Category Archives: Elections

The new ‘American Party’s’ slate of candidates for 2014

6 Replies

I talked with Oscar Lovelace over the weekend, and he was pretty pumped that the new party he and Jim Rex have started is now fielding its first candidates. Here’s a release about that that the American Party sent out this afternoon:

The American Party is proud and excited to introduce our four candidates for office this year!

 

Jill Bossi – candidate for U.S. Senate (Tim Scott’s unexpired term seat).
Ed Murray – candidate for Superintendent of Education.
Emile DeFelice – candidate for Commissioner of Agriculture.
Donna McGreevy – candidate for State House (District 74 – Columbia).

 

These four outstanding candidates will carry the American Party’s banner into the November General Election.

 

We would like to introduce them over the next few days beginning with Jill Bossi….

JILL BOSSI ANNOUNCES CANDIDACY

 FOR U.S. SENATE

American Party candidate seeks to end political gridlock  

 

 

(Tega Cay, SC)…Saying “enough is enough, it’s time to put an end to the political extremism and gridlock in Washington”, Jill Bossi today announced her candidacy for the United States Senate.

 

Bossi, who served as the former Vice President of the American Red Cross, has never run for office and is seeking the Senate seat now held by Tim Scott who was appointed to that position early last year.jill bossi logo composite

 

“The politicians in Washington haven’t passed a budget for our country in over six years and they haven’t provided a balanced budget since 2001. This is not the way to run a business or a family…let alone a country. Something has to change”, said Bossi.

 

Bossi chose to run as an American Party candidate because she believes in the Party’s core principles; Putting an end to career politicians by passing term limits; Governing more from the center instead of the political extremes; Holding elected officials accountable to higher ethical standards and greater transparency; And increasing the economic global competitiveness of our state and nation.

 

“Many have forgotten that our Founding Fathers created a government ‘Of the people, by the people, and for the people’. I want to end the stalemate and make government work again for our country. By putting ‘America First’ over party and politics, we can begin solving problems instead of creating them”, said Bossi.

 

Bossi also said her priorities include…focusing on finding smarter solutions to jump start our economy and putting Americans back to work, passing comprehensive tax reform for individuals and companies by simplifying the tax code, and making healthcare more affordable without invasive government regulations. 

 

As the former Vice President and Chief Procurement Officer for The American Red Cross. Mrs. Bossi was responsible for managing all Supply Chain and Travel related services for the organization. While at The American Red Cross, Mrs. Bossi redesigned the supply chain, implemented new policies and procedures, streamlined the purchase of goods and services by the organization across the Red Cross’ entire footprint in the United States and its seven territories. These changes resulted in millions of dollars in savings for the Red Cross; enabling better stewardship of donor dollars.

 

Prior to her work for the Red Cross, Mrs. Bossi was the Senior Vice President and Sourcing Executive for Global Commercial Banking and Global Wealth Management at Bank of America. While at Bank of America Mrs. Bossi was instrumental in the redesign of the entire supply chain management function for the Bank.

 

During her career, Mrs. Bossi has also served as Vice President of Strategic Sourcing for Experian North America, one of the three largest credit-reporting agencies in the U.S., as Director of G&A Procurement for Verizon Wireless. Mrs. Bossi has held senior supply management roles with companies as diverse as Packard Bell NEC, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Lorimar Studios and Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios. She holds a BS in Business Management and has been published in many supply chain journals and publications.

 

Jill and her husband Richard have been married for 16 years, live in Tega Cay, SC and together they have four children and four grandchildren. Jill attends Grace Presbyterian Church in Fort Mill.

 

 

Visit Jill’s website at: www.bossi4senate.com.

So congratulations to the new party. Although I’m a little disappointed that they’re not fielding candidates in the races where partisanship is most insidious. I would have liked to see them putting someone up to oppose Jim Clyburn and Joe Wilson. Those are two examples of the “safe districts” partisans draw for themselves and their friends (the Republicans who draw the districts are happy to create the super-Democratic district for Clyburn, because that enables them to draw six very safe GOP districts — that is to say, one super-black district yields six super-white ones).

Not that a challenger would have had much of a chance. It just would have been nice to see.

Oscar told me they came very close to putting up an opponent for Wilson in the 2nd, but it just didn’t happen…

I wonder why Hutto isn’t running against Scott instead of Graham?

26 Replies

This just in:

Brad Hutto announces run for U.S. Senate

“Washington, D.C. is broken – and it is time for new leadership in Washington, our current leaders have become part of the problem,” says Hutto

 Orangeburg lawyer and State Senator Brad Hutto announced that he has filed to run for the U.S. Senate seat currently occupied by Lindsay Graham.  Hutto, a Democrat, represents parts of Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Colleton, Hampton, and Orangeburg counties in the state legislature.Brad Hutto

In announcing his candidacy, Hutto set his sights on Congressional gridlock. “Washington is broken, and we need someone from outside of the Beltway to help improve life for South Carolinians.  We send billions of tax dollars to D.C. every year yet we have crumbling roads, failing schools, and struggling rural communities to show for it. And both sides are to blame.”

While serving in the State Senate, Hutto received a 100% rating from the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce for his pro-business record.  In the Senate, Hutto often leads the fight to improve schools, promote renewable energy options, and protect our natural resources.  Hutto is often in the forefront of causes to insure the individual rights and liberties of all.  He is known for his commitment to children and is an active member of the South Carolina Joint Citizens and Legislative Committee on Children.

“We need a leader in the Senate who will spend more time talking to folks in Barnwell, Bishopville, and Beaufort than appearing on Sunday morning talk shows.  I will focus on job creation with special emphasis on rural South Carolina,” said Hutto.  “We need to require our overseas allies to accept a larger role in their own security so that we can start refocusing attention on rebuilding roads and schools in our own country.”

Recent polling highlights Graham’s vulnerability, with polls consistently showing that even Republican primary voters – where he should be strongest – have reservations about his extended tenure in D.C. 

Hutto lives in Orangeburg with his wife of 28 years, Tracy, a pediatrician.  His son Skyler is a student at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law.  Hutto graduated from the Honors College at the University of South Carolina and received his law degree from Georgetown University.  Hutto, an Eagle Scout, is a Past President of the Boy Scouts’ Indian Waters Council that serves South Carolina’s midlands region, and he remains active with Scouting on many levels.

www.BradHutto.com

###

My first thought in reading the headline was, OK, so maybe Tim Scott will have some opposition in the general.

Then I saw that he’s running for Graham’s seat. Which doesn’t make sense. He cites this as his reasoning:

Recent polling highlights Graham’s vulnerability, with polls consistently showing that even Republican primary voters – where he should be strongest – have reservations about his extended tenure in D.C.

Which is just kind of inside-out partisan thinking. Yes, Hutto is one of the more enthusiastic partisans on the Democratic side in the Legislature. But it really takes a particularly simplistic, dualistic view of the politcal world to say, “even Republicans… have reservations” about Graham. “Even” Republicans? Republicans are the people Graham has trouble with. Not Democrats, particularly. Certainly not independents. Assuming Graham can secure his renomination — and he most likely will, after some discomfort — he’s going to blow past anyone who opposes him in the general as though that hapless individual is standing still.

Is this not obvious to everyone?

Why is everybody and his brother lining up to run against Graham — “even” Democrats? While Scott gets a relative free ride, in terms of not having anyone opposing him likely to make him break a sweat.

It’s weird…

That’s not the first example I think of, Henry

8 Replies

I was just now looking back at the press release from yesterday announcing Henry McMaster’s entry into the contest for lieutenant governor:

McMaster Files for Lt. Gov.
For Immediate Release                                                                           March 27, 2014
Contact:  Adam Fogle @ 803-394-3006
 
COLUMBIA, SC — Former S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster officially filed Thursday as a Republican candidate for Lt. Governor.  In an online video announcement McMaster said, “For this job, experience really does matter.”
 
In addition to serving eight years as Attorney General, McMaster gained national attention when President Ronald Reagan chose him as his first U.S. Attorney.  In that job, McMaster led a crackdown on corruption and drug trafficking.  He later became State Republican Party Chairman and led the SCGOP through a period of historic growth.
 
With a strong record in both the public and private sectors, McMaster said he brings to the race “a unique mix of experience and proven results.”  In announcing his decision to offer as a candidate for Lt. Governor, McMaster issued the following statement:
 

Experience Matters

“The next four years will be critical to our state’s political, economic and cultural future.  I love South Carolina and I want to help create a future of progress and prosperity.
 
“As Lt. Governor, I plan to be a strong voice for conservative reform in State government.  I’ll be ready on day one to preside over the work of the State Senate.  It takes experience in State government and knowledge of the law to do a good job.
 
“After four years of Barack Obama, I think we’ve learned that on-the-job-training is not always a good idea.  For the job of Lt. Governor, qualifications really matter.
 
“I’m also ready to address the growing challenges faced by our state’s seniors and adults with disabilities.  At the present rate, South Carolina’s senior population will double by the year 2030.
 
“I’ve discussed this issue in detail with my friend Glenn McConnell, our current Lt. Governor.  He is making wonderful progress in developing plans and strategies to deal with the aging crisis.  And I am prepared to follow in his footsteps.
 
“Finally, I’m ready to work with Governor Haley and the conservative leaders of the State Legislature to protect taxpayers, grow our economy, create new jobs and build a tomorrow we can all be proud of.
 
“That’s why I’m running as a conservative Republican for Lt. Governor and I ask for your support.”
 
The Republican Primary will be held Tuesday, June 10.  Learn more about Henry McMaster atHenryMcMaster.com.  View the entire video announcement on YouTube.
-30-

Did you catch that non sequitur about the president? “After four years of Barack Obama…” (On his website, by the way, he says somewhat more accurately, “After nearly six years of Barack Obama…)

As criticism of POTUS goes, of course, that’s fairly mild stuff. His inexperience was one of the things that kept me in the John McCain camp in our 2008 endorsement. So, fair observation there.

But hey — what does it have to do with running for lieutenant governor? You’d think he’d compare himself to his opponents for the nomination, not to Republicans’ favorite national whipping boy. (Yeah, I know how this plays in the GOP base. But I have to wonder: Doesn’t anyone in that base ever go, “Hey, wait a minute. What does this have to do with Obama?”)

Here we go again, y’all. I thought Henry was easily the best of the GOP field for governor last time around. But one thing kept me from feeling good about his candidacy: His over-the-top — I mean, “over-the-top” by the standards of reasonable folk; not “over-the-top” by, say, Tea Party standards — attempts to nationalize the campaign. Remember the ad in which he promised to protect us from Obama and his Washington “vultures”?

Speaking of Tea Party standards…

If he were really concerned about on-the-job training, don’t you think the first politician who would come to mind would be someone closer to home — say, our governor, who had three terms as a House backbencher and no known managerial experience before becoming our chief executive?

But Henry would never do that. Henry has been remarkably loyal in his support of the governor ever since she beat him for the nomination in 2010. The State today talked about how Henry is one of three candidates for Gov Lite who have “ties” to the governor. But Henry is the one she owes, the one who has swallowed every ounce of pride to be her cheerleader, and give her countenance among business types and party regulars.

Sheheen is officially running

7 Replies

This release came in a few minutes ago:

Sheheen files for office, pledges leadership and accountability for South Carolina
Columbia, SC – Today Sen. Vincent Sheheen officially filed to run for Governor of South Carolina in 2014, pledging to bring honest leadership and real accountability to the governor’s office and work across the aisle to deliver results for the people of South Carolina.
“We need honest leadership and real accountability to improve public education, grow our economy from within, and rebuild our roads and bridges to create a better future for South Carolina,” said Sen. Sheheen. “More importantly, we need leaders who will work with both parties to get things done, but aren’t afraid to stand up to either party to do what’s right. That’s the experience and vision we’re bringing to the people of South Carolina so that, together, we can change the way this state does business once and for all.”
Sen. Sheheen announced his intention to run in for governor again last April and has since traveled around the state meeting with small business owners, teachers, women and hardworking families to listen to the challenges they face and discuss his vision for a brighter future for South Carolina.
“Under Nikki Haley, there’s been no accountability, no results – just failures of leadership and incompetence,” Sheheen continued. “The people of South Carolina deserve a government that works and works for them. And when government doesn’t, they don’t need excuses, they deserve action and results. It’s time for new leadership.”
In the past three years, South Carolina’s families have been repeatedly hurt and exposed to threats because of the incompetence of Nikki Haley and her administration:
  • a hacking at the Dept of Revenue allowed 3.5 million people’s Social Security number to be stolen, Nikki Haley covered it up for 16 days.
  • a TB outbreak at a public school that Nikki Haley’s administration covered up for two months, refusing to tell parents that their kids were being exposed to tuberculosis everyday at school.
  • children dying and being repeatedly put at risk because of the Haley administration’s focus on getting their numbers down at the Dept of Social Services left at risk kids in abusive homes and dangerous situations.
  • hardworking families are struggling and the economy continues to lag with falling wages, declining average income, and a staggering drop in the workforce as people give up looking for work.
  • small businesses are stuck at the back of the line as Nikki Haley’s focus on only recruiting big out-of-state businesses stacks the deck against them and forces them to pay the highest commercial property taxes in the country.
  • South Carolina remains first in the nation for women killed by men while Nikki Haley vetoed fining for rape crisis centers. And women have an especially hard time achieving economic success, as South Carolina makes no effort at achieving equal pay for equal work.
“The test of leadership is not how you act when things go right, it’s how you act when things go wrong,” said Sen Sheheen “South Carolina deserves a leader who will be honest with people, take responsibility for failures, and demand accountability from their administration to deliver results from people of South Carolina. It’s time to end the cover-ups and excuses, and instead present a vision for the future and work to bring people together to achieve results. That’s how I have always worked, and it’s a belief and work ethic I will bring to the Governor’s office.”
Senator Sheheen laid out his vision for a more prosperous future for South Carolina based on honest leadership and real accountability:
  • universal, voluntary 4-year-old kindergarten to increase access to public education and get the most bang for the buck
  • improve learning by treating teachers like professionals, and raising teacher pay to the national average to attract and keep quality teachers in the classroom
  • build South Carolina’s economy from within by focusing on small businesses and supporting them just as much as businesses recruited from out of state.
  • restore South Carolina’s roads and bridges to improve safety for families and build infrastructure for businesses to get the state economy moving.
  • appoint competent leaders and demand accountability when things go wrong.
Vincent Sheheen ran against Gov. Haley in 2010, in one of the closest gubernatorial races in the country, narrowly losing by just 4.5 points in a wave year for Republicans. The most recent statewide polling shows Nikki Haley’s approval numbers stuck in the low 40s and the 2014 match-up between Haley and Sheheen as a dead heat.
Read more about his ideas for South Carolina at www.vincentsheheen.com and in his book, The Right Way: Getting the Palmetto State Back on Track.
###

Clyburn prepares to slide easily into 12th term

11 Replies

Since his office decided to make a thing of it, I thought I’d share, and give Doug a chance to tee off on his term-limits thing:

James E. Clyburn Files for His 12th Term in the U.S. House of Representatives 

Columbia, SC – On Monday, March 17th, Congressman James E. Clyburn filed for his 12th term in the U.S. House of Representatives. Congressman Clyburn was first elected in 1992 and assumed office in January 1993. He currently serves in leadership as the Assistant Democratic Leader.

“I am honored to seek a 12th term in the U.S. House of Representatives in the South Carolina Sixth District. I have always sought to put principles above politics and service above self. I believe working men and women deserve a raise in the minimum wage, and Congress needs to work towards comprehensive immigration reform, and protecting everyone’s right to vote,” Congressman Jim Clyburn said. “I’m honored to serve the people of South Carolina and the Sixth Congressional District and look forward to continuing my service.

The Primary Election is on June 10, while the General Election will be held on November 4.

Website: www.clyburnforcongress.com
Twitter: ClyburnSC06

Actually, the number surprised me for a second, because I so easily remember when he wasn’t in Congress. But yeah, I guess it was the early ’90s…

And of course, since the main purpose of reapportionment in South Carolina is creating safe seats for Republicans, he will hold this seat as long as he likes. Because the way to create several safe Republican seats is to create one super-safe seat for a Democrat, and he has always been the beneficiary of that math.

Anyway, to celebrate the landmark, I thought you might enjoy watching him and Steny Hoyer doing the Electric Slide, at one of his fish fries few years back….

So are you truly, unambiguously going to support this guy?

29 Replies

This is a good day to be Nancy Mace or Det Bowers. Because they are the only two of the crowd of people running against Lindsey Graham in the GOP primary who did not just sign a pledge to support the guy who called the senator “ambiguously gay.”

Here’s the money quote, which caused enough of a splash that Chris Cillizza of The Fix retweeted me when I mentioned it yesterday, leading to 17 other retweets and 8 favorites:

Feliciano said, “It’s about time that South Carolina (says) hey, We’re tired of the ambiguously gay senator from South Carolina. We’re ready for a new leader to merge the Republican Party. We’re done with this. This is what it’s about, all of us coming together and saying, one way or the other, one of us is going to be on that ballot in November.”

It was said by the (formerly) most obscure of the candidates, the suddenly-famous Dave Feliciano of Spartanburg, at a presser in which he and three others — Bill Connor, Lee Bright and Richard Cash — signed a pledge promising to support any one of their number who gets into a runoff with Graham.

Dave Feliciano, in an image from his campaign website.

Dave Feliciano, in an image from his campaign website.

Put another way, Bill Connor, Lee Bright and Richard Cash just pledged to support Dave Feliciano over Lindsey Graham.

Just when you thought they couldn’t take ideology far enough…

After the presser, Connor and Cash both denounced Feliciano’s characterization of the senator, but both confirmed they would still stick to the pledge, according to The State. Bright reportedly left the event before Feliciano spoke, which shows he’s not named “Bright” for nothing.

I wrote to Bill Connor via Facebook a few minutes ago to ask him again, “would you really support this Feliciano guy over Sen. Graham?” Because I still find that hard to believe. But then, I find the attitude of the kinds of Republicans who would oppose Graham sort of hard to believe, so this is not surprising.

Sheheen didn’t say ‘War on Women,’ for which I’m grateful

10 Replies

For those who weary of Vincent Sheheen criticizing Nikki Haley and not making enough positive statements about what he would do as governor (and I’m kinda one of those), this release should be welcome:

Sheheen Releases Women’s Agenda, Launches Statewide Roundtable Discussions
Gubernatorial candidate lays out plan to ensure equal pay for equal work, stop violence against women, & support women-owned small businesses
Camden, SC. – Today, Sen. Vincent Sheheen released his plan of leadership for women in South Carolina, after recently launching a statewide series of roundtables to discuss the challenges that women and their families face in the Palmetto State.
Sen. Sheheen’s Women’s Agenda includes immediate steps that he will begin work on in the State Senate as well as action he would take as Governor of South Carolina to support equal pay for equal work, reduce violence against women, grow women-owned small businesses, and restore common sense and accountability to government through honest leadership.
Throughout the month of March, Sen. Sheheen is holding a series of roundtable discussions with women to discuss these policy initiatives and listen to their stories. The statewide roundtable tour kicked off in Spartanburg and Rock Hill on March 8th and will include stops in Columbia, Myrtle Beach, Charleston, Greenville and Aiken over the next three weeks.
View Sen. Sheheen’s Women’s Agenda as well as his other ideas for how to improve leadership and accountability in South Carolina atwww.vincentsheheen.com. His book, “The Right Way: Getting the Palmetto State Back on Track” is free and also available online, here.
Equal Pay for Equal Work. Women are a key part of our state economy and our businesses, and whole families suffer when women do not get paid equally to men. However, wage disparity is alive and well in South Carolina. Nationally, women earn only $0.77 for every $1.00 that a man makes. There is anecdotal evident that it’s in our state it’s even worse. So it’s time for action.
Vincent’s plan of action: 
  • Call for an audit to examine the wages currently being paid to South Carolina’s state employees based on position and gender, to determine if female state employees are being compensated equally with their male counterparts for equal work
  • As governor issue an Executive Order requiring state employees to be paid equally for equal work.
  • Ensure state government sets a good example for the private sector on pay equity.
Stop Violence Against Women.  Violence against women is at an unacceptable level in South Carolina. We rank first in the nation in the number of women killed annually by men, and the rape rate in the state is higher than the national average. Yet, Nikki Haley vetoed funding for rape crisis centers and even referred to abused women as a “special interest group.” It’s time to be proactive in working to stop violence against women, and ensure that our laws are strong enough to hold abusers accountable.
Vincent’s plan of action:
  • Expand Domestic Abuse definition to include teenage relationships and protect women under 18
  • Increase penalties for those convicted of domestic abuse.
  • Protect vital funding for rape crisis centers and women’s shelters to provide safe havens for women and children.
  • Work with faith-based and non-profit organizations to improve partnership with government and amplify efforts to prevent violence against women.
Support Women-Owned Small Businesses. South Carolina is close to last in the nation with the percent of businesses owned by women. But it’s not a lack of talent. So what’s the problem? Under Nikki Haley, women face significant challenges in opening and growing their businesses, and have unique barriers to achieving the American dream here in South Carolina.
Vincent’s plan of action:
  • Support small businesses in-state as much as those we recruit from out-of-state.
  • Remove the barriers women face in starting up a business in S.C. by creating a Division of Entrepreneurship and encouraging small business investment.
  • Fully fund our state’s technical college system and streamline worker-training programs to improve women’s access to education and technical skills.
Demand Common Sense & Accountability in Government.  Women and families have been repeatedly hurt by the incompetence in government over the past four years. Nikki Haley’s administration hid a TB outbreak at a public school for two months before letting mothers know their children were being exposed. She covered up the Dept. of Revenue hacking for 16 days and put parents and their children at risk of identity theft for the rest of their lives. People deserve a government that works and works for them. And when government doesn’t, they don’t need excuses, they deserve action and results.
Vincent’s plan of action:
  • Appoint a diverse group of qualified leaders, and demand accountability from them.
  • Fully fund his Taxpayer Protection Fund to help those who suffer financial loss from the hacking.
  • Increase diversity on college boards and in leadership positions around the state to better represent women.
###

And I particularly appreciate it when a Democrat gets all the way through a release like that without saying “War on Women.” It shows admirable restraint.

Scoppe on elections commission: Excellent column on why a horrendous mess is worse than you thought

24 Replies

Cindi Scoppe did a good job this morning of telling us why the Richland County elections mess is even worse than we thought. An excerpt:

JUST WHEN you thought the mess that is the Richland County Board of Elections and Voter Registration couldn’t get any worse — never a safe assumption when we’re dealing with the spawns of the Legislative State — we learn that the temporary stay that had allowed the unconstitutional board to keep operating was lifted. In December.

Which means … well, that’s a good question.

It should mean that former commissioner Sam Selph is not interim director of the agency, because the board that last week appointed Mr. Selph had no legal authority to act.

For that matter, it should mean that Howard Jackson still is the director, because surely a board that has been declared unconstitutional would not take personnel actions of such magnitude.

It should mean that we have returned to thestatus quo ante — with separate boards running separate offices of elections and voter registration, with new commissioners who have the knowledge and capability and integrity to make legal hiring decisions and run legitimate elections.

But clearly the latter has not happened, and there’s a little glitch that makes far from clear when it can happen or what must happen on the other fronts. Which should surprise no one…. 

Ladies and gentlemen, this is very like a complete breakdown of government, one in which functions that are fundamental to our democracy have ceased to work, and no one is clearly in a position to fix the problem. Which is what you get when you let fundamental services be provided by cockeyed legislation unconstitutionally pushed into place by that bizarre hermaphroditic creature, the county legislative delegation.

As an addendum to her column, Cindi referred us to a previous piece she did last year about this mess — explaining the Power Failure, Legislative State roots of the problem — which concluded thusly:

The Legislative State might have served its purpose in the days when slaves picked cotton for the wealthy plantation owners whose interests it was crafted to serve. It might have worked a century ago, when the textile magnates controlled our government and could depend on it to provide those limited services that they needed. Maybe it even served its purpose in the ’50s, when South Carolina still could pretty much ignore the rest of the world, and government didn’t do a lot more than educate white people and pave roads for the industrialists and planters.

It does not serve its purpose, or our purpose, or anybody’s purpose today.

When things go well, it gives us state agencies that waste money and provide inferior services because they have overlapping mandates and don’t work together or even talk to each other. It hamstrings governors’ ability to deliver on the agenda the voters elected them to implement. It diverts state legislators’ attention from fixing our state’s problems, as they busy themselves delivering patronage and fixate on parochial matters that should be handled by local governments.

And when things don’t go well …. Well, then it gives us botched elections and identity theft on a massive scale and officials who lack the legal authority to make things right.

It’s time for a change.

That piece ran in 2012. Nothing has changed.Which is no surprise to those of us who’ve been writing about these problems for more than two decades.

RGA ad reminds us that real-life national politics is WAY stupider than ‘House of Cards’

21 Replies

Vincent Sheheen’s campaign is lashing back at the Republican Governor’s Association ads attacking him for supporting Medicaid expansion.

It is, as the Democrat says and The Washington Post has noted, bizarre for him to be attacked for that when the chairman of the RGA, Chris Christie, supports that part of the Affordable Care Act, too. As have other Republican governors.

Note the Democrats’ spoof of the RGA ad below.

But that’s not what is most remarkable about the original ad. What is most remarkable about it is just how unbelievably stupid it is. Rather than discuss the merits of Medicaid expansion and making whatever arguments it can come up with against the idea, the ad simply says “Obamacare” over and over and over and over.

Yes, we know that that one neologism sums up the entire national Republican strategy for 2014 (even more than it did in, let’s see, 2010 and 2012). Everything else — such as the crusade against spending that was once deemed so important that it was worth destroying the full faith and credit of the national government to fight — has been shoved aside for that.

But come on, people. Make an effort to form a coherent thought here.

Anyone trying to find a logical train of thought in this ad will likely get a headache instead. It opens, for instance, with “Well first, Sheheen supported much of Obamacare. But then, he refused to support the lawsuit to stop it.” The narrator’s voice drips with irony. But in what universe would there be a “but” joining those two thoughts? Why would anyone who supported much of a thing join in a lawsuit to stop it?

After that, anyone trying to think about the ad is sufficiently thrown off balance that he hardly has the attention span left to protest that the bit about “millions of families losing their health plans” has absolutely zero to do with what Sheheen favors, that it is in fact the opposite of what he favors, since he wants to expand coverage. And since when did Medicaid expansion cost jobs? I thought it was refusing to expand Medicaid that cost jobs. Wait a second…

But the ad is over. And all you’re left with is this echo of “Obamacare, Obamacare.”

Let’s give the people who made this ad some credit. Let’s assume they’re smart enough to know that the ad doesn’t make sense, that they’re just being stunningly cynical. But they certainly believe the rest of us are stupid enough to go along.

Now, finally… I said this ad was “remarkable” for its insult to our intelligence. But that was a poor choice of words. Most political ads are more or less this stupid.

Last night, I saw the last episode of the new season of “House of Cards.” This morning, I saw this ad. And I’m struck by how much stupider real-life national politics is than what is depicted on that show. Frank Underwood and his fellow plotters may be amoral, wicked, devious and manipulative. But at least they seem to be clever about it.

It’s hard to see any sign of anything remotely like cleverness or subtlety in the way politics is actually conducted in this country — particularly on the national level. Which is why it’s so offensive to see a state election such as this one nationalized. Again.

On Haley and Sheheen on the ethics bill

8 Replies

This could be a moment to pause and celebrate something. Not the ethics bill that passed the state Senate yesterday (I’ll let Cindi Scoppe tell you about its inadequacies, as she did in this column and this one), but the fact that both candidates for governor are vocal in calling it inadequate:

COLUMBIA, SC — An update to S.C. ethics laws – more than a year in the making – passed the state Senate on Thursday only to be blasted by Gov. Nikki Haley and her likely Democratic challenger for governor in November, state Sen. Vincent Sheheen, as not being good enough.

In particular, the two rivals faulted the proposal for not including an independent body to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by lawmakers.

“Let’s be clear, what the Senate passed tonight wasn’t ethics reform – it’s an income-disclosure bill, and while that’s a positive step forward, it’s really only a half-step,” Haley spokesman Doug Mayer said….

Unfortunately, there’s a sour note in this duet:

“Some reform is better than no reform, but this bill is pretty close to nothing,” Sheheen said, before turning his criticism toward Haley. “In order to have open and accountable government, we need full income disclosure, an independent body to investigate ethics violations, and to finally put an end to the governor’s continued misuse of the state plane and vehicles for campaign activities.”…

In defending Sheheen from criticism from our own Doug, I’ve said that a challenger needs to define what’s wrong with the incumbent, in order to give the voter reasons for replacing that incumbent.

But Doug has a point, and once again, Sheheen’s criticism of Haley is coming across as grating. I don’t know how much of it is the content, and how much of it is just a matter of this tone not being natural coming from Vincent Sheheen. This drip, drip, drip of talking points about Nikki feels like the work of consultants; it’s just not the way Vincent naturally speaks. He’s a more affable, get-along-with-people kind of guy.

It would be far better if Sheheen said something like this:

It may not always feel like it, especially when the Senate drops the ball this way on a needed reform, but we’re slowly making progress in South Carolina. Both the incumbent governor and I are taking the same position, which is that our state politicians need to be held to a higher ethical standard. When those who would lead this state are unanimous in calling for more ambitious reform, that’s progress; we’ve moved in the right direction. Now, you’ve heard me say in the past that the incumbent governor has through her own lapses helped illustrate why we need ethics reform. I stand by that, and the record stands for itself. If I thought she did everything right, I’d be voting for her instead of running against her. But today, I want to thank the governor for her leadership in trying to make sure lawmakers don’t commit such lapses in the future, and are held accountable if they do. Whatever she’s done in the past, she’s taking the right position on this now. And I will stand squarely beside her and help with the heavy lifting of trying to move us further forward, and pass real ethics reform. And if I am elected to replace her, I hope she will continue to support this effort. Because all of us who understand the problem — and I think both of us do now — need to work together to overcome the inertia of the status quo.

OK, that’s a little wordy — if I were writing a statement for him I’d tighten it up — but that’s the tone I think he should be striking…

Cumulative voting might be worth trying…

41 Replies

… but it’s not a complete cure to extremism in politics.

Michael Rodgers made a reference to Cindi Scoppe’s column earlier in the week advocating cumulative voting as a cure to the extremism that single-member districts tend to foster.

The problem is this: Lawmakers draw safe districts for themselves — or rather, for members of their own party. They draw them so safe that the general election becomes meaningless. The primary of the dominant party becomes the election. That puts the loudest, most passionate elements in that one party in the driver’s seat. From that point on, representatives who want to get elected are constantly kowtowing to the more extreme elements in their own party, and couldn’t care less about what moderates in their own party, or independents, and certainly not members of the opposition, want them to do.

And so we get entire bodies of elected officials — Congress being the most extreme example of the sickness — who are there not for the good of the country, but as agents of the most extreme elements in their respective parties. Instead of a deliberative process, you get a perpetual mudball fight, and government becomes dysfunctional.

(Cindi traces the problem back to the race-based districting that was the unintended consequence of the Voting Rights Act. That, too, is a problem, in that it trains representatives to think of themselves as representing only constituents of a particular race. Which can indeed lead to a type of extremism, and has done so in South Carolina. But a system in which drawing districts to protect incumbency is allowed by the courts is a broader problem. In any case, when legislators go through the process of choosing their constituents, which is what redistricting has become, they do both of those things — choose by race and by party.)

Cindi has long favored a creative solution to the problem:

The key is to return to multi-member districts — the norm before the Voting Rights Act essentially outlawed them because they shut out minority voters — but with a twist that prevents the dilution of minority voting strength while reclaiming the centrist, community-focused effect of the old multi-member districts.

Let’s take the Richland County Council for an example of how this would work. Under cumulative voting, candidates for all 11 council seats would run countywide. Voters would get 11 votes, like they did in the old multi-member districts. But they could divide the votes any way they wanted — casting one in each race, giving all 11 votes to a single candidate or doling them out in any other combination. Under a modified version called limited-transfer voting, voters would have just one vote, to cast in whichever race was most important to them. In other words, voters could work together across the county to essentially create the “district” they lived in.

It wouldn’t be practical to have statewide races for legislative seats, but we could make Richland County a four-seat Senate district, Lexington County a seven-seat House district. We could even make Richland and Lexington county an eight-seat Senate district.

These modified proportional systems have been promoted for years as a way to stop fixating on race in our elections and our government, but they also would empower all voters and give us a greater sense of ownership in our government, because elected officials wouldn’t dare to write off those they consider the partisan or racial or ideological minority in their district. The fact that county residents could vote for incumbents or challengers for any or all of the seven House seats in Lexington County means the representatives would need to appeal to all of them….

I’ve always thought the solution sounded a bit confusing. But I think it would be worth trying.

That said, cumulative voting would not solve all of our problems with extremism in SC. It would do nothing, directly, to address one of the examples Cindi cites in her column:

A Theatre de l’Absurde production starring a U.S. senator who could easily win a general election, no matter who his opponent, being seriously challenged in his party primary by obscure opponents who can most charitably be called political outliers…

Even without districts of any kind, radicalism has long been a feature of SC politics. The only cure for Lindsey Graham’s problem would be a reform that would have little chance of being enacted: Repeal the 17th Amendment, and have U.S. senators elected by the Legislatures again, as the Framers intended (House members were supposed to be elected by the people; senators were supposed to represent states, not bodies of voters). But of course, that would only work reliably after you do something to make the Legislature more moderate — something like what Cindi suggests.

Joe Biden apparently can’t think of Hillary Clinton’s name

5 Replies

… because, you know, that’s the one reason most of us can think of for Joe not to run.

Anyway, watch the video, in which he tells CNN’s Kate Bolduan why “there’s no obvious reason for me why I think I should not run” for the top job in 2016.

Personally, I’d like to see Joe run, and not just because he’s fun. But, if you’ll excuse a locution even more convoluted than the Veep’s, I’m certainly not at a loss for coming up with a reason why he would decide not to.

Good for Jean Toal, and good for SC for having such a choice

10 Replies

I’m pleased to congratulate Jean Toal on her re-election as chief justice of South Carolina.

And I congratulate South Carolina, because it has just renewed its lease on one of the finest legal minds I’ve encountered in my time in my decades of observing the public sphere in my home state.

Which is not to denigrate Costa Pleicones, who mounted such a creditable challenge to her bid for re-election. He would have been, and still may one day be, a fine chief justice. In the meantime, we are fortunate to have his continued service as an associate justice. Based on everything I’ve ever seen or heard, he would have been my first choice to head the court if we could no longer have Jean Toal in that post.

This way, we don’t have to be deprived on any count. We continue to have the service of two people who are superbly suited to their positions.

It’s weird how this happens sometimes in South Carolina. Too often, elections are about choosing the lesser of two weevils, as Jack Aubrey would have said had he ever actually existed.

But from time to time, we’re offered a choice between two candidates so strong that you hate to have to reject one — you wish we had a way of spreading that wealth around. Some legislative districts seem unfairly blessed in this way. An example of the kind of election I’m talking about was when Anton Gunn challenged Bill Cotty back in 2006. Forced to choose, we endorsed Cotty, but then I was pleased to see Gunn run again and win two years later. (And sorry to see him leave his House seat.)

I’m glad we didn’t have to turn away either of these two candidates.

Hodges endorses Anthony for superintendent

13 Replies

This just in:

Former SC Governor Jim Hodges endorses Mike Anthony for Superintendent of Education

 

Anthony

Mike Anthony

“Mike Anthony has spent his life dedicated to public schools – as a classroom teacher and state champion football coach. He’s the kind of person our public schools need – a proven leader with a track record of success in our schools. I have every reason to believe he will be that strong advocate for kids, parents and teachers we desperately need.”

 

Governor Jim Hodges is best known for his leadership in bringing the Education Lottery to South Carolina, securing over $1 billion for school construction without raising taxes. He also launched the ‘First Steps to School Readiness’ program. 

 

Representative Mike Anthony said he was very grateful for Governor Hodges’ endorsement.

 

“Governor Hodges was truly an ‘education governor,’ said Rep. Anthony. ”He made public education his highest priority and as a result our schools made great strides during his tenure. His work to establish the education lottery and ‘First Steps’ program have done wonders for South Carolina public schools. I’m truly honored that Governor Hodges has decided to support my candidacy.” 

 

####

Not sure what to make of it. But assuming that a Democrat still has a shot at this office in a race without an incumbent, then having the endorsement of the last Democratic governor has to be a help. To the nomination, at least. Anthony currently has one Democratic opponent, Montrio Belton.

Of COURSE she has a ‘commanding lead,’ when no one can think of another Democrat

4 Replies

Thought this headline on an email alert from The Washington Post kinda odd:

Hillary Clinton (has a) commanding lead over Democrats for 2016, poll finds

Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_cropWell, yeah. Duh. I mean, since I can’t think of a single other Democrat being seriously spoken of as a 2016 candidate, one would assume she would have a “commanding lead.”

OK, yeah, Joe Biden. But we already knew she would swamp Joe Biden. I mean, I like Joe, but let’s be serious.

The Post further reports:

The race for the Republican nomination, in contrast, is wide open, with six prospective candidates registering 10 percent to 20 percent support….

What that means is that there is someone who has had a lead (if not a “commanding” one) over on the GOP side, too, but he’s in a lot of trouble.

And so, my little fantasy of having two acceptable people who were shoo-ins for their nominations, possibly avoiding the tears and flapdoodle of the sort of musical chairs game the Republicans played last time around, is to remain a fantasy. As, of course, I knew it would.

Democracy is so… messy…

Chris Christie no longer the front-runner. This week.

9 Replies

Taegan Goddard over at Political Wire says it’s “Time to start calling Chris Christie the former GOP frontrunner.”

And he presents good arguments in support of that statement. He says Christie’s main strength was his crossover appeal — the GOP base loved him not — but according to a new poll, he’s lost ground among Democrats, Independents and women and:

Without holding the electability card, Christie has little chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination. It’s just one more example of how quickly fortunes can turn in politics.

Yes, exactly. I seem to recall that in the fall of 2011 and into early 2012, the GOP field had a different front-runner every week. And then the musical chairs game ended, and Mitt Romney, the original front-runner, was the only one with a seat.bak3jqccqaeb15s

So Chris Christie is out of it this week. And next week, too. But who knows what will transpire during the 145 weeks left until Election Day 2016? People are disenchanted with Christie now, but that’s in a vacuum. Whom will they love better? And what will be that person’s “electability?”

The most important question in politics is, “Compared to what?” Or perhaps I should say, “Compared to whom?” And the comparisons have not yet begun.

How the media contribute to political, governmental dysfunction

10 Replies

Meant to mention that I liked the point (in boldface) made in this piece in the WSJ yesterday, headlined “Obama Is No Lame Duck“:

There are more than 1,000 days until the 2016 elections, about as long as the entire Kennedy administration. But you’d never guess it from today’s political discourse. How badly will Bridgegate damage Chris Christie’s race for the Republican presidential nomination? Will Republican opposition research undermine the narrative of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton‘s forthcoming memoirs? These are the “issues” that dominate the conversation.

A lengthy new profile of President Obama in the New Yorker feeds this tendency by adopting a distinctly elegiac tone. As New Yorker editor David Remnick puts it, “Obama has three years left, but it’s not difficult to sense a politician with an acute sense of time, a politician devising ways to widen his legacy without the benefit of any support from Congress. . . . And so there is in him a certain degree of reduced ambition, a sense that even well before the commentariat starts calling him a lame duck he will spend much of his time setting an agenda that can be resolved only after he has retired to the life of a writer and post-President.”

Call me naïve and old-fashioned, but I object to this entire way of thinking. Policy debates may bore the press, but that’s no excuse for defaulting to horse-race coverage. Only journalistic complicity can allow the permanent campaign to drive out concern for governance. For their part, elected officials should understand that they cannot afford to leave the world’s greatest democracy on autopilot for the next three years. When it comes to advancing a national agenda, surely there’s a midpoint between grandiosity and resignation….

Yep, that’s what the media do — and have long done. And the press are almost as guilty as the broadcast people.

News people tend to treat politics like sports, because it’s simple — it fits into the idiotic binary view of the world, where there are only two teams and two choices, such as winners and losers — and because it’s easy, and fun. You don’t have to think very hard about who’s going to win the next election. So you write about that and write about it and build up this pitch of excitement like the buildup to the big game, and then you cover the election, and extensively cover the aftermath of the election.

And then, you start writing about the next election. And everything that happens, from events to scandals to policy debates, are couched in terms of how they will affect candidate’s chances in the next election. (James Fallows wrote an excellent book on this subject back in the early ’90s, called Breaking The News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy. I reviewed it at the time. Nothing has gotten better since he wrote it.books

And so we get this foolishness of treating a president as a lame duck from the moment he wins a second term, because hey, he has no election coming up — which means all too many reporters just can’t come up with a reason to be interested in what he does. If it doesn’t have an impact on his electoral chances, it has no meaning to them. Oh, they’ll try to work up enthusiasm about the unrelated subject of how his party will do in the next election, but their simple little hearts just aren’t really into it.

(I say “unrelated” because it’s unrelated, and decidedly uninteresting, to me. But in their simplistic, dichotomous worldview, one member of a party’s fate has tremendous meaning to other members of that party, because there are only two kinds of people in the world, rather than six billion kinds, and only two ways of thinking.)

Anyway, this is the media’s big contribution to the sickness in our political system, and the dysfunction of our government. By taking this either-or, column A or column B, approach (when in reality there are thousands, millions, an infinity of possibilities in each policy question), they make it difficult for Americans to frame political questions in any way other than hyperpartisan terms.

Making ‘Citizens United’ hip, glib, funny and nonthreatening

3 Replies

I just got around to this video from yesterday celebrating the Citizens United decision four years and one day ago.

Yes, I said, “celebrating.” As in, “Yippee!,” as opposed to what I usually hear about it, which is more in the Egon Spengler range, as in, “Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.”

Here’s the release about it:

Group Recognizes Citizens United v. FEC Anniversary with Video
Center for Competitive Politics Releases Video by Noted YouTube Artist GoRemy

For Release: January 21, 2014

ALEXANDRIA, VA – Today the Center for Competitive Politics marked the fourth anniversary of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling by releasing a video about the decision by noted YouTube artist GoRemy.

The video examines five common misconceptions about the Citizens United that many critics of the decision tend to gloss over, such as the government’s argument that they should be able to ban books and that the decision did not create the concept of corporate personhood.

What the Citizens United decision did do was overturn blatantly unconstitutional parts of a law designed to prevent freedom of association among individuals with the purpose of speaking out about politics. And, despite repeated assertions that the decision would lead to the corporate takeover of our democracy, we’ve had some of the most competitive elections in our nation’s history.

At its core, Citizens United was about whether the government could ban a nonprofit corporation from distributing a movie about a political candidate. The decision did not “reversed a century of law to open the floodgates – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections,” as President Obama famously chastised the Supreme Court. Rather, the decision allowed organizations to do what wealthy individuals have always been able to do: make independent expenditures advocating for or against a chosen candidate.

Now why am I posting this? Because I agree with it, or because I wish to rip into it? Neither. Basically, it attracted my attention because on the thumbnail for the video, I saw the very same mug shot of Nick Offerman in the role of Ron Swanson on “Parks and Recreation” that one of y’all — I want to say Silence Dogood — used to use as an avatar. So I thought at least one of y’all would enjoy it on that basis. Yes, I know that’s a thin premise, even though I cannot measure how thin it is.

I decided to go ahead and post it after seeing it, because I was intrigued by — whatever you think of the message — how slick it was.

Starting with the choice of pitchman, who I am told is “noted YouTube artist GoRemy.” OK, whatever. I’m just impressed by how well-chosen he was to make people think more kindly of the idea of corporations being people and such.

If you have an “Occupy Wall Street” picture in your head of the people who celebrate Citizens United, then you expect the spokesman to be somebody like Robert Stack, or Charlton Heston, or Peter Graves, or some other old, dead, establishment-looking white guy. (You may object that a dead guy couldn’t shoot a video, but we’re not talking about reality; we’re talking about the way Occupy Wall Street sees the world.)

This guy is like the opposite of that, only in a cool way, so you’re not beaten over the head with it.

According to Wikipedia, GoRemy is Remy Munasifi, “an Arab-American stand-up comedian,[1] parody musician and video artist who became an Internet celebrity after his production of comedic sketches based on Arabs under the name “GoRemy” on YouTube. His videos had gained over 78 million views as of late 2010.”

He’s hip, he’s young, he’s glib, he’s of nonspecific ethnicity, he’s nonthreatening, he’s not dead, and he most assuredly is not Robert Stack — not even the funny, ironic Robert Stack in “Airplane!”

Perhaps a little too glib. I have to say I was a bit offended at having the Plessy vs. Ferguson case dismissed with a funny picture of a baby with a perplexed expression and the caption, “WHO VS. WHATNOW?”

Or at least, I would have been, if it hadn’t all gone by so quickly that I had to back it up and freeze frames in order to see what the baby was supposedly saying.

The point of the video is to make your brain dance lightly along to the tune of the fun wordplay, and then wander away humming to itself and thinking, “That Citizens United isn’t so bad after all…”

citizens

Restructuring debate has dragged on for decades, plural, not ‘three years’

2 Replies
Plenty of reason to smile, but... she didn't start the reform ball rolling.

Plenty of reason to smile, but… she didn’t start the reform ball rolling.

First, let’s celebrate that the Legislature has now decided to let the actual, elected chief executive be responsible and accountable for another significant portion of the state’s executive branch.

And that they’re setting aside a governing body — the Budget and Control Board — that made a mockery of the separation of powers doctrine. (Although for some of that body’s current functions, the bill will create a new “State Fiscal Accountability Authority,” on which the same legislative leaders retain their seats.)

But while we’re celebrating, let’s retain our historical perspective. From The State‘s story this morning:

“The push to create a Department of Administration has been a three-year fight and getting it over the finish line will be a tremendous win for the people of this state,” Haley spokesman Doug Mayer said, referring to the Republican’s time in office. “This is another example of South Carolina moving in the right direction.”…

If Adam Beam hadn’t included that explanatory phrase, “referring to the Republican’s time in office,” I wouldn’t have had a clue what that “three-year” reference meant.

After all — as I documented at the time — Vincent Sheheen first came to my office to begin pushing this plan (the bill that passed is his) in January 2008. And he came to propose this approach as a way of breaking an impasse that long predated his move, or even his time in office.

I was also a bit puzzled by the headline on The State‘s story, which was “After decade of debate, lawmakers agree to restructure government.”

Now, lest you think that I’m dating this debate to my Power Failure series in 1991, I have to tell you it goes farther back than that. Yes, the really active discussion of the need to restructure our government to, among other things, put the executive in charge of executive functions, started at that time — partly because of our series, and partly because Carroll Campbell took it on as a signature issue.

But, as we documented in the first installment of Power Failure, there had been numerous (if I had a reprint at hand, I could tell you exactly how many) blue-ribbon panels recommending these changes, or changes very like them, since 1945. All ignored, for the simple reason that lawmakers had no intention letting go of their excessive power, or reducing the fragmentation and dilution of what executive authority existed (divided among nine separately elected constitutional officers). It’s not like this was my idea, or the paper’s, or Campbell’s. Lots of folks had been trying to drag the state out of 17th century, which was when the SC pattern of governance began. Originally, it was about putting a class of slaveholding landed gentry in charge of the colony, and then state, without a co-equal executive branch to balance their power. After that class faded from history, lawmakers held onto their power just because.

As Sen. Larry Martin said, this is the most significant restructuring step by the state since the big reform of 1993, which put most executive agencies (although not all, and not the one that oversaw the biggest chunk of state spending — the Department of Education) under the governor. That followed on Campbell’s and The State’s efforts.

The only noteworthy change since then was a year or so ago, when it was decided that in the future — but after this governor has left office — the lieutenant governor will be elected on the same ticket as the governor.

Martin promises more to come, including getting rid of the two most glaring instances of someone being separately elected to oversee parts of the executive branch, bringing the adjutant general and superintendent into the Cabinet.

I look forward to seeing that. In any case, it’s great to see lawmakers finally addressing something from my list of “South Carolina’s Unfinished Business” in my last column at the newspaper.

Nor did he, although he deserves as much credit as anyone currently in office. This is from when he unveiled the plan in 2008.

Nor did he, although he deserves as much credit as anyone currently in office. This is from when he unveiled the plan in 2008.

If Nikki Haley’s playing politics, that’s good news, too

19 Replies
So if Thigpen's right, we're much less likely to see scenes such as this one this year.

So if Thigpen’s right, we’re much less likely to see scenes such as this one this year.

Having trouble finding anything substantive not to like in Nikki Haley’s education and other proposals, some critics are saying she’s just playing election-year politics.

Well, if that’s the case, that’s good news, too. In fact, unless you’re a Democrat trying to unseat her, it’s hard to see where the downside is for you here.

That occurred to me reading the following, written by Schuyler Kropf at The Post and Courier:

Democrats — and even some political talking heads — were quick to point out Haley’s attention to education and mental health could easily be seen as attempts to neutralize her Democratic opposition.

“They must feel it’s a more moderate electorate out there,” retired Francis Marion University political scientist Neal Thigpen said Monday in assessing her administration’s 2014 spending ideas.

Thigpen, who has followed Republican politics in the state for years, said the most obvious political target in her budget is announced Democratic challenger, state Sen. Vincent Sheheen of Camden.

Haley’s camp must see a need in “trying to block him out,” Thigpen added, “and being ahead of him in trying to blunt those issues that he may be able to use.”…

Look again at what Neal Thigpen just said…

“They must feel it’s a more moderate electorate out there…”

If Nikki Haley and her people are looking around them and seeing a more reasonable world than the one that elected them in the Year of The Tea Party, then that’s gotta be a good thing, right?

So, if that’s correct, her speeches this year will be less about throwing red meat to people who hate government, and more about good governance. Which Vincent Sheheen will be doing as well, because he always does that. Which means that no matter which of them is elected, that person will be committed to such basic things as better schools, and better care for the mentally ill.

Which as I say, is a good thing for all South Carolinians…