Category Archives: 2010 Governor

OK, now The State paper has gone too far…

All right, I didn’t take it personally when you laid me off. After all, as a vice president of the company, I had been looking at those horrific numbers like all other senior staffers. There was no way the paper could keep paying all of us; no way at all. Some of us had to go; and my salary made me a very attractive target.

And yeah, I was kind of ticked off when you wouldn’t let me take my old blog with me, after all the nights and weekends I poured into it for four years, building it from nothing. That was a classic case of corporate lawyer B.S., insisting upon retaining the rights to content even though something called “Brad Warthen’s Blog” could have pretty close to zero value to you going forward. (I would say “zero,” but it continues to get a surprising number of page views — 15,000 last month — considering that I haven’t posted anything since March 2009. Possibly because I regularly send readers back to it. So that’s of SOME value to your advertisers, I suppose.) But I went out that day and bought the rights to “bradwarthen.com,” and never looked back. It had 132,000 page views in April, and I’m now actually getting income from it. (See the latest ad, from Vincent Sheheen?) So I’m over that.

But now, The State has gone TOO FAR. This I cannot forgive. After we’ve been drip-tortured for months by the GOP candidates with their conservative-this, conservative-that ideological monomania, the same moldy cliches over and over and over and over, to the point that I did something yesterday that I’ve never done before in my career — told my readers that NO GOP candidate is fit to be our governor for the next four years, because I for one just can’t take it any more…

… after all that, The State actually poses this question to the GOP candidates, in print:

There are voters who accuse elected Republicans of abandoning their conservative principles. What makes you the Republican most capable of representing the party in the fall election?

Imagine that! PROVOKING them to give it to us with both barrels! Just setting it right up on a TEE for them!

So of course we were treated to an absolute orgy of… As I’ve said from Day One I’m a conservative a true conservative my daddy was a conservative daddy my mama was a conservative mama I’m a bidnessman meet a payroll don’t take bailouts lazy shiftless welfare takers the key is to starve ’em before they reproduce 100 percent rating from conservative conservatives of America my dog is a conservative dog I don’t have a cat because cats are effete I eat conservative I sleep conservative I excrete conservative I got conservative principles a conservative house and conservative clothes take back our government from the socialists even though we don’t really want it because who needs government anyway they don’t have government in Somalia and they’re doing alright aren’t they National Rifle Association Charlton Heston is my president and Ronald Reagan is my God I will have no gods before him I go Arizona-style all the way that’s the way I roll I will keep their cold dead government hands off your Medicare so help me Ronald Reagan…

And on and on. That’s just to give you the flavor; I’m just reciting from memory. Read the actual stuff if you prefer, but my version has more life to it, while in no way being a disservice to the original.

You know what would have endeared me so much that I would have dropped all my objections and endorsed one of these candidates on the spot? If he or she had had the sense of perspective, the sense of the absurd, the appreciation of irony to say something like:

Actually, I’m a liberal. A liberal all the way. I drive a Prius, I love wine and cheese parties with the faculty, I think America is a big bully in the world and no wonder people hate us (I’d be a terrorist, too, if I didn’t abhor violence so), and I never saw an abortion I didn’t like. My spouse and I have an open marriage, so scandal can’t touch us, because to each his or her own. I’m a white, male heterosexual and the guilt just eats me alive; I wish I belonged to a group that was more GENUINE, you know? The first thing I’d do if elected is raise taxes through the roof, and spend every penny on public education, except for a portion set aside for re-education camps for people who now home-school their kids. Then, if we needed more money for excessive regulation of business and other essential government services, we’d raise taxes again, but only on the rich, which is defined as YOU or anybody who makes more than you. Probably the best word to describe my overall tax plan would be “confiscatory.” And my spending (OH, my spending! You’ve never seen spending until you see my spending!) would best be termed “redistributive.” If elected, my inaugural party will have music by the Dixie Chicks and the Indigo Girls, and then we’ll all bow down to a gigantic image of Barack (did you know it means “blessed”?) Obama, the savior of us all, and chant in some language other than the ultimate oppressor language, English. French, perhaps. Or Kiswahili.

Or something along those lines. And if The State ran a response like that, all would be forgiven…

No way should any of these four Republican candidates become governor of our state

On Sunday, my former newspaper endorsed Henry McMaster in the GOP primary for governor. The piece was well argued, and contained points that I had forgotten regarding his record. The piece was based upon his record, of course, because nothing in his campaign would cause a reasonable person to want to support him. It wasn’t as persuasive as the endorsement the previous week for Vincent Sheheen, but it made the most of a sad situation. Nikki Haley wants to give us four more years of Mark Sanford (and she would, too — believe it). Gresham Barrett is an ill-defined candidate who seems to be the sum of partisan cliches. Andre Bauer is Andre Bauer.

If I had still been at the paper (where I always argued that we had to choose somebody), or had a gun to my head forcing me to choose one of the Republicans, I’d probably go with Henry, too. And I would base it on the hope that he would be a better governor — just as he has been a pretty decent attorney general — than he is a candidate.

But I’m not at the paper any more, and therefore don’t have that institutional obligation to express a preference regarding every electoral choice. And nobody has a gun to my head.

So I am free to say that the performance of all of the GOP candidates in this primary convinces me that it is critically important that none of them become governor. Perhaps the best way to put it succinctly is the way an outsider, Gail Collins of the NYT, put it yesterday:

The issues in the primary have basically been which Republican dislikes government most. During the Tuesday debate, Bauer claimed that illegal immigration was caused by lavish government welfare payments, which caused poor people to refuse to do manual labor. Haley bragged that she had opposed the federal stimulus program. The attorney general, Henry McMaster, who is currently suing to try to stop the federal government from bringing health care reform to South Carolina, attributed the failures of the state’s public schools to teachers’ being so busy “filling out federal forms that they can’t teach.”

Ms. Collins was being facetious (as usual), but there’s nothing in what she writes that is inaccurate. Basically, this has been a contest between four people who each want to seem the most ticked off at the very notion of government. And I’ve heard enough of it. This constant drip of negativity is depressing and counterproductive. It counsels hopelessness to people who don’t have much hope to start with as they contemplate what we’ve seen in the governor’s office in recent years.

We’ve had eight years of a governor who doesn’t believe in governing. It is an outrage, and an insult to the people of South Carolina, that candidates would seriously try to position themselves that same way. They should all be running against that bankrupt legacy, not competing to see who will inherit it.

I decided recently that I would not do endorsements on this blog, so the fact that I can’t bring myself to back any of these Republicans doesn’t mean much. But I’ve spent 20 years writing on the theme of the importance of gubernatorial leadership. As weak as the office is, it’s still the one position with a pulpit bully enough to make a difference, to try to break our state out of the ennui born of believing we’ll always be last where we want to be first, and first where we want to be last. For that reason, I think it’s critically important to speak out now, and often, on the subject of just how unsuited these candidates are to lead South Carolina out of its current political malaise.

It’s important because, party politics being what they are in this state, the Republican nominee starts out with an advantage, no matter how poor a candidate he or she may be. Unfortunately, too few white voters in South Carolina will even consider pulling the lever for a Democrat. But I want to urge those people to start considering broadening their horizons. I’m not asking them to become Democrats. God forbid; I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, any more than I would want to see anyone become a Republican. My disdain for both parties remains undiminished. But within each party, there are good candidates and bad ones.

And in this election, unless all probability is turned on its head and the super-flaky Robert Ford gets the Democratic nod, there is little question — from a disinterested, nonpartisan perspective of a knowledgeable person who cares about the future of this state — that the Democratic nominee will be someone FAR more likely to have a positive vision of the kind of leadership that a governor can provide in difficult times. And only someone with that sort of attitude can have a chance of doing any good.

There are no two ways about it. South Carolina needs and deserves better than what any of the Republican candidates are offering this year. The very last thing we need is more of the same.

I don’t think Rex futures look like a good bet now

My attention was drawn this morning by an e-mail with the following headline on it:

Make an Investment in Jim Rex!

Sorry; I wish Jim all the best and everything — he’s certainly been supportive of me in the past, and I appreciate it — but in hard, cold dollars and cents, I just don’t think he’s a good investment bet right now.

If my highly trustworthy financial adviser (who gets nervous whenever I name him, lest people think I’m a good example of his work, so I won’t) were to recommend that as a good place to put my pennies to work, I think I’d get another financial adviser.

The question for me at this point is whether Vincent Sheheen wins it without a runoff. I doubt it, but you never know. In any case, the way this ends is that Sheheen is the nominee.

But I was interested to check out the names of people who will be at this Rex fund-raiser. Stuff like that always interests me. Here’s the list:

Ann & Frank Avignone | Amy & Robert Berger
Duncan Buell | Amanda & Todd Burnette
Anastasia Chernoff | Ken Childs | Don Doggett
David Dunn | Paula Harris | Valerie Harrison
Beth Howard | Lana & Steve Hefner | Lee Ann Kornegay
Betsy Carpentier & Phil Lacy | Oscar Lovelace
Annette & Steven Lynn | Barbara Rackes & Michael Mann
Sue & Robbie McClam | Heather Preston & Tim Mousseau
Angela & Stephen Peters | Julia & Jim Prater
Susan & Ron Prinz | Cynthia Davis & John Reagle
Linda Salane | Susan Heath & Rush Smith
Troy Cassel & Zeke Stokes | Diane Sumpter
Leah & Donald Tudor | Dr. Hoyt Wheeler
This is for a fund-raiser hosted by Barbara Rackes on June 10.

Nikki Haley’s husband is NOT following me

THIS JUST IN:

Tim Pearson with the Nikki Haley campaign just sent me a message saying,

The Michael Haley twitter account you’re quoting on your blog is not Michael Haley.  Just someone with too much time on their hands.

Tim

YIKES! Sorry about that.

In an earlier version of this post, I had announced that as of last night at 11:12, MichaelHaleySC had been following me on Twitter, and had posted the following:

One week everyone! Don’t forget to go vote for SC’s next Governor, Nikki Haley! I’d be honored to be your “first dude!”
about 11 hours ago via web
Check out the campaign’s latest TV ad!……I might have made an appearance! http://www.youtube.com/user/nikkihaley2010#p/u/6/RsXz0BjEG00
about 11 hours ago via web
Larry Marchant is a liar, plain and simple. Thanks for all your prayers.
about 1 hour ago via web

None of that struck me as the usual kind of spoof you see on Twitter, so I was taken in and actually thought it was from Mr. Haley.

Apparently not. Sorry. Thanks for the heads-up, Tim… assuming you ARE Tim…

I’m just going to give this one a pass for now

This is too much. I had been sort of unplugged from the rumor mill for a few hours when my wife told me she’d half-heard something else on the telly about Nikki Haley, so I checked Twitter, and when I saw the names attached to the latest salacious allegation…

… I just said to myself, this is more than I can handle at the end of a long day.

Y’all talk about it if you want. Me, I’m going to hit the sack and hope that tomorrow brings us a higher quality of nasty rumor.

The non-impression Gresham Barrett makes

Remember what I wrote about Gresham Barrett in my last column for The State? Actually, it wasn’t the last column that ran in the paper, but it was the last I wrote. I’d already written the piece about Robert Ariail, who was leaving with me, and my “unfinished business” piece that ran the Sunday after we left.

But I was determined to get a Gresham Barrett column written, if only because I’d been frustrated trying to get ahold of the guy. I had decided to do a column on each gubernatorial candidate as he or she announced, and Barrett was the second to come along (I’d already written about Vincent Sheheen). I was doing this because I regarded the choice that voters would have to make in 2010 to be so important that I wanted to help the conversation along as much as I could — even if I weren’t around to do columns on any of the rest of the candidates.

The weird thing about this one was that I had been trying to get Barrett on the phone to interview him for a couple of weeks. That may not sound weird to you, but it was a unique experience for me in the 12 years that I served as editorial page editor of the state’s largest newspaper. I couldn’t remember when it took more than a few hours to reach anyone who was serious about wanting to be governor. It’s not that I was so special; it’s that they were that eager for the free media.

But I don’t think I’d ever have gotten Barrett if I hadn’t made a nuisance of myself. On that Wednesday morning, I told his aide B.J. Boling — who had always been so helpful when he handled media for the McCain campaign in 2008 — that this was it. I didn’t want this to be the last piece of mine ever to run in the state — I wanted it to be one of the other two previously mentioned. Which meant I had to reach him that day, and write it the same day for Thursday’s paper. Even then, B.J. was unable to get him on the horn until 5 p.m., which meant I had to make Cindi Scoppe stay late to read behind me. But I got it into the paper.

Since I was writing it in such a rush, I was wary of my own irritation with the candidate. So I held back from fully expressing just how unsatisfying that interview was, beyond noting that he was “light on details,” and that his “crowning achievement” from his time as a legislator in Columbia was a partial-birth abortion plan. That was the biggest thing he did, “absolutely, without a doubt.” Being a pro-life kind of guy, I’m all for such bans. But I would not list the need for one as being among the burning issues of South Carolina. Against the blank backdrop that his career seemed to me to be, that was pretty disappointing.

Beyond that, I dutifully listed each fact I was able to draw out of him, thin as it all was.

Anyway, I have since referred to just how blank a slate Mr. Barrett seems to me, and been taken to task by B.J. And I accepted service. He’s right; I haven’t interviewed the guy since. And with that in mind, I called B.J. the other day hoping to get some time with his candidate. But B.J. hasn’t called me back. He probably thinks I’m calling about something else.

Bottom line, since I haven’t talked with the guy for a year, I’m not qualified to judge. But I read with particular interest Cindi’s column last week in which she describes the results of a 90-minute interview with the guy:

I HAVE A HUGE problem with Gresham Barrett.
It’s not his political positions or his rhetoric. It’s not even that frenetic thing he does with his hands in his TV commercial, though if I watched more TV ….
It’s that I can’t figure out what I think about him.
I can’t get a clear impression of what distinguishes him from his opponents. Even after he spent nearly an hour and a half with our editorial board earlier this month, answering every question I could think of to try to help me and my colleagues form some opinion, I came away empty. I wasn’t the only one who felt that way.
This is both disappointing and bizarre.
Disappointing because I had such high hopes for him. It’s no secret that I’ve been impressed with the job Henry McMaster has done as attorney general, and came into this campaign thinking he would be my favorite Republican. But when he went over the top on tax policy and I had that whole bizarre conversation wherein I couldn’t get him to give me a clear answer, and then he started blurring the line between candidate and attorney general, I started hoping for a better choice. Since I have had the least interaction with Mr. Barrett, and since the main thing I could recall his having done in the past few years was to change his mind and act like a grown-up by taking the least evil of the two horribly horrible positions on the TARP, he was the obvious place to pin my hopes.
Bizarre because usually I get the most out of meetings with the candidates I know the least about. First impressions and all that.

So it’s not just me.

With me, you could chalk up a lack of results from an interview to my loose, let’s-see-where-this-goes style. But Cindi is a high-organized, task-oriented interrogator. She goes in determined to get answers to questions X, Y and Z, and woe to the subject that stands in her way.

So this struck me as interesting. Is Gresham Barrettt the Zelig of this campaign, the “curiously nondescript enigma” of 2010?

I’m just not believing this stuff from Henry

Shortly after I posted the thing about Henry’s “Vultures” ad, I came home, and in the mail was this flyer.

I’m just not believing Henry. He’s been such a sensible, grown-up attorney general after all those years of Charlie Condon’s pandering, and now this.

What office is he running for, anyway? Some office I’ve never heard of, some kind of super-sheriff to clean up Washington, and save it from Obama and the other godless commies?

“Our Founding Fathers Would Be Ashamed?” Yeah, I think maybe they would.

Let’s make the totally wild supposition, just for a moment, that the things he’s saying about Washington aren’t totally loopy. What on Earth does it have to do with the issues facing South Carolina?

Definitely not what we need in a governor.

I see that The State endorsed Vincent Sheheen Sunday, and made a good case. Presumably, that means the GOP endorsement will be this Sunday. The way things are going, I just don’t see how a credible case can be made for any of these folks. Not Henry, not in this mode. Not Nikki, the darling of BOTH the Tea Party and the Sanford crowd — and a sincere imitator of Sarah Palin. Certainly not Andre. That would seem to leave Gresham… who thinks we need an Arizona-style immigration law in SC.

I didn’t expect us to be here at this point. I figured by now, at least one of these folks would come across as acceptable, so that we could have a real choice in the fall. But most of them seem to be trying so HARD not to.

Have you seen that absurd McMaster ‘vulture’ ad?

I hate to pick on Henry when he’s dealing with death threats — and I hope and pray that comes out OK for him — but I forgot to mention this after I saw it a couple of days back.

Have you SEEN that thoroughly outrageous new TV ad of his? After having put out a fairly reasonable piece recently (which contrasted nicely with some of the stuff his rivals were doing), he now comes out with yet another bid to out-extreme the other Republicans.

I would compare it to the infamous 1964 daisy petal/mushroom cloud ad, except it actually contains MORE radical distortion of reality. To quote from the text:

They’re circling…After bailouts and takeovers…The Vultures want more. Our healthcare… our hard earned money… our liberty. South Carolina’s sovereignty is under attack… by politicians preying on our freedoms. Henry McMaster is leading the fight for the conservative cause….

Say what? If I believed half this nonsense about the Dems in Washington (who are not, near as I can tell, running for SC governor, so why is Henry running against them?), I’d say it was time for SC to fire on Fort Sumter again.

But I don’t. And I don’t see how anyone could.

Our Kathryn gets after McMaster

Kathryn called my attention to a piece in The Free Times about our fellow Rotarian Henry McMaster (“Henry McMaster: Slumlord Millionaire?”), and I moaned about how it was way too long to get to… not realizing that she wanted me to read it because she was quoted in it extensively. I’ll quote a portion of it, and you can go to The Free Times for the rest:

The whole spectacle regarding the McMasters and their lawsuit makes University Hill resident Kathryn Fenner bristle. She’s the vice president of the University Hill Neighborhood Association and serves on the city’s code-enforcement task force, a blue-ribbon committee that was set up to make recommendations on city ordinances.

Fenner has observed Peggy McMaster for years — Peggy sits on the board of the neighborhood association — and Fenner’s house is surrounded by five properties the McMasters own.
Sitting in her modern, brightly colored, sun-lit living room with two large dogs playing around her, Fenner launches into an all-out assault on the way Henry and Peggy McMaster have handled their role as local landlords in the neighborhood. To her, their actions have been offensive.
The McMasters, she says, have a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy with their tenants regarding the city’s over-occupancy laws. As an attorney, she finds it laughable that Henry is appealing a zoning ordinance because she thinks he’s clearly ignoring precedent of the law.
But that’s the thing with the McMasters, Fenner says: They have a sense of entitlement that allows them to act like complete hypocrites, apparently without even realizing they’re doing it.
“I think that if you are supposed to be the chief law enforcement officer in the state, you probably shouldn’t be nodding and winking at lawbreaking,” she says.
She’s speaking specifically about occupancy laws, which several tenants admitted to Free Times they were breaking but said they had a wink-and-nod agreement with their landlords about doing.
Henry has fought hard against the city to keep on doing what he’s doing and several tenants are happy their landlords are going to bat for them — with good reason. The McMasters enjoy more rent money coming in and renters end up paying less individually.
But it’s the way Henry has been doing it that bothers Fenner so much.
In testimony he gave on his wife’s behalf to the zoning board in 2007, McMaster said, “The constitution says if you’re a single housekeeping unit you may not be the traditional family, but you’re a family just the same and you’re not hurting anything any more than a traditional family.”
That really bothers Fenner, a self-described Democrat, who took umbrage to McMaster’s staunch, headline-grabbing opposition to same-sex unions when a constitutional amendment to ban state recognition of them was put on the ballot in 2006.
“What offends me chiefly is the hypocrisy,” Fenner says. “The hypocrisy that we’re going to protect non-traditional families when we can make a buck out of it and we’re going to pillory non-traditional families when we can make political bucks out of it.”

Conspiracy theory: He’s trying to get Nikki elected

First, let me answer a question of Bud’s:

THAT’s how fed up I am with tawdriness.
-Brad

Then why do you keep writing and talking about it? It’s your blog, you can ignore it.

Simple: No more important question lies before this blog than that of who will be our next governor. It is of supreme importance that we do a much, much better of choosing than we have in recent elections.

And there is one candidate who will come closest to exactly duplicating what we have now. That is Nikki Haley. Nikki Haley becoming governor is the single worst likely outcome we could have in this election. So anything that bears upon her chances is important.

And you know what? I think this sordid nonsense is helping her. Which brings me to a rather silly conspiracy theory: What if this is Will Folks’ way of helping Nikki Haley get elected?

Frankly, I don’t believe Will is capable of that kind of sublety, that level of subterfuge, “a feint within a feint within a feint.” So put me on record as not believing what I’m supposing here.

But the weird thing is that nothing else fits the facts — nothing other than simply believing Will when he says he was backed into making this revelation by The Free Times, and didn’t intend for it to cause such a splash.

Nikki says he’s lying. She denies the revolting allegation categorically. And when it comes to a “he-said, she-said” contest between Will Folks and a lady, I choose to believe the lady.

But that creates another problem. If she’s the one telling the truth, that means he’s lying outright. And answer this: What would be his motivation? I do not doubt for a moment that Nikki Haley IS his preferred candidate; no one else would even come close. Will might not seem to believe in much, but near as I can tell, to the extent that he believes in anything, it’s the anti-government extremism that Mark Sanford and Nikki Haley embody.

So why would he lie (if indeed he is lying) to harm her? I can’t imagine why.

But what if lying helps her? What if telling a loathsome lie, one meant to be seen through, is intended to play to the paranoia of her base, the people who cheer loudest for Sarah Palin when she’s cheerfully complaining about how elites pick on her? Those folks won’t distinguish between Will and the “liberal media.” They won’t care that the MSM is being led along as helpless as a child on this (they can’t ignore something that affects Nikki’s viability any more than I can), by someone who can only be credibly described as a Haley ally — someone who is, indeed, a “conservative” by their definition of the word.

Nikki loves playing Joan of Arc at the stake, the pure one being persecuted by the corrupt powers that be. This is her idiom, her strong suit. Not to mention the fact that this has sucked up all the political oxygen for two days at a critical time in the campaign, and right as she is at the height of her strength.

Anyway, bottom line: I don’t believe in this conspiracy theory, even as I present it to you. (And it will be easily exploded the minute Will presents credible support for his allegation, if he has any.) But I don’t believe in any of the other explanations, either. Maybe by throwing this one out there, it will cause someone else to think of an explanation that truly fits the facts, one that makes us all go, “Oh yeah!” and set this thing aside.

So that we can go back to considering Nikki Haley on her merits. That way, I think South Carolina comes out ahead.

Nikki up by 20 before the bombshell

This just in from the Nikki Haley campaign:

Nikki Takes 20 Point Lead

Friends,

Last week, I reached out with the news that Nikki had taken a double-digit lead in the polls.  Well, today we have even better news – another independent poll shows that lead has grown to more than 20 points!

Here are the results:

Nikki Haley – 39%

Henry McMaster – 18%

Gresham Barrett – 16%

Andre Bauer – 13%

We’ve also released our new tv ad, “Possible,” which started running statewide this morning.  The people of this state are rising up against the status quo, the momentum is on our side, and this ad seeks to capture the same energy and excitement that has helped to catapult Nikki to the top of the polls.  Watch it here.

This campaign has always been about the people, always been about building a movement from the ground up. That movement is taking off, and it’s thanks to each and every one of you.

We have a huge lead, and with that lead comes an equally huge target.  The determined efforts to make this campaign about anything and everything other than our fight to bring South Carolina government back to the people are already going on.  That’s no surprise.  But we will keep fighting, and ask that you join us.  Your contributions mean more now than they ever have before.

My very best,

Tim Pearson

Campaign Manager

The poll to which this refers is by Public Policy Polling. You’ll find that outfit’s release here. As it notes, the poll was in the field over the weekend, before all the gossip exploded. I’m not sure how credible it is, as it has Vincent Sheheen in a “tight race” with Jim Rex. But make of it what you will.

Also, note the whiny tone of persecution in the Haley release, as she more and more remakes herself in Sarah “Everybody’s Picking On Me” Palin’s image.

Talk about a sleazy story taking on a life of its own…

Here are links to some of the things being written today as a result of one SC blogger essentially saying of a female candidate, “Yeah, I tapped that.” (What, you know of a classier way to put it? Please share, because I’m at a loss as we all go swirling down the flushing toilet together in this sordid mess.):

Yes, the Wonkette. And ironically, the much-maligned (by me) Wonkette actually tries to responsibly answer the question, “Who should we trust?” (which of course should be “whom,” but why quibble?) and turns to my staid old newspaper to get the scoop on said blogger. Which is just weird. This disgusting mess is weird on so many levels…

By the way, Howard Kurtz shows he really doesn’t know South Carolina when he writes:

A year ago South Carolina wouldn’t have even been in the top half of my list of states with the craziest politics. But in the interim a lot has happened, and South Carolina is now in my top 10 and after this morning’s developments it’s making a strong bid for top 5.

I feel like he’s dissing us suggesting there might be four other states vying as hard as we are to be an insane asylum.

We are in a class by ourselves.

Having Palin weigh in is no way to win points

Man oh man, there’s just no ignoring this loathsome story, as everyone gets in on the act:

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS/AP) – Nikki Haley took to the airwaves Monday afternoon to “emphatically” deny a political blogger and former Sanford aide’s claim that he had a romantic relationship with the Republican gubernatorial candidate in 2007….
… The Columbia Free Times has “been investigating a story involving an alleged affair between Haley and Folks for several weeks,” and on Monday cited an unnamed source who claimed Folks privately admitted the affair in 2009. “Furthermore, the source … says former Haley staffer B.J. Boling told him Haley had confided in him about the affair around the time Boling was working on her House reelection campaign in 2008,” the Free Times reported.

State Republican Party Chairwoman Karen Floyd criticized the media for covering the story at all, saying in a statement, “South Carolinians deserve a higher level of political discourse than this, and they frankly deserve a press corps that focuses on real, substantive issues rather than on Internet rumor mongering.” Palin also lambasted the “lamestream media” as she defended Haley on Facebook Monday afternoon.

“I’ve been there,” Palin wrote. “Any lies told about you will strengthen your resolve to clean up political and media corruption. You and your supporters will grow stronger through things like this.”

Clue for Sarah Palin: The Free Times is NOT the MSM. It may be a lot of things, good and bad, but it’s not that. I suppose she’s color-blind in that range. But then, she doesn’t read a lot, I hear…

If y’all want to discuss it, here’s a place to do it

Just to acknowledge the unsavory thing buzzing around on Twitter and the Web this morning (which Doug Ross brings up obliquely on a previous post) — now that the MSM has bowed to the inevitable and reported on it — I provide this place for you to discuss the implications.

I’m not going to mention the particulars. You can find them here, more or less.

Personally, I just hate the fact that I even heard about it. Something like this is to news what “Inglourious Basterds” is to cinema.

Rasmussen has Sheheen leading

The same pollster who reported Nikki Haley leading the Republicans now has Vincent Sheheen out front for the first time in his bid for the Democratic nomination for governor:

State Senator Vincent Sheheen has now opened a modest lead over two other hopefuls in the Democratic Primary contest for governor of South Carolina with less than three weeks to go. But nearly one-out-of-three primary voters remain undecided.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Democratic Primary Voters in South Carolina finds Sheheen with 30% support, closely followed by State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex with 22%. State Senator Robert Ford trails with four percent (4%) of the vote.

Twelve percent (12%) prefer some other candidate in the race, with another 32% undecided.

In March in Rasmussen Reports’ only previous survey of the primary race, Sheheen and Rex were tied at 16% apiece, with Ford at 12%. Thirty-seven percent (37%) were undecided at that time.

This, of course, is what I’ve been saying here for some time, although I had little to go by other than his leading in fund-raising and my gut — and the fact that Jim Rex seems to have dropped off the radar screen. I’d try to sell him an ad to give him a boost, but at this point I’d feel a little guilty taking his money. But only a little guilty.

I’d had a similar gut feeling about Nikki. Rasmussen seems to be working full-time to confirming my gut impressions.

Court rules those pro-Haley ads must go

This just in:

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – A South Carolina judge has ordered a political group spending heavily to promote Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley to pull its television ads supporting her campaign.

Spartanburg County Judge James M. Hayes issued the order Wednesday at the request of Haley primary opponent U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett and three donors to ReformSC….

Did you see that coming? I didn’t. I sort of thought the Mark Sanford allies at ReformSC were going to keep getting away with pumping $400,000 into Nikki’s campaign.

As for the legal issues involved, here’s an excerpt from an earlier story by The State‘s John O’Connor:

A rival of Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley said television ads featuring the state representative and purchased by an outside group might violate state election laws.

Terry Sullivan, campaign adviser to gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett, said the campaign is studying whether the ads, featuring Haley and her signature issue of roll-call voting in the Legislature, violate state election laws. The chairman of the group running the ads, ReformSC, said he was “very comfortable” with their content….

Third-party advertising, such as that by ReformSC, a 501(c)(4) educational nonprofit, is a gray area in politics. Such groups are limited in what they can say about candidates, with a distinction drawn around ads using so-called “magic words” such as “vote for” or “vote against.” Those rules have been clouded by recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including a 2007 decision involving a Wisconsin right-to-life group. That decision requires issue ads “take no position on a candidate’s character, qualifications, or fitness for office,” among other requirements.

Such third-party groups are also forbidden from coordinating with campaigns.

ReformSC chairman Pat McKinney said the group has followed its attorney’s advice, and that the Haley campaign was not aware the group was filming or airing the ads. Haley spokesman Tim Pearson said the campaign did not know of the ads, or that the tea party rally was being filmed. Haley’s appearance at the rally had been advertised for several weeks.

On the other hand, these are NOT the kinds of ads you want to see from one who would be governor

Yesterday, I praised Henry McMaster for his latest campaign ad. Yeah, the praise was pretty damned faint, and I disagreed strongly with a great deal of what he was saying, but at least it was done with a tone and attitude that made you feel good about South Carolina — or at least got the impression that Henry felt good about South Carolina. And that’s too rare these days from our friends in the GOP.

Take, for instance, the pair of videos unveiled today by the Nikki Haley and Gresham Barrett campaigns.

We have Nikki labeling her rivals with the GOP cusswords “Bailouts,” “Stimulus spending” and “Career politicians” — about as neat a job of giving opponents short shrift as I’ve ever seen (as if those terms sum up the totality of who these men are) — before going on to say, in that hagiographic way she has, that SHE is the one true “conservative.” Whatever the hell that word means anymore. (It certainly doesn’t mean what it did when I was coming up.)

Then we have Gresham Barrett promising to be the meanest of all to illegal immigrants (the scoundrels!), and pass “a common-sense Arizona law.”

Sorry, folks, but neither of these glimpses of your values or your attitudes toward the world in general make me feel good about the idea of you being my governor. Not that you’re trying to please me, I realize; but that’s all I have to go by…

Yes, Henry, THAT’s the way you do it…

… you play the guitar on the M-T-V…

Oops, got off track there. Wrong video.

What I meant to do was applaud Henry McMaster for a positive campaign ad, which helps remove the bad taste from some of his Obama-and-his-allies-are-dangerous-radicals approach of late.

I don’t agree with everything Henry’s saying in this ad, titled “It’s time to show the world what South Carolina can do”:

I have a plan to put South Carolina back on the Path to Prosperity. We’ll grow small business with lower taxes and less regulation. Encourage innovation and recruit high paying jobs in emerging industries. Expand our ports and open our economic door to the world. Improve education with choice, accountability and higher standards. It’s time to show the world what South Carolina can do!

… especially the idea that “choice” is the very first thing our schools need. Or that “lower taxes and less regulation,” while laudable in themselves, will substitute for building the workforce that businesses want and providing the basic societal infrastructure they need. But what I like here is that Henry’s talking about SC presenting a positive face to the world (for a change), instead of making us look like the wacky extremists that too many think we are already.

He’s talking about what he’s FOR, rather than trying to resonate with negative people about what they’re against.

Good one, Henry!

How many Palin/Haley fans WERE there Friday?

Since the event on Friday, a number of people have raised the following question: How many people showed up for the Sarah Palin/Nikki Haley rally?

Well, gee, I don’t know. But I do think the published reports were off.

Here’s an e-mail I received from a reader:

Dear Brad,

It was good to read your post after you attended the Haley/Palin rally.  At a party tonight we were discussing the fact that the majority of us had heard on WIS TV and other TV news programs that 150 people attended the rally – none of us had.  But the State newspaper today said there were over 1,000 people at the rally – now that is a rather large discrepancy in the numbers.  Since you attended I am hoping you can clear up this question – the larger or smaller crowd?  I looked on Youtube but no video from the rally and The State’s video only shows a close up of Palin without a crowd shot.  Thanks for your time reading my e-mail.

Hope you are well.

We miss you at The State – we miss a lot from The State now.  Monday’s paper is laughable.

Here’s how I responded to that:

Thanks for reading. I think it was between those two numbers. I think 1,000 is too high, and I’m pretty sure 150 is too low. But I’ve learned from long experience that crowds are notoriously hard to estimate.

I told my wife last night that it was 300 or 400, but that was just a guess…

And that’s about as much as I know. All I know is that it was a very enthusiastic crowd. And from where I was standing, I couldn’t even see the protesters that featured so prominently in news reports. Others who were there were certainly aware of them, to the extent that Sarah Palin addressed them — but I couldn’t tell whether that was because they were actually so noticeable, or because she thrives on persecution by political opponents; it’s part of her idiom. Perspective — where one stands or sits and what can be seen or heard from there — is everything. I failed to do what I usually do at such events — get up on the steps and look down for an overview — partly because the people I was wedged behind had indicated that they would DEEPLY resent anyone who squeezed in front of them (some folks who had brought lawn chairs and camped out, and had a profound sense of entitlement as a result — they were, as Tea Partiers tend to be, very cranky about it).

Fortunately, Anne McQuary, a former photographer with the state, had done the usual thing, and had gotten a shot of a significant portion of the crowd. You can see it above. I asked Anne whether I could use it here, and she said yes, but only if I posted something else with it, because she regarded the crowd picture as boring. Hence the picture below. But for a better sense of Anne’s talents, check out her blog. I really liked some of the shots she got on the periphery of the crowd (including some of those protesters). Also, there’s her main business website.

By the way, Anne said she and her husband — whom she described as a “huge Palin fan” — estimated the crowd at between 300 and 500. I think they were right.

What’s the difference between ugly good ol’ boy populism and Palin/Haley populism? Lipstick.

Sorry not to be forthcoming with a post on the Sarah Palin/Nikki Haley event last evening. I’ve been too busy — my baby granddaughter spent the night with us last night, my youngest daughter came home from Charlotte and my wife and I had a lot of errands to run this morning (including, alas, taking her car in for several hundred dollars worth of repairs).

So I was living life instead of blogging. But I should add that I was glad I couldn’t post right away, because I’ve been… depressed… since that event. As I’ve turned over what to say about it in my minds (I almost corrected that to the singular after typing the S, but then realized that plural is correct; I am of several minds on all this), I’ve been unable to think of anything constructive to say. And even when I’m going to be scathingly critical of something, I want it to be for a purpose. I want there to be a constructive point in mind, something to add to a conversation that would help us all move forward somehow.

But I haven’t arrived. Instead, I’m feeling a level of alienation that would make Benjamin Braddock and Holden Caulfield seem happy and well-adjusted.

Part of it, but just a small part, is this problem I’ve been wrestling with of my increased sense of alienation from Republicans in general. I don’t like it; it runs against my grain. To react with constant negativity to Republicans and all their works suggest partisanship, an affinity for Democrats, to most people. Not to me — Lord knows, I still find the Democrats off-putting enough, and am still pleased not to identify with them either — but to other people. And when you write a blog, how you are perceived by others matters. But I can’t help it. While the Dems are merely no more irritating than usual these days, the Republicans have so aggressively, actively offended my sense of propriety and my intelligence as they have flailed about since the 2008 election, that even tiny things set me off now. I no longer have to see one of those maddening TV commercials — like the two I saw last night, Andre Bauer talking first and foremost about the need for smaller government (as if THAT were the main problem facing a state that’s laying off teachers left and right) and Henry McMaster talking about the “radicals” running Washington (as if that were any less crazy than the claims of the birthers). Now, just small things send me deeper into my funk. This morning I saw a sign for a candidate who had only one thing to say about himself, that he was a “Rock Solid… Republican” — as though that identification were sufficient, that reassurance that I am not one of them; I’m one of us. The sheer, obnoxious, impervious smugness of it…

(If I were a Democrat, I wouldn’t worry about this. They can console themselves with the fantasy that all they have to do is win the election, and their troubles are over. I’m always conscious of the fact that as many as 40 percent of voters would still be Republicans — just as between 30 and 40 percent are Democrats now, even with a Republican governing majority — and you’d still have to deal with them and reason with them if you really want to move our state forward. Especially in our Legislative State, you sort of have to build consensus to get things done. So when either party seems to be trying to drift beyond reason — say, when Dems were in the grips of Bush Derangement Syndrome — that worries me.)

But the alienation I’m feeling standing in that crowd of Haley and Palin supporters is different. Partly because these women aren’t positioning themselves as Republicans. On the contrary, they are relishing their animosity toward the people in their party who already hold a majority of public offices in this state. They are proud to antagonize and run against those Republicans with greater experience and understanding than they have. They turn their inexperience and lack up understanding of issues from a weakness into a virtue. Their fans cheer loudest when they hold up their naivete as a battle flag.

A little over a year ago, Nikki Haley was just an idealistic sophomore legislator who was touchingly frustrated that her seniors in her party didn’t roll over and do what she wanted them to do when she wanted them to do it. It didn’t really worry me when I would try to explain to her how inadequate such bumper sticker nostrums as “run government like a business” were (based in a lack of understanding of the essential natures not only of government, but of business, the thing she professes to know so well), and she would shake her head and smile and be unmoved. That was OK. Time and experience would take care of that, I thought. She was very young, and had experienced little. Understanding would come, and I felt that on the whole she was still a young lawmaker with potential.

I reckoned without this — this impatient, populist, drive for power BASED in the appeal of simplistic, demagogic opposition to experience itself. It’s an ugly thing, this sort of anti-intellectualism of which Sarah Palin has become a national symbol. This attitude that causes her to smile a condescending, confident smile (after all, the crowd there is on HER side) at protesters — protesters I didn’t even notice until she called attention to them — and tell them that they should stick around and maybe they would learn something. If a 65-year-old male intellectual with a distinguished public career said that to a crowd, everyone would understand it was ugly and contemptuous. But Sarah is so charming about it, so disarming! How could it be ugly?

Her evocations — echoed by Nikki — of traditional, plain values (and complementary exhibition of contempt for anyone who disagrees) seem so positive and good and right to the crowd that cheers such lines as Nikki’s about how good it is that traditional politicians are “afraid” (which, coming from different lips, would send a chill down spines). They don’t see the ugliness. After all, see how lovely the package is! See how they smile!

The thing is, I probably agree with these people about so much that they are FOR — traditional moral values, hard work, family, patriotism. And mine isn’t your left-handed liberal kind of patriotism (you know, as in “I oppose the war and criticize my country because I’m a REAL patriot,” etc.). No, in fact, my own kind of patriotism is probably even more martial and militaristic than that of these folks, if that’s possible, given my background. And I would never take a back seat to any of them in my belief in American exceptionalism. I may not like the smug way they talk about these things, but the values are there.

It’s the stuff that they’re AGAINST that leaves me cold. Paying taxes. Government itself. Moderation. Patience with people who disagree. Experience. Deep understanding of issues. They are hostile  to these things.

And their certainty, their smugness, is off-putting in the extreme.

But as I stood there in that crowd and listened to the cheers at almost every questionable statement those smiling ladies muttered, I despaired of ever being able to explain any of this to these folks, of ever having a meeting of the minds. It’s THEIR alienation that makes me feel so alienated…

And that’s what has me down. I hope it will pass. But it wasn’t a good way to spend a Friday evening.