly/fVwiF -> http://bit.ly/18ScHT ->http://bit.ly/fivqAt = #RepressiveCivility

This really impressed me. I hadn’t heard that phrase since I had studied the absurd theories of Herbert Marcuse, the intellectual father of the New Left, who game up with the Orwellian-sounding concept of “repressive tolerance.” Which, in my paraphrase, means that liberal societies are repressive because they manipulate people by being… tolerant. In other words, they absorb, co-opt and redirect revolutionary fervor by not particularly caring about it. This makes people who really, really want to be angry revolutionaries even angrier, of course, because it makes it impossible for them to keep others angry. You’re a revolutionary — red rag on your head and everything — and you’re like, “We demand reform!” and the maddening liberal society goes, “OK, here’s your reform,” and next thing you know, nobody cares enough to show up at your revolutionary cell meetings, and you’re like all ticked. OK, go read another definition if you don’t like that one.

We UnPartisans are often amused by the silly things that theorists come up with on the right AND the left, and Marcuse was one of the leading unintentional jesters of the left.

Anyway, I was impressed enough to reTweet this:

@BradWarthenBrad Warthen

Wow! A TV actor citing Marcuse! RT @adamsbaldwin: “Repressive Tolerance”:http://bit.ly/efIXeq -> http://bit.ly/fVwiF->…

And to my amazement, I quickly got this reply:

@adamsbaldwinAdam Baldwin

@BradWarthen Herbert Marcuse, an #IntellectualMoron –> http://bit.ly/5NyBMx

So I’m like:

@BradWarthenBrad Warthen

@adamsbaldwin Oh, I agree, Adam. I just thought it was cool that you mentioned him. Haven’t run across his silly concept since college…

Because I’m thinking, “I don’t want to tick off Jayne Cobb. You know how he is.” And then he’s like:

@adamsbaldwinAdam Baldwin

@BradWarthen Seen this one:http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Rules%20for%20Revolution%20(2).pdf

Of course, the Obama/Alinsky connection wasn’t new to me, although I don’t fret about it the way people on the right do. But I then answered with these two Tweets:

@adamsbaldwin Nope, but that reminds me. I’ve been meaning to read the recent biography of Alinksy, “Radical” http://j.mp/dIka9R

@adamsbaldwin Of course, since it’s written by Nicholas Von Hoffman, it’s an “homage.” But if you know that, it still can be informative…

I figured I’d better add that last bit, since he was likely to dismiss it from such a source, and I wanted to head that off.

Then, I went home for the day, and didn’t get any more Tweets from Mr. Baldwin. Nor did I send any. But I enjoyed it while it lasted. And now, I’ll be interested to see whether an exchange like that with someone with almost 50,000 followers will boost my own followership (and ultimately, blog readership, which for me is the point of social media).

Can’t tell yet…

Bobby Hitt “having fun” in new job

City doing what it has to do on buses

11 Replies

Yesterday I had breakfast with Joel Lourie over at the Lizard’s Thicket on Forest, and as we were chatting he was accosted by a constituent who didn’t like what he’d halfway heard Joel saying about the need for more moderates in the Legislature. He proceeded to lecture Joel on why voters are more and more “conservative” these days. Mainly, it had to do with spending.

But the thing that jumped out at me was the local example he used. After excoriating the effort to raise the sales tax to pay for transportation needs, he said, flat out, “We don’t need buses.” He said it like public transit was just the stupidest, most wasteful idea he had ever heard of.

The conversation ended pleasantly, as Joel listened politely and declined to engage the voter on the more incendiary things he said. (After many years of dealing with angry readers, I can testify that’s a good formula for ending conversations better than they started — look for areas of agreement, look for opportunities to explain your own position better, but mainly allow the frustration to be vented. Most people just want to be heard, and don’t have the same opportunities to make that happen that politicians and journalists do.)

But I thought back to it later in the day. Brian Murrell of ADCO and I went to get some lunch at Greek Boys, and had to park almost a block away north on Sumter. As we walked past the bus stop at Sumter and Hampton in the bitter cold, we passed a guy — probably a patient from Palmetto Health Baptist across the street — standing with a walker waiting for the bus.

We had a nice, warm lunch inside — I had the beef tips over rice with greek salad (minus the feta). It didn’t take all that long — service is fast there — but we weren’t in a hurry, either. We took time to chat with Butch Bowers and Todd Carroll from Hall Bowers over at the next table. Call it 30 minutes, maybe 40.

Then we bundled back up and headed back into the bluster. And as we passed the bus stop, there was that same guy with the walker, still waiting. He had to be chilled right through his bones.

At that moment, I wish that voter from Lizard’s Thicket that morning had been there to tell THAT guy we don’t need buses.

All of which is a long way of getting to the point that Columbia City Council is simply doing what has to be done by coming up for different revenue source for the bus system, for now. Read about that here.

What we should have done was pass the sales tax. But since we didn’t, the city’s got to do something (and so will the county). So that, so far, is what it’s doing.

A pre-session legislative discussion

12 Replies

CRBR Publisher Bob Bouyea, Chamber President Otis Rawl, Rep. James Smith, Sen. Joel Lourie, Rep. Nathan Ballentine. In the foreground is former Rep. Elsie Rast Stuart, now chairwoman of the the Richland-Lexington Airport Commission. / grainy phone photo by Brad Warthen

I meant to post about this yesterday, when it happened, but better late than never.

ADCO had a table at the Columbia Regional Business Report‘s (that’s the outfit Mike Fitts is with) “Legislative Lowdown” breakfast at Embassy Suites. It was a good table. Lanier and I were joined by Alan Kahn, Jay Moskowitz, Bob Coble, Butch Bowers, Cameron Runyan and Grant Jackson.

We were there to hear a discussion by a panel featuring Otis Rawl from the state Chamber, Rep. James Smith, Sen. Joel Lourie, Rep. Nathan Ballentine and Rep. Chip Huggins. Joel was a few minutes late, and Chip had to leave just as Joel arrived, but it was still a good discussion.

Here’s Mike’s description of the event, in part (I’d quote the whole thing, but I don’t know how Mike’s cohorts feel about that Fair Use thing):

By Mike Fitts
mfitts@scbiznews.com
Published Dec. 2, 2010

Lawmakers speaking at the Business Report’s Power Breakfast this morning said they see major difficulties ahead in the new budget year, but they also said there are new opportunities for bipartisanship.

The event, hosted at the Embassy Suites, featured Reps. Nathan Ballentine, R-Chapin, Chip Huggins, R-Columbia, and James Smith, D-Columbia; Sen. Joel Laurie, D-Columbia; and Otis Rawl, president and CEO of the S.C. Chamber of Commerce.

With a new Legislature and new governor coming to Columbia in January, much of the discussion focused on the budget crisis that will greet them.

Ballentine, a member of Gov.-elect Nikki Haley’s fiscal crisis task force, drew a stark picture of the challenges facing lawmakers. Ballentine compared the situation to a lifeboat with a limited number of seats. There won’t be enough dollars to take care of students, the elderly, the disabled and law enforcement, Ballentine said.

“Somebody’s going to get left out, and that’s going to hurt,” he said…

To Mike’s focused report I will add the following random observations:

I don’t know if this would have been the case if Chip Huggins had stayed, but the general consensus, or at least lack of overt conflict, between James, Joel and Nathan on issue after issue was quite noticeable. Nathan alluded to it, saying he was sure that the business people in the room were probably wondering why a pair of Democrats and a close ally of Nikki Haley were agreeing about issue after issue. (And some of the agreements were remarkable, going beyond mere civility, such as when Nathan volunteered his acknowledgement of the problems with Act 388.) Nathan further speculated that the audience might reasonably wonder why, in light of what they were hearing, the General Assembly had so much trouble getting anything done. He explained that the reason was that there were these 167 other people in the Legislature… And he was completely right. If we filled the Assembly with Jameses, Joels and Nathans, South Carolina would see a Golden Age of enlightened governance. These are reasonable young men who, despite their disagreements on some points are reasonable, deal with others in good faith, and truly want what’s best for South Carolina, and want it more than their own advancement or the good or their respective parties. If only their attitude were catching.
I’ll add to that point the observation that if all discourse about issues were on the intellectual level of this one, we’d see a very different, and much better, South Carolina. The conversation was wonderfully devoid of partisan, ideological, bumper-sticker cliches. For instance, I never heard anyone mention “growing government” or “taking back our state.” Observations were relevant, practical, and free of cant. I used to hear discussions like that regularly when I sat on the editorial board, because intelligent politicians did us the courtesy of leaving the meaningless catch-phrases behind. It was good to hear that kind of talk again. (It occurs to me that the fact that over the years I’ve been privileged to hear politicians at their best, trying to sound as smart as possible, may help to explain why I don’t have as jaded a view of officeholders as Doug and others do.) I’d be inclined to say that the discussion was on this level because the lawmakers were paying this assembly the same compliment of respect — but these particular lawmakers pay everyone that sort of respect. Which is why we need more like them.
Otis Rawl, incidentally, was slightly more confrontational — something you don’t usually see in a Chamber leader. He exuded the air at times of being impatient with the air of civil agreement in the room. When Nathan said that he had not realized when he voted for it the harm that Act 388 would cause — Otie challenged him directly, saying he knew good and well that his group had informed lawmakers ahead of time, and there was no excuse for anyone to claim innocence (I think he’s right in the aggregate — the body as a whole knew better, but ignored what they knew it order to scratch a political itch — but if Nathan says he didn’t understand, I believe him; he was a relatively inexperienced lawmaker at the time; and I appreciate greatly that he’s learned from experience). Awhile back, I chided Otie for not being more frank about what he thought on an issue. The Otis Rawl I saw Thursday morning could not be chided for the same thing. I suspect this reflects a growing dissatisfaction with Sanford-era fecklessness in the State House, which helped lead to the Chamber’s endorsement of Vincent over Nikki.
Speaking of Vincent, Nikki, Otie, James, Nathan and Joel … It struck me as interesting, just because language and civility interest me, that everyone speaking of Nikki Haley referred to her carefully as “Governor-Elect Haley.” It was notable partly because it was stilted coming from people who know her quite well as “Nikki,” but also because (and this might have been my imagination) there was a slight change of tone when the speakers said it, a shift to a formality mode. It seemed natural enough that the Democrats present would use that highly formal construction — it’s important to them (particularly since the two Democrats in question are Vincent Sheheen’s two best friends in the General Assembly) to sound scrupulously neutral and respectful in this post-election period. It’s a way of papering over their feelings about her election, and perfectly proper. It was also perfectly appropriate for Nathan to refer to her that way; it just sounded odder coming from him. They were seatmates, and allies in her fights with the leadership. But being a gentleman, he wasn’t going to top it the nob in a public setting by assuming excessive familiarity. Bottom line, just over a month ago ALL of them would have called her “Nikki.” But now they are the very pictures of proper Southern gentleman. Which I like. But then I’d like to see a return of the sort of manners I read about in Patrick O’Brian and Jane Austen. We just don’t see that very often nowadays.
As civil and intelligent as this discussion was (in fact, probably because it was so intelligent), it offered little hope for the General Assembly effectively dealing with any of the important issues facing our state in the foreseeable future. Everyone spoke with (cautious, on the part of the Democrats) optimism about Nikki — excuse me, Gov.-elect Haley — being able to work better with the Legislature than Mark Sanford has (a pitifully low bar). But I heard little hope offered that this, or anything else, would likely lead to the reforms that are needed. The institutional and ideological resistance to, say, comprehensive tax reform is just too powerful. The most hope Joel Lourie would offer is that steady pressure over a long period of time might yield some small progress. He cited as an example his and James’ long (eight-year) battle to get a sadly inadequate cigarette tax increase. The terrible truth, though, is that the cigarette tax was such a no-brainer — it shouldn’t have taken two days, much less eight years — that if IT took that long, much less simple and obvious reform seems unlikely in our lifetimes. But perhaps I’m not being as optimistic as I should be. It’s just that I’ve been fighting these battles, and hearing these same issues discussed, for so very long…

What I said to the telecommunicators

2 Replies

Here are the brief remarks I prepared this morning for my election post-mortem address to the SC Telecommunications Association‘s Fall Conference at the Radisson.

I had planned to just jot down some notes in my notepad over breakfast, but chickened out and, before leaving the house, typed out the following to read.

Of course, most of the time was taken up with questions and answers, which is the way I prefer it. I feel SO much more comfortable reacting to questions than I do delivering a prepared speech. I relax and that point, because I know we’re actually talking about something that interests the audience, or at least a portion of it. But the conventions dictate that your say SOMETHING before the blessed relief of questions, so this is what I prepared, and more or less read:

What happened Tuesday?

Well, not a whole lot.

On the national level, we saw the usual thing happen: The party that did NOT hold the White House gained seats in Congress two years after the president’s election. This phenomenon was intensified somewhat by the fact that the Democrats had gained big for two cycles, and the Republicans were overdue to win some of those seats back.

There was extra emotional intensity this time because of the Tea Party movement, which arose in connection with general voter dissatisfaction in a time of prolonged economic anxiety. There was a lot of anti-incumbent anger out there, and the party in power took a big hit as a result.

What will happen next? Well, what usually happens. Congress will not suddenly become a more highly functional institution. In fact, given the platforms on which many of the newcomers were elected, expect to see a lot more yelling and posturing without anything new actually happening. On election night, I recall hearing one Republican say that the GOP would repeal the new health care legislation every day and send it to the president for his veto. This is not a recipe for getting the public to think more highly of the folks in Washington. And even THAT is going to be pretty tough to accomplish since the GOP didn’t win control of the Senate.

And yes, I realize that threat was probably mere rhetorical hyperbole, but in terms of productivity, I don’t think the result it would produce is terribly different from what we’re likely to see actually happening.

So what will we see happen? Well, in two years, or perhaps four, the pendulum will swing back to the Democrats. And we’ll continue to see this kind of back-and-forth until Americans get totally fed up with the two parties, and some viable alternative emerges.

Here at home, we saw what we expected to see – a Republican sweep in a state where that is pretty much the norm now, especially in a year in which Republicans were winning everywhere.

The forces causing this to happen were so powerful that they caused voters to sweep aside a number of concerns that had been raised about the GOP gubernatorial candidate, from her failures to pay taxes on time to her somewhat sketchy employment record. As it happened, she won, but with a smaller margin than any other Republican running statewide. It will be interesting to see whether she does anything differently than planned as a result of having garnered less than a mandate in a year in which a GOP nominee should have had a landslide.

Going forward, we’re going to see a phenomenon we’ve already seen advance and become more pronounced: With the Republican Party being so dominant, we’ve been seeing for some time the emergence of factions within that party. It’s like the days when Democrats were so dominant: Since essentially everyone in power was a Democrat, factions emerged, and the characters of individual Democrats became more important. Since everyone was a Democrat, just being a Democrat wasn’t much of a recommendation.

Expect a power struggle between the faction of the party that strongly supported Nikki Haley – and her mentor Mark Sanford before her – and the current legislative leadership. The question remains whether the present leadership will be the future leadership. But whether they are or not, the main conflicts we see in the State House are going to be in the future, even more than we’ve seen in recent years, conflicts among Republicans.

Democrats won’t agree with me on this, but in a way I see this as a fundamentally healthy thing. Any trend that causes people to disregard party labels – which I regard as extremely destructive to the deliberative process upon which our system of representative democracy depends – and look at other, more meaningful factors, is essentially a promising thing.

Now, I’d like to go to your questions.

And fortunately, questions were forthcoming, and they were thoughtful. I got engaged in a conversation afterwards with a gentleman who wondered whether the current divide between the largely Democratic urban areas and the generally Republican rest of the country would continue to be worse. I had no idea, beyond agreeing with him that suburbs and exurbs tended to foster GOP sentiments, while more densely packed people tended the other way. And we were probably on the verge of something interesting as we discussed how population density had a profound effect on basic economics (something a man in the telephone industry would certainly understand), it led to different assumptions about what should be done in common via government and what should not. But at that point I had to run to ADCO. I really do have to buckle down and do some real work, now that the election is over.

Saturday morning I speak to a partisan crowd — the Lower Richland Dems. This will be a new experience for me. I have spoken to groups that turned out to be quite partisan, to my dismay, but were not billed that way. The message they get will be essentially the same, although maybe I’ll think of some stuff to add between now and then. It will be interesting to see how they react to it.

Where should we go? I’m thinking Mojitos

13 Replies

My good friend Kevin Hall — you know Kevin; he’d probably be state Republican chairman now if a health problem hadn’t arisen (he’s much better now, I’m very happy to say) — was quite pleased with the election results today.

But he was having to face a sober reality on one front: He owes me a lunch. He had bet me that Nikki Haley would win by 8 percentage points. He didn’t realize that Vincent Sheheen would get more votes, and a larger percentage of votes, than any other Democrat in South Carolina (thereby demonstrating that if this had not been 2010, he probably would have won), while only Mick Zais — running for a job that Democrats continue to contest strongly every election — got fewer votes than Nikki among statewide Republicans.

(By the way, the best source for complete numbers remains The New York Times. It shows Nikki at 51.4 percent, and Vincent at 47.1 percent.)

I’m thinking Mojitos. I love that place…

By the way, if you saw me looking down at my Blackberry while on WIS live last night, I wasn’t checking election results. I was gloating over Kevin via text messages:

ME: Where you gonna take me to lunch? Remember, you said 8 percent…

KEVIN: It’s at 5 now so stay tuned. U might still be owing me. 🙂

ME: Bunch of little Dem counties still with 0 percent reporting. Her margin’s not getting bigger.

KEVIN: Patience, Brad. Let’s see…

ME: I’m thinking Mojitos, in the Vista. Nice place. Have you eaten there yet? It’s new…

KEVIN: That works. U still might be buying…

As you can see, I can be pretty obnoxious in victory. You should probably know this about me.

Now you may think if callous of me to profit from South Carolina’s misfortune. And don’t mistake me — my sorrow for the fact that voters went for more of the same yesterday, when we so badly need a break in our state, is undiminished. Yesterday was a dark day for South Carolina (on the governor front; I really don’t much care about the other races, although I’m sad to see John Spratt’s fine career of public service end thus). And eventually, I expect the majority of South Carolinians will realize that. (Only 2.9 percentage points less than a majority realized it yesterday, so we don’t have far to go. One more thing like her cavalier attitude toward paying her taxes or her picaresque work record, and bingo.)

But hey, a guy’s gotta eat. And a free lunch at Mojitos is a free lunch at Mojitos.

Restraining myself while voting

12 Replies

The Quail Hollow precinct at 12:09 p.m. Most of these folks had arrived well before noon, so this is not the lunch rush..

Quail Hollow precinct at 12:09 p.m. All of these people had arrived BEFORE noon (newcomers were still outside), so this is not the lunch-hour rush. In fact, weirdly, it sort of slowed down during lunch hour...

First, several quick Tweets I wrote while standing in the queue:

Standing in a moderately long line at Quail Hollow precinct (I’ve seen longer). 400 voters so far. Man who just left said it took an hour…

Close to 500 voters have shown up so far at Quail Hollow at noon. Veteran poll worker says 700 to 800 is the normal total for all day.

Man behind me tells companions, “This right here might be the most important vote we ever cast.” I agree, but don’t dare ask what HE means.

Not good for Sheheen: My precinct is heavily Republican, my daughter’s is strongly Democratic. Big turnout at mine, a trickle at hers.

A suggestion: If you favor Vincent Sheheen, or merely distrust Nikki Haley, now would be a good time to get your lazy behind out and VOTE.

Of course, on those last couple, I could have been making an incorrect assumption: I’ve heard so many Republicans say they can’t bring themselves to vote for Nikki that maybe, just maybe, enough of them will vote for Vincent. Yeah, that’s a big maybe, and perhaps I’ve just been talking to the brighter sort of Republican, the kind who pay attention and think before they vote. You can’t count on everyone, or even a majority, doing that in an election.

For instance, a friend who usually votes Democratic told me the story of her husband — who ALWAYS votes Republican — a few minutes ago. He has planned all year to vote for Nikki. She asked him this morning before he went to the polls and he said yes, he was still going to vote for. My friend, and her mother, both remonstrated with him about it. Later, he texted his wife to say that he had voted for Vincent. Once he got into the booth, he just couldn’t bring himself to help put Nikki in office.

But now that it’s too late to ask, I find myself really wondering what that man meant when he said, “This right here might be the most important vote we ever cast.” I told my friend in the above anecdote that, and she said she couldn’t imagine a Nikki supporter being that eager to vote. Surely, anyone voting for her, ignoring all her startling negatives, is simply grimly doing what he perceives to be his duty to a party. I told her she was mistaken: Tea Party types think they are part of a great, exciting reform movement. And they seem convinced, despite all the contradictions, that she is part of it, too. They really do, near as I can tell. A Tea Partisan planning to vote for Haley would say something like that.

The same gentleman, discussing the constitutional questions on the ballot with the ladies accompanying him, said it was simple — vote “yes” to all. I restrained myself again. One of the ladies said she wasn’t so sure about that hunting and fishing one, and the man said she probably wouldn’t understand, since she doesn’t hunt and fish. I REALLY held myself back at this point, stopping myself from delivering a soliloquy on how we shouldn’t clutter the state constitution with superfluous language, particularly to indulge our personal whims, and how the issue isn’t whether you’re for hunting or fishing, but whether you think it belongs in the constitution… Such a lecture from me at that time would have been most unseemly, since I was about to violate that principle by voting for constitutional language indulging one of my own political attitudes, which I would normally be dead set against doing. So it’s doubly good that I said nothing.

But the greatest test of my discretion came when I finally got to the booth itself. (Or whatever you call those things, more like a TV table with blinders. A “half-booth,” perhaps.)

It was awkward to step up to the booth at all, because the lady at the one next to me was for some reason standing backed up away and toward me rather than squaring up to her own booth. I could hardly get to mine without brushing against her back. The reason for this became apparent as a poll worker came up to help her with some sort of trouble she was having.

From that point on, I had to struggle to concentrate on my own voting because of the intense scene being played out right at my elbow. At first, I didn’t notice what was said, until the lady bristled, “I don’t appreciate you speaking to me that way! You have no business doing that…”

YOU try not listening to something after hearing that, especially coming from someone you’re practically touching. I mean, I’m a gentleman and all that, but…

BEING a gentleman, I scrupulously didn’t look that way, but I recognized the voice of the poll worker as that of a woman I’ve known for decades. She was using a perfectly professional, calm tone, but she made the mistake of urging the voter to be calm, which really set her off. She was apparently embarrassed at needing help, and extremely sensitive as a result.

At least once more, she demanded that the worker stop “speaking to me that way.” But eventually, she did calm down somewhat, and said that she only cared about voting for two people, and they were both Republicans, so it was probably fine. The worker insisted that it was NOT fine for her to vote a straight Republican ticket if she had not intended to. (God Bless that poll worker! If only it were illegal to surrender your thinking to a party! If only it were not the first choice offered!) They went back and forth on this, with the embarrassed voter wanting it to be over with, and the worker insisting that it was important that her preferences, and only her preferences, be accurately tallied, and that they could fix this…

I don’t know how it came out. But it was hard not to intervene and say “Listen to the poll worker, lady!” But a gentleman doesn’t intervene in, or take any notice at all of, an unseemly disagreement between ladies. Unless it comes of course to fisticuffs, in which case he turns to the other gentlemen present and places wagers…

Imagine a smiley face at the end there…

Actually, SC could use another month

29 Replies

While walking me back to the studio to tape the Friday radio show at ETV yesterday, the engineer asked me whether I was “as ready for next Wednesday as we are.”

Rather than giving the usual sort of “You bet!” that such a remark generally prompts, I thought for a second and said No, actually I’d like a little more time, thanks.

This morning, an attorney friend also asked whether I was ready to have it over with, and I took the thought further: I think South Carolina could use about one more month, so that it can make a well-considered decision.

As they focus on this gubernatorial decision, more and more voters are realizing what those of us who obsess over politics to an unhealthy degree realized long ago: Vincent Sheheen is easily the better candidate, and there are enough problems with Nikki Haley to make even the staunchest Republican run the other way.

The more they know, the more likely they are to make that decision.

In fact, I’ll go further: I think eventually we will reach a very clear consensus on this in South Carolina. The terrible thing is, I’m afraid we’re going to reach it sometime after next Tuesday. Now if you’re one of the less thoughtful Republicans — one who thinks the thing is for someone with an “R” to win the election, no matter the consequences — you say, “Yay!” to that. But many of those who would cheer today are going to deeply regret that choice sometime in the not-too-distant future, if Nikki wins.

This is inevitable. Every new thing we’ve learned about Nikki the last few months — everything personal, professional, political — has indicated that she falls far short of being the kind of person one would trust with such responsibility. As she is subjected to further scrutiny, I expect this to get worse. She just doesn’t bear close examination.

I’d rather the voters not have to go through that painful buyer’s remorse. I’d rather they reach that decision now. Because I don’t care which team wins elections (the Dems won big in 2008; the Repubs will win big this year; the Dems probably again next time… whoop-ti-frickin’-do; who could possibly think it matters?). What I care about is South Carolina.

We’ve been through too many painful realizations AFTER the fact in South Carolina — after David Beasley, after Jim Hodges, after Mark Sanford. For once, we need to realize the truth BEFORE the election, and choose wisely. We need good leadership more than any other state I can think of.

So it is that when, minutes after that conversation with the attorney, as I was getting off the elevator and another friend asked whether I thought I could survive another week, I said Well, actually, I’d like it to be a little longer…

Where you can see and hear me in coming days

13 Replies

This morning, I taped a segment for ETV Radio with Mark Quinn, and while I was doing it, I thought that for once, I’d give y’all a heads-up ahead of time about where you can see and hear me over the next few days. So here goes:

The ETV Radio segment will air on Friday at 1 p.m. Mark and I talked for 15 minutes, mostly about the gubernatorial election. I worried a bit that I did an uncharacteristic thing: Rather than speak as the detached observer the way I usually do on radio, I spoke as the blogger who very much hopes Vincent overcomes the odds. I apologized to Mark for that after, but he said it was OK, so maybe it wasn’t as bad as I thought…
Speaking of ETV, a program called “How We Choose” will air on the TV version at 9:30 p.m. Friday, and again on Monday, election eve, at 7 p.m. There are some clips from the program up on the ETV election blog. I was one of a bunch of people interviewed for this, and it was so long ago I don’t know what I said, but it was very Civics 101 stuff about democracy and voting and the like. You know — educational.
Remember that “party politics” primer I did on the city election for the Shop Tart, specially crafted for her particular audience? That was well received, and she wants me to do another, and I have promised her I would. So repeating the promise in writing to y’all is my way of making myself write it and get it to her sometime this week. If I fail, I fail in the world’s eyes, not just the Tart’s…
I’ve manipulated the Health & Happiness schedule so that it will be my turn to do it at the Columbia Rotary Club on Monday, election eve. If I can’t come up with decent political material for that day, I never will. That’s at 1 p.m. at Seawell’s. You have to get a member to host you if you want to be there. (So now, I’ve just put EXTRA pressure on myself to come up with something good. Sheesh. Comedy is hard.)
Nov. 2 — On Election Night, I’ll be on WIS. Judi Gatson has asked me to appear along with Sid Bedingfield (Political analyst from USC) and Douglas Wilson (a blogger at politicsispower.com) to talk election results. I said OK, so guess I won’t be doing my usual roaming that night, but will be in a fixed location. I THINK I’ll be able to blog during that, but if I don’t, and you wonder where I am, turn on the tube.
On Nov. 4th, I’ll be speaking to the SC Telecommunications Association’s Fall Conference at the Radisson, about election results.
On Saturday, Nov. 6, I’m the featured entertainment for the Lower Richland Dem Breakfast out on Garners Ferry Road. They, too, want me to talk about election results.

So, I’m busy doing a lot of stuff besides earning a living and blogging. But you might say that I’m blogging by other means — and of course wherever I go, I give ADCO a plug…

Coming up on “The Brad Show:” Vincent Sheheen

6 Replies

My plan was to keep pressing until I got a commitment for a time that Vincent Sheheen would sit still long enough for us to shoot an installment of “The Brad Show” with him, and then to turn and press Nikki Haley for an interview as well — having heard she was reluctant to do such things. Sort of the way I’m currently playing Joe Wilson and Rob Miller off against each other. (Oh, wait — you don’t suppose they’ll read this, do you?)

But the strategy fell all apart today, when the Sheheen campaign called and said, “What about today?,” which set off a scramble to act on that opportunity. Jay and Julia gathered up the equipment, and at 4 p.m., we spoke with him in the conference room over at James Smith’s law office, a few blocks from ADCO. The interview ran about 23 minutes, same as the one with Dr. Whitson.

The show should be up on the blog by the end of the day tomorrow, if nothing more arises to prevent Jay from getting it ready.

To whet your appetite, I share with you the list of questions that I prepared as a crutch before the session. Back when I was at the paper, I almost never prepared questions (or anything else) ahead of time. In keeping with the Fremen dictum to “Be prepared to appreciate what you meet,” and being a believer in the Dirk Gently holistic method of investigation, I liked to go in and see where the interview would go. And often it went in interesting directions that I could never have anticipated.

But with video, I’m a little less confident still, and like to have some questions in front of me in case I freeze up and can’t think of anything to dispel “dead air.”

So I prepared this list ahead of time (it took no more than five minutes) — and we actually got to most of the questions, as you will see tomorrow:

Questions for Vincent Sheheen

“The Brad Show”

October 13, 2010

At the Columbia Rotary Monday, you said this is the most important gubernatorial election in SC in 40 years. I concur. Or at the very least, it’s most important since we missed our chance to have Joe Riley as our governor in 94. But what are YOUR reasons for saying so?

Early in 2009, you jokingly asked me, “Am I making you hopeful?” Well, at this point I would say that depends: Can you win this election? Elaborate.

Why should you win it? Compare and contrast.

One beef I hear from readers on my blog is that sure, maybe Vincent Sheheen is a nice guy from a good family, but what would he DO? Talk about your vision for South Carolina. What do you want to accomplish as governor?

I particularly enjoyed hearing you speak Monday about one of my favorite topics – reforming state government. You have a plan for doing that that originally I wasn’t too crazy about – it involved a lot of sweetener for the Legislature. But since then, I’ve reached two conclusions: One, that’s the only way we’re going to get reform, and Two, your approach actually points to an important difference between you and your opponent.

Could you summarize that plan for our viewers?

Issues, plans and programs aside, elections are, to some extent, about character. Is this one more so?

How do you deal with all the revelations coming out about your opponent without seeming to be too negative? Do you think you’re hitting that note at the proper “Goldilocks” point – neither too hard nor too soft?

And your opponent aside, what the most important thing voters need to know about YOU?

What are you hearing from voters?

Where do you go from here?

By the way, with both Caroline Whitson and Vincent Sheheen, I did an unconventional thing. I gave each of them a brief glance at the questions I had prepared before we started, just so they could be thinking about the answers as we proceeded. I’m more interested in getting thoughtful answers than I am in ambushing sources.

I’ll gladly do the same for Nikki, if she’ll sit down with me — while at the same time telling her what I told Caroline and Vincent, that the questions were not an absolute guide. If things start to move in a promising direction that I didn’t anticipate, I revert to form and run in that direction.

Do YOU fear Sarah Palin?

19 Replies

I was on Keven Cohen’s radio show again yesterday. Sorry I forgot to tell y’all in advance (or did I? I can’t remember; maybe I said something on Twitter…). But the phone lines lit up anyway, and we had a nice, lively discussion. He wants me on the show again before the election; I’ll try to give y’all a heads-up before then.

When I got back to the office, I got this from someone who DID listen in:

Dear Mr. Warthen:

I listened to you on Keven Cohen’s program on WVOC this afternoon and I was just wondering why an endorsement by Sarah Palin to Nikki Haley would embarrass you? Of course, you once said on Kev’s program that you despised Ronald Reagan so, that comment shouldn’t surprise me.

Do you fear Governor Palin because she has more of a spine than you and your other liberals do? Are you jealous of her success? Please don’t tell me that she is a “numbskull” compared to the current occupant of the Oval Office in the White House. She is “head and shoulders” smarter than that community organizer!

Anyway, comments like that are why you are no longer employed by South Carolina’s largest newspaper. One day, THE STATE will complete the trifecta and get rid of Cindi and Warren and replace them with people who don’t toe the Democratic Party line and print their talking points.

Sincerely,

Robert Owens

Lexington

Do you see why I tend to give trolls a lot of rope here on the blog before I give in to community opinion and ban them? I’ve gotten stuff like this my whole career. Par for the course. And unfortunately, being a never-say-die guy, I actually try to reason with them, to wit:

“Fear?” It never occurred to me to FEAR her. I just would be embarrassed to be endorsed by her. That’s what I said, and that’s what I meant.

I think it’s a very great shame that my main man John McCain elevated her to prime time, for which she was most demonstrably not ready. If you’d like to read an elaboration on that point, you should check out my blog post the other day about what one of her former handlers had to say…

My effort to reach across the divide was rewarded thusly:

Well, I think that you do fear her. As far as John McCain goes, as a 20+ year USAF veteran, I respect his military service and what he went through as a prisoner of war; he is an abject failure as a politician. He and Lindsey Graham were totally against a border fence between the US and Mexico a few years ago. When The Maverick figured that he might have a tough time winning the Arizona GOP earlier this year he was all for the fence. I about puked when I saw the commercial of him walking with an Arizona sheriff and he was telling McCain about the problems they were having with illegal immigration and then Big John looking at the camera and saying, “Build the dang fence!” What a damn hypocrite! I held my nose and voted for him in November 2008 because I knew what a disaster the community organizer would be. It would have been so much better if the ticket had been Palin/McCain instead of the other way around though.

Of course, some of these former handlers are going to say stuff about her because she had some ideas to save the campaign and they had no gonads and let the Dems take the election!

You can have McCain, he is a disaster! I hope that the next time that he reaches across the aisle to help the Democrats that he locks arms with Graham, Snowe, and Collins and takes them with him. Also, do you really think that Obama is ready for prime time? What an idiot and our country is paying the price for it. He is still blaming Bush yet when he was running he was The One with all of the answers.

Anyway, here is you to getting a spine someday!

RLO

Lexington, SC

It just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to connect with a fan…

OK, that’s ONE I’ve seen. Any others out there?

14 Replies

Today I saw my first actual “Republicans for Sheheen” bumper sticker on an actual vehicle.

And this was on an SUV, so it was definitely a real Republican, right? (Just kidding, GOPpers — can’t you take a joke?)

I’ve heard, privately, from a lot of folks whom you might otherwise expect to vote Republican who are backing Sheheen — both because they like Vincent, and because Nikki worries them a great deal.

And anyone who pays close attention will note that Henry McMaster sort of stands out these days, because there aren’t many other leading Republicans going out of their way to be seen with Nikki. (What we have is lots of people who don’t really know Nikki backing her in polls, while state business and political leaders who’ve actually dealt with her and know a thing or two about the issues generally aren’t too thrilled with her.)

But aside from the Chamber of Commerce endorsement, you don’t see a lot of visible, public demonstrations of intent to vote for Sheheen from traditionally Republican quarters.

At least, I haven’t.

Alas, I didn’t get to talk to this person, to get an elaboration on why he or she is taking this stand. This was in the drive-through queue at McDonald’s today. A couple of times I almost jumped out of my truck to run up and hand the driver my card and urging him or her to call me, but each time I put my hand on the door handle the line moved forward again.

So then I decided I’d follow the vehicle when it left Mickey D’s, and if it stopped anywhere nearby, try to cop an interview there.

But then, it happened again. I ordered a double quarter-pounder, without cheese (you know, because of my allergies). When I paid for it, I checked with the lady taking the money: “Without cheese, right?” “No cheese,” she said. Then when my food was handed to me in the bag at the next window, I said, “No cheese, right?” She said that was right. So I pulled up a few feet, and opened it up to check, and sure enough, each patty had welded to it one of those things that looks like a square of orange, molten plastic.

So I got out, walked back, squeezing between the car behind me and the window, knocked on the window and said, “THIS is with cheese.”

And then I was asked to pull over to the side and wait for what I had ordered, and had been assured twice I would get.

This happens to me roughly a third of the times that I go to McDonald’s. But McDonald’s isn’t special; I have similar problems at sit-down restaurants. That’s why I always check. It beats finding out five miles away (which has happened). What really gets me, of course, is when this happens after I’ve been assured, repeatedly, that it won’t.

Anyway, that’s why I didn’t get an interview with the Republican for Sheheen.

Do you have one of these stickers on YOUR bumper, or know someone who does? If so, send me your contact info at brad@bradwarthen.com. I’d like to chat with you.

“Use to was:” Small town South Carolina

2 Replies

Dang it, I searched on Google Books for the quote I wanted, but you know how they leave out pages here and there? Apparently the page I wanted was one of those.

Anyway, there’s a page somewhere in John le Carre’s The Little Drummer Girl in which our heroine Charlie is being escorted through a bombed-out 1980s Beirut by a couple of young Palestinian-affiliated gunmen whom she, and the reader, find utterly charming. One of them speaks English with an odd tick: He throws “use to” in front of all verbs, giving his speech a strange poignancy at all times. At one point, he’s indicating where a certain landmark — I want to say a Holiday Inn, but my memory could be failing me (and maybe it wasn’t even in the book but in the movie, but good luck finding that; Netflix doesn’t even have it) — back before the city’s devastation, back when it was the Paris of the Mideast. Let’s say it was a Holiday Inn, in which case he would have said, “Holiday Inn — use to was…”

That line kept running through my head when I went home to Bennettsville Saturday for the funeral of “Teenie” Parks — my grandmother’s best friend, who lived next door to my grandparents and then my young uncle (only six years older than I) as he raised his family there, with Teenie taking the place for his kids of my grandmother, who died in 1969. There are people in B’ville who would ask Teenie how I was related to her, even though I wasn’t. We were all that close. Her husband Frank, who died in 1984, had grown up in the house that my grandparents lived in during my childhood and my uncle still lives in today. Then they sold the house to my grandfather and moved next door. From then on it was like one household; we walked in and out of each others’ houses as though the doors weren’t there. We were, as I said, that close.

The funeral was at Thomas Memorial Baptist Church, where I was baptized long before I became Catholic. It’s the scene of an incident for which I’m still remembered by some of the older folks in town — far more than for anything else, really. While at the visitation various folks made a point of saying what I hear so often, that “We miss you so much from the newspaper,” a couple of my relatives made a point of mentioning The Incident, and admonishing me not to repeat it.

(Here’s what happened: It was 1957, and I was four years old. Our preacher then, Mr. Thomas, was not the most accomplished homilist. He tended to drone and lose his train of thought. He was reciting a list of some sort in which towns in the Pee Dee were ranked. It went something like this: “Cheraw was first, Dillon second. Um, Marion was third. And Bennettsville was… it was… um… Bennettsville was, um…” I couldn’t take it. I shouted out, as loud as I could, “FOURTH!!!” The congregation, which had been as tense as I was, erupted into laughter, drowning out Mr. Thomas as he murmured “fourth.” I had not known I was going to do it; it was involuntary. Four, after all, was my favorite number because I was four years old. How could he not think of it? But now that I’d shouted it, the laughter of all those grownups overwhelmed me with embarrassment. I lay my head on my mother’s lap and pretended to be asleep for the rest of the service. Bottom line, to this day, I am known by some as the little boy who yelled “Fourth!”)

After the funeral, driving back through town on Main Street, I pointed out to my wife landmarks that once had been. That’s what put me in mind of the le Carre character. B.B. Sanders’ Esso station, where the proprietor would always lean into the driver’s window, while his employees swarmed over the car to check the oil and the tires and the water and wash the windshield, and ask us, “Y’all want a Co-Cola?” Use to was. Belk’s — use to was. The Bennettsville Department Store — use to was. Penney’s, Miller Thompson pharmacy, the dime stores, Bill Stanton’s daddy’s store, the movie theater, the A&P, the Harris Teeter. All “use to was.” The buildings are all still there, and most look fine from the outside. But they aren’t what they were. And there is almost no one walking on the once-busy sidewalks.

This morning, I almost got a parking ticket because lobbyist Jay Hicks sat across from me as I was about to get up from breakfast, and I stayed, and we started talking about a number of things. Eventually, we got onto the state of South Carolina’s small towns, especially the ones well off the Interstates. He spoke of Bamberg, and I mentioned to him how impressed I was the one time I visited Allendale — all those abandoned motels along 301, which died when the Interstates opened.

We talked about whether there was any hope for turning around South Carolina’s small towns, whether Nikki Haley (who hales from Bamberg) or Camden’s Vincent Sheheen is elected. We reached no conclusions.

And I spoke of visiting Bennettsville over the weekend. I didn’t mention the “use to was” part, because it would have taken too long to explain.