Category Archives: Elections

Two thoughts about ‘Carolina Conservatives United’

22 Replies

I had two thoughts about this release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                    September 4, 2013

 

CONTACT: Bruce Carroll

Chairman, Carolina Conservatives United

Email: [email protected]

Phone: (704) 804-4854


CAROLINA CONSERVATIVES UNITED URGES CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION TO VOTE “NO” ON MILITARY ACTION AGAINST SYRIA

(YORK, SC) — Carolina Conservatives United has announced its opposition to the use of United States military force and assets against the Syrian government and urges the entire South Carolina Congressional Delegation vote against this measure.

 

Chairman Bruce Carroll today issued the following statement:

 

We share the humanitarian concern for the Syrian people who have been killed and injured by conventional weapons and chemical weapons and the millions of refugees that are suffering due to that nation’s two-year civil war. 

 

However, we strongly believe the situation in Syria will not improve, and could well deteriorate, due to American military involvement.  Additionally, we do not believe President Obama has adequately made the case that any national security interests are at stake, a minimum requirement for military actions abroad.

 

Therefore we would like to, in the strongest terms, urge our Members of Congress, especially Senators Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott, to vote against military action against the Syrian regime.  We urge our fellow citizens in South Carolina to call their Congressmen and Senators immediately so that our elected officials are completely aware of the views of the people on this important matter.

 

 

 

 

September 4, 2013

Page 2

 

 

 

Carolina Conservatives United will be sending a letter today to each Member of the South Carolina Congressional Delegation requesting a “NO” vote on Syria use of force.  Our organization will also track the vote for authorization of force in Syria as a “key vote” for purposes of our ongoing Congressional scorecard that aligns to our organization’s fundamental principles.

 

 

 

#  #  #

Carolina Conservatives United is a grassroots, non-profit political association based in South Carolina. 

CCU supports and promotes the long-standing American values of limited Constitutional government, low taxes, freedom of the individual, entrepreneurism, free enterprise, and strong national security and sovereignty. CCU’s mission is to support political candidates who support conservative values and oppose those who do not. 

For more information, visit www.DefeatLindseyGraham.org.

 

 

 

# # #

The first was the same reaction I have when I see anything referring to “Carolina,” as though North and South Carolina were one state or something — or as if they had any more to do with each other than SC and Georgia, which they don’t.

That reaction is, “This must be out of Charlotte.” Because only people from that ambivalent city, lacking a clear identity with either state — sort of the Danzig Corridor of the Deep South — use the term “Carolina” in an inclusive way like that.

And sure enough, there’s a 704 area code on it.

The second reaction is, Yeah, boy, I bet old Lindsey is just sittin’ up nights wondering what the folks at DefeatLindseyGraham.org want him to do…

How was that not a campaign trip? And why the secrecy?

10 Replies

Still scratching my head over the state Ethics Commission fixin’ to slap Nikki Haley’s wrist, then changing its mind:

Gov. Nikki Haley’s campaign will not have to repay the state for the cost of a SLED security detail that accompanied her on a trip to North Carolina in June, the State Ethics Commission’s executive director said Wednesday.

Haley attended a late-June N.C. event sponsored by the Renew North Carolina Foundation, a 501(c)4 that supports Republican N.C. Gov. Pat McCrory. Tuesday, reports surfaced the state-owned vehicle Haley was riding in on that trip was involved in a minor car accident June 27. Haley, along with her political adviser and a campaign fundraiser, were passengers in that vehicle, according to a public incident report.

Cathy Hazelwood, the attorney for the state Ethics Commission, said Wednesday morning she had sent a letter to Haley’s campaign asking it to reimburse the state for providing the Republican governor with a security detail on a campaign fundraising trip. “I can’t fathom why you have campaign people in your car and that’s not a campaign event,” Hazelwood said…

But then, the director of the agency said never mind, once he got “the whole story” from one of the governor’s attorneys.

So… what IS the whole story? I mean, what’s with the governor of our state getting in a wreck in another state, and we hear about it months later?

And how was that not a campaign trip?

First, Vincent, you need a huge SC flag

3 Replies

patton-flag

Normally, I don’t go in for the big stage props in politics. I still recall the time, in a barn at the agricultural experiment station outside Jackson, TN, in the late ’70s (or was it early ’80s?), when some national political figure stood to make a speech in front of two symmetrically-stacked ziggurats of hay and a tractor. I also remember how hot it was, and how the runnels of sweat rolled off the beautiful young network camerawoman standing on a platform just above me, her thin garments saturated and clinging to her…

But that’s beside the point. The point is that I don’t usually go in for the big, fakey stage props in politics. I thought the hay and the tractor were kinda cheesy. It was the first of many experiences I would have with such cheesiness.

That said, Vincent Sheheen has little choice now. He must find a really, really big South Carolina state flag and launch his campaign standing in front of it. The opening handed him by his opponent is just too inviting.

With her announcement yesterday, Nikki Haley made it clear that if you thought she was running a cookie-cutter, national, ideological campaign with no bearing upon South Carolina at all back in 2010, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

First, she stands in front of a U.S. flag that must have been bought second-hand from the people who filmed “Patton.” (The State said it was “tennis court-sized.” I think maybe they were playing doubles.) Then, she stood not with South Carolinians, not with people who have anything at all to say about South Carolina or who care a fig about South Carolina, but with Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Rick Perry of Texas and Scott Walker of Wisconsin (which the New York Daily News calls her “blue-shirted band of merry men.”)

Oh, wait, Tim Scott was there — you know, the guy she elevated to the Senate, and who therefore owes her big-time.

The other governors were there to back her up as she said things such as this:

“When it came to Obamacare, we didn’t just say ‘no.’ We said ‘never.’ We are not expanding Medicaid just because President Obama thinks we should.”

Because, you know, that’s what it’s all about — fighting the big, national ideological fight. By the way, to fully understand that second sentence, you put a comma after Medicaid. Because the reason she’s saying “no” to expanding Medicaid is, of course, “just because President Obama thinks we should.”

Maybe the governor should talk with her former employers over at Lexington Medical Center about the jobs that will be lost there because of her standing in the way of Medicaid expansion. Not to mention the impact on South Carolinians’ health. But she’s not going to do that, and not only because she didn’t leave her old job under the best of terms. She’s not going to do that because she doesn’t care about the impact on South Carolina. It’s all about the national, ideological fight.

Which is something that Vincent Sheheen should seize on as a way to contrast himself to the current governor. He’s done that already, of course. He just needs to drive the point home a bit more firmly.

The big SC flag would be a good start. Not necessarily tennis court-sized. Just big enough to make the point — tastefully, which would be a nice change in and of itself.

Flag_of_South_Carolina.svg

Democrats react to Haley announcement with both barrels

4 Replies

Locally, and nationally, Democrats rushed to heap scorn upon Gov. Nikki Haley as she announced her re-election campaign today. From the Vincent Sheheen campaign:

Dear Brad, Today in Greenville Nikki Haley will take the stage with governors from three other states as she officially announces her re-election campaign.  She’s bringing in people from outside of South Carolina because it’s hard to find three people who actually live and work in the Palmetto State who think she deserves a second term.

But those three governors are bringing with them thousands of dollars from out-of-state interests for Haley’s campaign….

And from the Democratic National Committee:

Later today, Governors Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, and Rick Perry will descend on South Carolina in an effort to boost the reelection chances of their embattled colleague, Governor Nikki Haley. In the wake of their 2012 electoral losses, Republicans have looked to their Governors for leadership, calling them in their Autopsy Report “America’s reformers in chief” and claiming they “point the way forward” for the party. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When you look at the records of Haley, Jindal, Walker and Perry you can see that not only are these Republican Governors failing to “point the way forward,” they’re taking their states backward, pursuing the same far-right policies that cost Republicans the White House in 2012.

Gov. Haley’s policies have failed hardworking families over and over; during her tenure as Governor, South Carolina is one of the hardest states in the country to earn a living in, is one of the hardest places in the country to live the American dream of economic mobility, and has an unemployment rate higher than 36 other states.

And the colleagues that Haley is bringing in on her behalf are doing no better for their states. Bobby Jindal is currently the least popular Republican Governor in the country. Under Scott Walker, job growth in Wisconsin has lagged behind the nation. And over Rick Perry’s three terms as Governor the unemployment rate has gone up….

Something I wondered about was her decision to launch in the Upstate — rather than, say, in her home county of Lexington. Maybe she felt the need to go someplace where a) people don’t know her as well, and b) they’ll vote for a Republican no matter who it is.

SC mayors for Sheheen, 1st installment

10 Replies

I thought this was kind of interesting, partly because it seems sort of early for making such endorsement announcements as this:

SC Mayors Endorse Vincent Sheheen for Governor
 
Local leaders cite Sheheen’s economic vision, bipartisan approach & record of results for why he’s the right leader to fix broken state government
Camden, SC – Today 12 mayors, representing urban and rural areas around the South Carolina, endorsed Vincent Sheheen for Governor citing his focus on growing the economy from within South Carolina, his record of working across the aisle to get things done, and his common-sense approach on how to fix the broken state government and move South Carolina forward again.
The 12 mayors make up the first round of endorsements for Mayors for Sheheen:
  • Joseph Riley, Mayor of Charleston
  • Welborn Adams, Mayor of Greenwood
  • Junie White, Mayor of Spartanburg
  • Steve Wukela, Mayor of Florence
  • Andy Ingram, Mayor of Cheraw
  • John Douglas, Mayor of Chesterfield
  • Ann Taylor, Mayor of Heath Springs
  • Doug Echols, Mayor of Rock Hill
  • Tony Scully, Mayor of Camden
  • Wayne Rhodes, Mayor of Kershaw
  • Joseph McElveen, Mayor of Sumter
  • Lovith Anderson, Mayor of Lake City
In their statements of support, the Mayors praised Sen. Sheheen for his success in expanding 4-year-old kindergarten to improve public education, creating an Inspector General to ensure the best use of tax dollars, fighting to restructure government and cut bureaucracy, and creating a Taxpayer Protection Fund to help those hurt by the Department of Revenue hacking scandal.
A selection of endorsement quotes is below:
Joseph Riley, Mayor of Charleston
“Here in Charleston, we are creating jobs and supporting local businesses with great success, and we need a Governor in Columbia who is ready to do the same statewide. Vincent Sheheen will be a strong advocate for building South Carolina’s economy from within. Vincent understands the importance of Charleston’s port for our economy, as well as the economy of the entire state, and he stands with us in supporting its dredging. He stands with our region in building a clean-energy economy and supporting our local, small businesses to grow jobs. Vincent stands with Lowcountry families in improving public education and expanding access to 4-year old kindergarten. Vincent Sheheen is the right candidate to move South Carolina forward, that’s why I’m proud to stand with him.”
Steve Wukela, Mayor of Florence
“Vincent Sheheen will be a change for the better for South Carolina and especially for the people in the Pee Dee. Vincent knows that growing our economy is more than just showing up at ribbon cuttings. He understands how important it is to support local businesses as much as those the state is trying to recruit – because that’s how we stay strong in the long run. Vincent Sheheen has the right plan to improve the economy and grow jobs right now, while investing in our future through better education to make South Carolina successful in the long-term as well.”
Welborn Adams, Mayor of Greenwood
“Here in Greenwood, we know the serious impact that incompetent government can have on the safety of our citizens. We need real leadership in the Governor’s office with accountability in our state government to create a better South Carolina. Vincent Sheheen is the right choice to not only fix the broken government, but also deliver results on improving education, public health, and supporting small businesses so we can get back on track.”
Junie White, Mayor of Spartanburg
“For the past several years we’ve seen what an absence of leadership from the Governor’s office gets South Carolina: crumbling roads, struggling businesses and general government dysfunction that is unacceptable. I support Vincent Sheheen for governor because he’s the only candidate with the vision to lead and the track record of working across the aisle to actually get things done. Our infrastructure has been crumbling and it costs our residents and businesses more and more each year. Vincent Sheheen would make the smart investment to finally fill our potholes and strengthen our bridges which will improve our economy now and into the future. That’s the kind of leadership we need for the upstate.”
Tony Scully, Mayor of Camden
“Vincent Sheheen has been a strong and effective leader in Camden for nearly his entire life. Whether he’s helping businesses and families in our town as an attorney, building coalitions in the legislature, or simply being an active citizen committed to the highest ideals, with his honest, common-sense approach, Vincent Sheheen is the right man to be the next governor of South Carolina.”
Lovith Anderson, Mayor of Lake City
“Vincent Sheheen’s common-sense approach to governing and his pragmatic approach to honest and ethical leadership is just what we need to finally get things done in South Carolina. For too long, towns like ours have been ignored by leaders in Columbia who care more about political grandstanding than delivering results. Vincent Sheheen has proven he isn’t afraid to up his sleeves and stand up for folks like us – and he’s the only candidate with a solid track record of positive results.”
###

Of course, the only three mayors on there whose party affiliations I think I know (fortunately, most cities and towns in SC have nonpartisan municipal elections) are Democrats. But it’s still a pretty impressive list.

And think about it — since these people are not elected in partisan elections, they have little motivation to stick their necks out for a Democrat or a Republican simply because of that person’s affiliation.

Also, I find myself wondering: Could Nikki Haley get a group like this to back her? It seems unlikely, and I say that in part because mayors tend to be practical folk. They tend to be unmoved by ideology (the coin that Nikki, and those who support her, value), and tend to go for pragmatic governance.

But it’s early. We’ll see. In the meantime, there will be more announcements like this one from Sheheen. Steve Benjamin is a notable absence from this list; I suppose the campaign wanted to save a major-city mayor for the next release…

Democrat announces for SC schools superintendent

7 Replies

I had told Tyler Jones yesterday that I would attend this announcement over at Hand Middle School yesterday (I like to actually get out to campaign events sometimes, if only to get some new images for my random header, above), but a client meeting came up at the very same time, so here’s the release about the event instead:

Rep. Mike Anthony Announces Bid for Superintendent of Education

 

Retired teacher, football coach to make bid to lead SC’s public schools

 

Union, SC – Retired public school teacher and three-time state champion high school football coach Mike Anthony formally announced his intention to run for Superintendent of Education on Thursday.0038636359

Anthony, 63, spent over thirty years as a high school teacher in South Carolina pubic schools before retiring in 2004. He was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives in 2002 where he served on the Education Committee for six years.

“I never thought I’d be announcing a campaign for anything – let alone statewide office,” said Rep. Anthony. “But our schools are in desperate need of new leadership, and who better to lead our schools than a teacher with over thirty years of in-the-classroom experience.”

Coach Anthony announced his candidacy in front of friends and family at Union County Stadium, the same place he coached his alma mater Union High School to three state high school football championships in 1999, 2000, and 2002.

 

“As a high school football coach, I taught kids about accountability,” said Anthony. “If someone wasn’t working hard enough or doing their job, they got benched and replaced by someone who could do better. The current administration isn’t getting the job done and it’s time to bring in someone new.”

 

Anthony vowed to take the politics out of the office of Superintendent of Education.

 

“Educating our children shouldn’t be a partisan issue,” said Anthony. “If I’m elected Superintendent, you won’t be getting a Democrat or Republican. You’ll be getting a lifelong public school teacher who has a passion for seeing kids succeed. ”

 

Anthony will hold a press conference at Hand Middle School in Columbia before speaking to the Charleston County Democratic Party’ this evening in North Charleston.

 

Learn more: www.AnthonyForEducation.com

Since he’s opposed by Moe and Larry, mayor should change his name to ‘Curly’

25 Replies

stooges

Just passing that on. I didn’t come up with it; it was mentioned to me by a local attorney.

It arises from the fact that Mayor Steve Benjamin is being opposed for re-election by Councilman Moe Baddourah and former FBI analyst Larry Sypolt.

If the mayor would only make this one little change, think of all the great national coverage the campaign would get.

It’s meant to be. There’s already a major heading in the Wikipedia page about Larry, Moe and Curly headlined, “The Columbia Years.” I am not making this up…

In case you weren’t entirely convinced that Weiner is a jerk

34 Replies

… watch this video, in which he mocks a British reporter for being British (likening talking to her to a Monty Python sketch), and then mocks England for being a “rainy, cloudy and grey” place.

But it’s not so much what he does as how he does it, with everything from his tone of voice to his body language to his constant demonstrations that he’d rather pay attention to anything but the reporter.

Yes, Anthony, there is an absurdist feel to the questions reporters ask you — to the entire existence of your campaign, for that matter. But whom do you have to blame for that?

Image vs. reality: The utter powerlessness of the mayor of Columbia

25 Replies

I thought this was an interesting contrast.

Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin’s re-election campaign sent out the above video, showing the mayor standing before a group of cops — the city’s anti-gang unit — and talking tough about how gangs won’t be tolerated (when he’s not talking about reaching out to troubled youth who are all “very talented” and just need a guiding hand, an apparent contradiction that reflects the different constituencies he’s trying to reach).

So there you have an image of a mayor who is in command of the city’s sentinels, pledging to protect us all from crime.

Then, you have what happened in the real world — the reminder last night that the mayor is not in charge of the police department, and has no control over the person who is:

COLUMBIA, SC — Columbia’s mayor and city manager had a public falling out Tuesday, barely seven months into a workplace relationship that critics once decried as too close.

The split occurred over Mayor Steve Benjamin’s proposal to ban city administrators and politicians from active police crime scenes. City manager Teresa Wilson said she took the proposal as a shot aimed to impugn her integrity because of her decision to go to the site of the July 12 arrest of state civil rights leader Lonnie Randolph.

“I don’t care who it is. I’m not going to allow anybody to attack my personal credibility,” Wilson told The State newspaper after Benjamin’s proposal died in a 5-1 vote. The mayor was the only one of the six council members at the meeting to vote in support of his suggestion that would have allowed City Council members to be censured and employees to be disciplined…

Benjamin is fully aware of how powerless he is, the video image from that press conference notwithstanding. In fact, he put out a release about it today:

Serving as your mayor has been the dream of a lifetime and a great personal honor and I have used this office as forcefully as I can to advocate positive improvements in our city.
I’m proud of the progress we are making in building a safer city, creating jobs, improving education and providing a high quality of life for our citizens.
But recent news has helped to demonstrate that the present “weak mayor” system of governance in Columbia is outdated and structurally flawed. Like all Columbians, I’m frustrated by how long it takes to get things done.
Under the current system, I have:
But ultimately, I am limited to a role of advocacy. The Mayor of Columbia has only one vote on a seven-member council and no administrative authority.
It’s time for a change. It’s time to switch to a “strong mayor” form of government.
Columbia has grown to the point that we need a mayor with modern executive authority. The present system muddies the waters of accountability. The time has come to make me and all future mayors accountable to the voters for the quality and efficiency of city government.
That’s why I’ve asked City Council to meet on August 13 and support a referendum that would let the voters decide whether they want a modern strong mayor form of government or whether they want to continue our present system of city management by committee.
My request of City Council is simple: let the voters decide.
Some will argue that we should keep the present committee system. Some will say they don’t want mayors to have executive powers. That’s okay. Let everyone make their case in a public debate to be decided by the people of Columbia.
Surely no one who believes in the founding principles of America would stand in the way of allowing the public to vote on how they choose to be governed.
I hope my colleagues on City Council will join me in giving voters the chance to make their voices heard. And if Council fails to empower the people, then I will stand strongly behind a petition drive to give voters access to the ballot.
If you agree that it’s time for a change, please consider contacting your City Council members. Let them know you support giving the people of Columbia the opportunity to vote on their form of government.
As always, I thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,


Steve Benjamin, Mayor
City of Columbia, South Carolina

As you know, I’m completely in agreement with the mayor on this. The executive functions of the city should be in the hands of someone elected by all of the city’s voters. There is simply no accountability under the current system.

But while I’m with him on the main point, I was struck by the irony of his mentioning his desire “to enact policies that remove all hints of politics from law enforcement,” on the same day his campaign is touting video of him posed in front of a row of uniformed cops…

rallybrand4

SC GOP chairman doing what party chairmen do

44 Replies
IMG_1767

That’s Matt Moore, second from right, with some other modern SC politicos and some fugitive from the early 19th century, at a political forum last fall.

You’ve probably seen this silliness:

COLUMBIA, SC — The chairman of South Carolina’s Republican Party says he will not allow CNN or NBC to broadcast debates of Republican presidential candidates in South Carolina unless the networks refuse to air a documentary on Hilary Clinton, a possible Democratic nominee for president.

NBC plans to broadcast a miniseries starring Diane Lane as Clinton, the former First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State. CNN has also announced plans for a feature-length documentary on Clinton’s career.

Monday, Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, sent letters to NBC and CNN telling them he would ask the RNC to ban any Republican candidates from participating in presidential debates hosted by NBC or CNN unless the two networks agree to not air the programs.

Matt Moore, South Carolina’s newly elected Republican Party chairman, said he agreed with Priebus…

Matt Moore is doing what party chairmen do — inspiring ire toward the opposition (and, if you’re a Republican, toward media, which is perceived by the most ardent loyalists as the opposition), inspire the constituency to say “hell, yeah!,” and keep them giving money.

Making sense is not a job requirement.

It is extremely unlikely that I will watch either of those programs, mainly because the chief reason I have a TV is to have something to watch movies on. These programs do not seem to fit into the category of things I deem worth spending time on.

But it seems to me that given the far less interesting and compelling figures who have inspired docudramas in the past, Hillary Clinton certainly qualifies as legitimate fodder. I found it interesting to see what Emma Thompson did with the Hillary-inspired character in “Primary Colors” — a movie that, by the way, was far from laudatory.

People make too much of such things. And they ignore the fact that these things can do as much harm as good to candidates. I’m mindful of the how media overexposure (much of it on her terms) eliminated Sarah Palin from consideration for the presidential nomination in 2012, despite her popularity for a year or so after the 2008 contest.

People have always made too much of such things. I vividly recall the way full release of “The Right Stuff” was delayed to avoid charges that the filmmakers were boosting John Glenn’s chances in the 1984 Democratic nomination process.

If only they had been able to do so. If that awesome film (which never got the attention it should have, due in large part to its on-again, off-again release) could have gotten him elected or even nominated, I would have been much happier than I was with the choice available to us that November.

Hey, I’m with you on the strong-mayor thing, Cameron

18 Replies

I received this release this morning:

Statement by Columbia City Councilman Cameron Runyan

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Cameron Runyan…
 

Most people don’t realize the Mayor of Columbia has no real executive authority. Under our current weak mayor system, city government is managed by committee, with no single elected official to hold accountable when things go wrong.

 

Recent events have made it clear that our city could greatly benefit from a strong mayor form of government with a chief executive empowered by and accountable to the people to get positive things done.

 

As Mayor Benjamin said last week, many of the current problems related to public safety could be dealt with swiftly and efficiently if our mayor had the authority to act. It’s time to let voters decide if they want to give him that authority and responsibility by switching to a strong mayor system.

 

As a member of Columbia City Council, I strongly urge my colleagues to take up this issue. And I urge them to do it soon. We owe it to the people of this great city.

 

Ultimately, the question is not whether you agree with having a strong mayor. The question is whether voters should be allowed to decide how their government can best work for them.

 

After all, it is a founding principle of America that government belongs to the people, not to those who are elected by the people. In keeping with the most noble traditions of our democratic system, we have an obligation to let the people be heard on this critical issue.

 

# # #

Hey, I’m with you. Let’s have the referendum, and here’s hoping most people vote “yes” for change. This mushy, indirect form of government is not politically accountable.

Benjamin says Randolph charges shouldn’t be dropped, and Wilson shouldn’t have run to the scene

24 Replies
The mayor, (rightly) injecting some politics into policing in Five Points, back in September 2012.

The mayor, (rightly) injecting some politics into policing in Five Points, back in September 2012.

I thought this was an interesting thing for a major running for re-election to do. He sent out a release weighing in on a controversial recent arrest by the city’s police department:

Keep Politics Out of Policing

July 24, 2013, Columbia, SC

Dear friends,

As you know, public safety has and continues to be my top priority in the City of Columbia and, while we’ve made real progress over the past several years, a number of recent high-profile incidents have further demonstrated the need for continued focus and action.

It is for that reason and because we must ensure the public’s trust in our police department, that last week I called for a SLED investigation into claims made against the Columbia Police Department and I firmly believe that we must allow that investigation to proceed without any political interference. Our state’s law enforcement officers are very capable of conducting a thorough investigation. I am confident that they will perform their duties objectively and comprehensively and provide us with a full report to act upon. Furthermore I will make absolutely certain that whatever SLED reports will be transparent and fully disclosed to the public.

Let me be clear: I have no tolerance for corruption of any kind and if there is any wrongdoing found as a result of SLED’s investigation, I will push for any wrongdoers to be immediately fired and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

It is extremely important that we remove politics from this equation. We must let the cops do their jobs without interference. That is a key concern of mine with this investigation as well as with the issue of Dr. Lonnie Randolph’s arrest in Five Points.

Out of concern for Dr. Randolph and out of concern for our criminal justice system, I am strongly recommending Dr. Randolph’s charges not be dropped before the case reaches the courtroom.

Dr. Randolph appears to have a medical condition that influences his behavior beyond his control and, if so, he has my deepest concerns and sympathies. But we must let the legal process unfold like it does for any other citizen. It is up to a judge or a jury, with the victims’ input, to decide the end result, not politicians, police chiefs or administrators.

Dr. Randolph’s arrest demonstrated why we should not have administrators or elected officials showing up at crime scenes unless specifically requested by law enforcement. However well intentioned, it can send the wrong message and can create an appearance of impropriety and it needs to stop now. People must know that the criminal justice system works the same for all of us and does so without political interference and without special treatment for anyone. Justice for all requires special favors for none.

That’s why I’ve asked city legal counsel to draft a policy which I will present at our next City Council meeting clearly stating that, in accordance with our ethics policy, an active crime scene is no place for politicians or administrators.

At that same meeting, I will also push for us to move forward with a comprehensive, nationwide search for a permanent Police Chief. It’s time to bring stability to CPD’s leadership.

I believe a lot of these issues would be easy to resolve if, in fact, the Mayor had the authority to resolve them.

As Mayor, I have used the bully pulpit provided this office to push for much needed change and often been successful in doing so. That’s how we passed our local preference policy and kept tens of millions of dollars in city contracts with local businesses, that’s how we got the Bull Street deal done and that’s how we’ve achieved the rebirth of downtown securing roughly $300 million in new capital investment over the past two years alone.

But it’s important to understand that I have very little administrative authority under our current form of government. Here in Columbia, the Mayor does not supervise city staff, the City Manager or the Police Chief. And when we are faced with challenges like these which require swift and decisive action, all I have is one of seven votes on City Council and the long slow process that goes with it. That is the simple fact of our system, a fact that we need to change.

That being said, I will continue to use those tools afforded me to keep pushing for a safer and more secure Columbia. That is my priority, it is the people’s priority and nothing is more important.

As always, thank you for keeping informed, getting involved and making a difference in our city.
Yours in service,


Steve Benjamin
Mayor
City of Columbia, South Carolina

This may seem kind of weird to those who don’t understand the city’s council/manager system of government.

In a more logical and politically accountable system of government, the mayor wouldn’t be a helpless witness to the actions of the city’s administrators. He wouldn’t have to propose policy changes to be voted upon by the whole council; he could just tell his manager (or chief of staff, or whatever his senior appointed subordinate was called) not to do that anymore.

Contrary to the mayor’s headline, I think we need more politics in policing, in the sense that the department should report to an official elected by the people of the city, rather than to an unelected person who, since she has seven bosses, really answers to no one.

Anyway, I thought it interesting that the mayor chose to speak out in this manner.

What’s with all this Mickey Mouse in the Columbia P.D.?

32 Replies

This is just embarrassing — or should be — to anyone associated with the Columbia Police Department, or with city government, period.

Some of y’all have begun commenting on it on a previous thread, but I thought I’d start this separate one with a link to this morning’s story in The State, a portion of which follows:

COLUMBIA, SC — A Columbia Police Department captain was fired Monday after city officials said he failed to report to duty, secretly recorded a phone call with a supervisor and engaged in spreading rumors.

But David Navarro, the former captain, says he has done nothing wrong. In fact, he has signed a sworn affidavit accusing interim Police Chief Ruben Santiago of asking him months ago to participate in a scheme to frame the chief’s boss on drug and weapons charges. The affidavit was provided Monday to The State newspaper by Glenn Walters, an Orangeburg attorney who is representing Navarro in his dispute with the city. Those who lie on affidavits risk criminal charges if their statements are proven false.

The back-and-forth between Navarro and city officials led Monday to one-on-one meetings between news reporters and City Manager Teresa Wilson, Santiago, the city’s human resources manager and three other city employees. In those interviews, city officials gave almost unprecedented explanations about Navarro’s firing. Typically, city officials only will confirm a firing and then cite a policy of not speaking about personnel matters….

… as, you recall, city officials did and still do with regard to former Chief Randy Scott. Which sort of stands out — this willingness to take public sides in the dispute and discredit Navarro. (At this point, a city official is saying, “We can’t win with you media types. You blast us when we won’t talk, and you blast us when we do.” And I suppose there’s something in that.)

The reference to “the chief’s boss” above is not to former Chief Scott, or to City Manager Teresa Wilson, but to senior assistant city manager Alison Baker.

Which sort of points to part of the problem. In this weak mayor, council-manager form of city government, the lines of accountability are wonderfully vague and confused, to anyone who doesn’t make a profession, or at least an avid hobby, of following city government. There is no one elected by the city’s voters who can act unilaterally to straighten out the mess, as there is no elected executive in charge of the police department. The mayor is but one of seven votes on the council.

Which is why stuff like this just festers, on and on. In the meantime, the seven elected co-directors of the city, to the extent that they can work together, need to do what they can to sort out this ongoing soap opera that is the Columbia Police Department. Because it’s not taking care of itself. That is to say, contrary to the myths propagated by advocates of the council-manager system, the “professionals” aren’t handling it very well.

Benjamin raises six figures in 2nd quarter

35 Replies

Adam Fogle just sent this release out:

Benjamin raises over $108K in 2nd Quarter
Columbia, SC — Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin raised more than $108,000 for his re-election campaign during the second quarter of 2013, according to a campaign disclosure report filed with the SC State Ethics Commission at ethics.sc.gov.

“I am humbled and honored that so many individuals across our great city are willing to share their hard-earned treasures in support of our campaign,” Benjamin said. “These generous donations give us the momentum we need to go to November and win.”

Added Benjamin, “Whether it’s $25 or $250, our donors share our vision of One Columbia — a city that is a safe, that fights for taxpayers, that spends wisely and thinks boldly, with a growing economy and plenty of good-paying jobs to support our families. I thank each of them for investing in that vision and joining me as we work together to make it a reality.”

Over 300 individual donors made a financial contribution to Benjamin’s campaign in the last three months totaling $108,304.53. The campaign now has over $100,000 on hand to spend with more than a full fundraising quarter remaining before the November 5 election.
Benjamin is seeking a second term as mayor of South Carolina’s capital city.
# # #

The mayor might need all that and more. I’ve been seeing a lot of “Moe!” signs around town. If you’re riding with me when I see one, you can tell, because it causes me to do my Curly impression.

Sheheen makes entirely unobjectionable speech at summit

22 Replies
Vincent Sheheen, speaking to the Clean Energy Summit this morning.

Vincent Sheheen, speaking to the Clean Energy Summit this morning.

Does that headline sound a bit odd? Well… I was trying to capture what I tend to think, or perhaps feel, whenever I hear Vincent Sheheen speak publicly.

He says a bunch of perfectly fine things that I personally agree with, but he doesn’t make you go away all charged up and ready to do something — such as vote for him. Which could be key.

The speech was just fine. He was the keynote speaker at the Clean Energy Summit over at the convention center, and I thought all the points he made were good ones. I have every reason to believe the audience thought so, too.

The essence of what he said is captured in this excerpt from the op-ed he wrote to publicize the event ahead of time:

Now is the time for South Carolina to step forward as a leader in clean energy, which will benefit our state in many ways and move us toward a more prosperous future.

First, clean energy will help our state’s bottom line and create reliable and affordable energy sources for our citizens. When we create more energy from our own resources, we can stop sending South Carolina dollars out of state and keep them here to build our economy from within.

Currently South Carolina is a net energy importer. About $8 billion a year, a huge outflow, goes out of state to buy energy either as liquid fuel or fuel to power our electric-generating plants. By strengthening our own clean-energy sector, we can keep more of that money here to build our own economy.

In the next decade alone, we could create more than 30,000 jobs directly by attracting clean-energy companies or supporting homegrown ones. Add to that the tens of thousands of additional jobs that will be created in industries that support clean energy, and there’s a tremendous ripple effect.

Plus, with our great capacity to grow, South Carolina could expand further in the recycling, wind and solar industries to employ more than 60,000 within a decade, and our total clean-energy work force could jump as many as 74,000. That means more jobs, better jobs and good pay for the long-term for middle-class families. All we need is the right leadership to look ahead and build a more prosperous future.

Our state is blessed with natural assets that give us great potential to lead the nation. For solar projects, we have an abundance of sunny days. For wind, we have an expansive coastline. For biomass, we have 500,000 acres of available land that could provide great opportunities to sow and harvest energy crops. And of course, we have great people…

And so forth.

He tried creating a little suspense by saying he was going to, here and now, make an announcement about an industry that would bring lots of jobs to South Carolina… but I’m sure before he actually said “the Clean Energy Industry,” everyone figured out that was what he was going to say, so I don’t think the effect worked too well. Maybe if he’d done it a little more quickly… I don’t know.

Vincent always comes across as a really nice guy, so that’s good. He smiles a lot. He likes to salt his speeches with the little self-deprecating politician jokes that tend to go over well with Rotaries and similar audiences. For instance, he suggests that if wind turbines were placed outside the Senate and the governor’s office, “we can power the whole state.” People respond politely. And that’s about it.

I write this way because, as you no doubt have gathered in the past, I think Vincent Sheheen would make a good governor. He’s someone I would trust to make sound policy decisions on a wide array of issues. He would run an administration that would be open and honest, and he would strive for needed reforms to make government be more responsive and do its job better. He’d be a good-government governor, instead of an anti-government governor, which is what we’ve been accustomed to for more than a decade.

But can he get elected? I tend, when I hear him speak, to worry about his intensity, or seeming lack thereof. I don’t doubt that he will work hard as a campaigner, but I worry about his ability to connect sometimes, to motivate people to get on his bandwagon.

Maybe I worry too much. He came so close to winning last time, and now Nikki Haley has a record to run against, so maybe Vincent can win just by being Vincent. I don’t know.

I said something about all this to a friend who was there for the speech. I said Vincent comes across as a good, smart guy whose attitude is, “Sure, I’ll step forward and be governor, if no one better does.” My friend said, “Well, isn’t that what we want?” Meaning a citizen-leader who’s not power-starved or driven by some destructive ideology?

Well, yes. As long as such a person manages to get elected. We’ve seen enough of where good speakers get us. Nikki Haley is a good speaker, partly because she taps into the well of chip-on-the-shoulder demagoguery that has been popular in recent years. Actually, it’s been popular a lot longer than that in SC. Ben Tillman rose to power starting with a rip-roaring populist speech in my hometown of Bennettsville in 1885.

We definitely don’t need more of that.

But can an unassuming good guy get elected? We’ll see…

New York has SC’s 1st District to blame for Spitzer return

19 Replies
Sanford, having his Spitzer moment. Now Spitzer wants to have a Sanford moment.

Sanford, having his Spitzer moment. Now Spitzer wants to have a Sanford moment.

“The Fix” over at The Washington Post mentioned it in the lede of their Spitzer story:

It’s officially the year of the political comeback, with Mark Sanford winning a congressional seat and Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer attempting their own second acts in New York City…

The New York Times was discreet enough to save it until the 3rd graf:

…His re-emergence comes in an era when politicians — like Representative Mark Sanford of South Carolina and the New York mayoral contender Anthony D. Weiner — have shown that public disapproval, especially over sexual misconduct, can be fleeting, and that voters seem receptive to those who seek forgiveness and redemption….

“It,” of course, is the embarrassing decision by the voters of South Carolina’s 1st District to send Mark Sanford to Congress again.

It’s apparently just given all sorts of bad actors bad ideas.

It shouldn’t. Just because voters in one state elected one guy who couldn’t keep his pants zipped (or even stay in this country when he was supposed to be on duty as governor of SC) doesn’t mean a whole other set of voters will vote for a whole other guy who also spectacularly engaged in misdeeds of a sexual nature. Particularly when the two men are so different politically, and their respective electorates are so different. It’s not like they’re all running on the “adultery” ticket, and that’s the political flavor of the month or something.

But national media too often act as though there is a real connection, and I fear that the backers and political consultants and hangers-on who talk these guys into making these comeback attempts do take such absurd, superficial, incidental correlations into consideration.

These things have been inextricably joined by national media since the start. The day that Mark Sanford did his super-painful (to watch, anyway) confessional presser, I was walking over to the State House for it, not exactly knowing what to expect, when an editor from The New York Post (in whose behalf I was on the way to cover the thing), called me on my old Blackberry to ask what I knew. Not much, I had to tell him. He asked, “Is he going to have a Spitzer moment?” I said again I didn’t know, although yeah, it was possible. I had been hearing things the last couple of days, but what I had heard was so sketchy and dubious that I didn’t want to embarrass myself promising such wild stuff when I had insufficient reason to believe any of it. (The only thing I had to go on was the governor’s bizarre disappearance, and his showing up that morning on a flight from Argentina.)

Then, when Sanford finally came out and started talking, I kept thinking, Wow, it was all actually true.

So now, they’re all like, Spitzer’s gonna try to do a Sanford.

Thanks, 1st District. Thanks so much.

Left and right both wrong about Voting Rights Act

37 Replies

The left and the right are both wrong about the Voting Rights Act.

I agree with the right, and disagree with the president and other Democrats, that it’s a good thing that the Supreme Court has struck down the provision requiring South Carolina and other pariah states get preclearance of any change in voting procedures.

That requirement was fundamentally unjust. It assumed a guilt on the part of these states, and required them to prove their innocence before they could conduct their own voting business in ways other states were free to do without undergoing such procedures.

This was wrong. It condemned people who had absolutely nothing to do with past discrimination — all those who were guilty have long, long ago left office, and most are dead. Everyone in public office, appointive or elective, today has spent his or her entire career, if not entire life, in a world shaped by the provisions of the Voting Rights Act. It is completely unjust to require that some people, and not others, labor under the burden of greater suspicion because of the accident of where they happen to live.

If someone did enact new voting lines or procedures, and they in some way violated the Act, then they were subject to being accused of doing so, and having to answer for it. That will still be the case without preclearance. And that is the way it should be. Individuals, and governments, should have to answer for what they do wrong, and not be automatically punished with suspicion over everything they do.

So… preclearance has been an unjust burden, as conservatives say. And it’s particularly hard to justify such an injustice in a time when, for instance, minority voter participation is better in Mississippi than in Massachusetts.

However… where the right is wrong is when it says that the Voting Rights Act is a huge success, particularly for minorities, and that it has moved us racial discrimination in our politics.

On the contrary, under the Voting Rights Act, we have a new kind of racial tension in our politics. Conservatives rail at Democrats, saying the liberals only want to keep the thumbscrews on the South so they can draw more minority-majority districts. And perhaps they do, if they are fools. For in fact, the drawing of such districts has been a tremendous boon to white Republicans.

White Republicans in South Carolina seized power in the early ’90s by giving the Legislative Black Caucus more districts that were likely to elect black legislators. The way this was done was by putting as many black voters as possible into a few districts, and given the racial patterns common to both black and white voters, those districts had a greater tendency to elect black candidates.

But the truth, which for some reason is not painfully obvious to everyone, is that you can’t make some districts super-black without making surrounding districts super-white. What this meant was that for each new “black” district, you created several districts far, far more likely to elect white Republicans. Not only that, but a certain kind of white Republican — one far less likely to give a damn about the concerns of the black citizens who live in other districts.

So, you get two kinds of people — those from majority-minority districts, and those from ethnically cleansed white districts — who are elected BECAUSE of racial considerations, and who know that.

And the way they start to engage issues starts to reflect that. You can see it in debates over public health, education, and all sorts of things that we desperately need to be considered with regard to the good of all the public. Instead, what we get is a few lawmakers elected from districts with a high poverty rate (which tends to correlate to race, although it’s certainly not a one-to-one relationship). They tend to see the value in, say, expanding Medicaid (especially when the federal government is picking up the tab).

But they are outvoted by people from suburbs who can honestly say that their constituents don’t care about such things, and who can afford to treat the whole thing as an abstract, ideological issue. They can dismiss health care reform designed to provide care for the uninsured for something as frivolous as the fact that the name “Obama” is attached. Their constituents are largely fine with that. That is to say, enough of them are to keep electing the same kinds of representatives.

And so we don’t get policies designed for the benefit of the whole state. Because neither kind of gerrymandered district “looks like South Carolina.” Neither represents whole communities, but rather subsets of communities, defined by race. So relatively few legislators see themselves as there to serve a broad range of people in different circumstances, with different viewpoints.

It’s great that we don’t have poll taxes. It’s great that minorities who were marginalized are now so engaged with the political process. In those respects, the Voting Rights Act is a great success.

And we have seen success stories that give us hope for a future without elections that are predetermined by the skin color of the electors. Barack Obama’s two election victories offer that kind of hope.

But on the district level, our politics are still largely defined by race. And there, the Act has not been such a boon.

Good news out of Iran, I hope, I hope, I hope…

3 Replies

Well, I haven’t taken this much satisfaction in an election result in years:

TEHRAN — Hassan Rouhani, a moderate Shiite cleric known as one of Iran’s leading foreign policy experts, has won the election to succeed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the Islamic Republic’s next president, Interior Minister Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar announced Saturday evening.Hassan_Rouhani

With results from all the precincts in, Rouhani had won 50.7 percent of the votes, avoiding a runoff, Mohammad-Najjar said.

The mayor of Tehran, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, came a distant second, with 16.6 percent of the vote. Saeed Jalili, Iran’s hard-line nuclear negotiator, came third with 11.4 percent. A handful of other conservative candidates fared poorly.

After a surge of support in the final week of campaigning from Iranians who did not plan to vote, Rouhani won a surprising decisive majority in a field of six candidates considered loyal to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei…

This could change everything. It might not — millions of things can go wrong — but it just might. It could be the best of all possible outcomes.

For years, we’ve all said that the Iranian people are not like their leaders, but didn’t see how they could get the upper hand after 35 years of Khomeini-inspired fanaticism. The 2009 outcome showed how desperately the extremists would hold on to power.

Could positive change in Iran truly be this simple to bring about? The people turning out — unexpectedly — to reject six candidates favored by the hard-line mullahs in favor of one moderate, even preventing a runoff?

What a repudiation of Iran’s policies up to now! And remember, those policies have included developing nuclear weapons, expressing the wish that Israel cease to exist, backing Assad in Syria, backing Hezbollah in Lebanon and elsewhere (including providing rockets to fire at civilians in Israel), and on and on.

No, this one vote doesn’t reverse all of those things. But it gives hope — hope that apparently has been burning in the hearts of the Iranian people, bless them. Here’s hoping the bad guys don’t find a way to turn this around. This is such a wonderful development…

Sheheen was wrong to blame Republicans, embarrass Hayes

29 Replies

A Tweet this morning from Wes Hayes, the Republican senator from York County, brought my attention to this statement he had put out on Facebook:

It has come to my attention that a press release circulated by South Carolina Democrats today makes potentially misleading claims on my position and motivations for co-authoring an Op-Ed with Senate colleague Vince Sheheen calling for bipartisan efforts in the Senate to pass ethics reform.

All my years in the State Senate, I have sought to work both sides of the aisle to deliver reforms to make our state stronger; today’s Op-Ed is simply a continuation of my willingness to put partisanship aside to benefit our citizens.

The fact is that Governor Nikki Haley has been a champion for passing meaningful ethics reform and has worked closely with the legislature to ensure real reform is accomplished to rebuild the public’s trust in their elected officials. Even in the wake of partisan gamesmanship, she has led the collective efforts to get this passed. Governor Haley is to be applauded for her efforts, not attacked. It’s time to move forward in the Senate and pass this important legislation.

Please read the OpEd I co-authored with Senator Sheheen here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/05/30/2792454/hayes-sheheen-ethics-reform-all.html

Sen. Hayes has my sympathy for apparently getting in trouble for doing the right thing. I’m not sure what “press release circulated by South Carolina Democrats” made “potentially misleading claims” about his position. I had seen a release from Kristin Sosanie over at SCDP, which forwarded a message sent out by Phil Bailey of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

All Ms. Sosanie had said was:

ICYMI – Sen. Sheheen teamed up with GOP Senator and “Dean of Ethics” Wes Hayes in an op-ed in The State this morning calling on elected officials to put politics aside and finally pass ethics reform for South Carolina.

Which I thought was rather nice. I almost commented on it yesterday, it’s so unusual for one of the parties to refer to a member of the opposite party in such laudatory terms as “Dean of Ethics.”

That comment from Ms. Sosanie led into the forwarded email from Phil Bailey, which said:

Sheheen & Hayes urge electeds to put politics aside, stop delaying ethics reform in bipartisan op-ed

Columbia, SC- Today, Sen Vincent Sheheen penned an op-ed with Republican Sen Wes Hayes, calling for the Senate to put politics aside and immediately pass ethics reform in order for SC government to regain public trust. Sen Sheheen also released this statement:

“For the past seven years, I have fought for government restructuring and ethics reform. For the last three weeks, I have worked across the aisle to improve the House’s watered-down ethics bill so that it will actually reform ethics laws. For the past two days, I have voted and spoken up for the need to pass ethics reform. It’s time for the Governor, her Republican leadership in the legislature and members on both sides of the aisle to come together and finally pass real reform.  The partisan bickering has to stop.  The naked self-interest of the governor and other officials has to stop.  We need real ethics reform, now.

“For months now, members of both parties have talked about the need for ethics reform. But action hasn’t followed. I am disappointed that for the past several days the Senate has delayed taking up ethics reform. Enough is enough. The Senate needs to move on ethics reform today, and the legislature should not adjourn until all its work is completed and that means we have reformed our ethics laws.”

Read Sen Sheheen’s bipartisan op-ed with Sen Hayes in today’s State newspaper:
http://www.thestate.com/2013/05/30/2792454/hayes-sheheen-ethics-reform-all.html

That was followed by the text of the op-ed.

Maybe it was another release, but if it was that one, well… it doesn’t characterize Sen. Hayes position or motivation in any way, other than to say that he and Sheheen “urge electeds to put politics aside, stop delaying ethics reform.” And the op-ed did indeed conclude:

Together, we can effect real change, but those who are holding this effort up must start by putting politics aside and putting the interest of the people of South Carolina first.

So what was misleading? Nothing — technically. But only technically.

If this was indeed the release in question, all I can conclude was that Hayes was blamed by some fellow Republicans for the language attributed in the release to Sheheen, specifically:

It’s time for the Governor, her Republican leadership in the legislature and members on both sides of the aisle to come together and finally pass real reform.  The partisan bickering has to stop.  The naked self-interest of the governor and other officials has to stop.  We need real ethics reform, now….

I have two things to say about that:

  1. First, someone in the GOP caucus needs to work on his reading comprehension skills. But that’s a minor point.
  2. More importantly, Vincent Sheheen did the wrong thing in putting out that statement. And Phil, and whoever else was in a position to advise him not to should have spoken up. But the responsibility lies with Sheheen.

This was wrong for Sheheen to do on several levels. There he was, fixed firmly on the high road with his joint op-ed with Hayes, and he has to come out with a statement the next day blaming the governor and the Republicans?

Did Sen. Sheheen not notice that only seven Republicans voted against putting the ethics bill on special order Wednesday, while 13 Democrats did? And at least the Republicans had an excuse — namely, that some of them are certifiable, and trying to revive nullification.

The Democrats who voted against didn’t have a coherent excuse — not even a loony one.

Finally, it was completely inappropriate to embarrass Sen. Hayes by associating him, however indirectly, with such a comment. No, no one said that Hayes had said these things — you have an airtight defense there. But it was wrong to go on the defensive against the governor and her party within the context of talking about the op-ed — especially since the Democrats have so much more to answer for on this issue.

It was even against Sheheen’s own self-interest to do this. This was a leadership opportunity for him, a chance to impress independents and even some Republicans with statesmanship. What he should have done was chew out his fellow Democratic senators who had voted the wrong way.

Wes Hayes was doing the right thing. I’m sorry if it got him in hot water. This is the kind of mess that keeps people from stepping out from behind their parties and leading.

I hope Vincent Sheheen is sorry about it, too.

Michele writes once more to me, her “cherished friend”

16 Replies

Not to mention, “immensely loyal supporter.” Which would come as a surprise to a lot of people.

I received this this morning from Michele Bachmann:

Dear Friend,

As a most cherished friend and an immensely loyal supporter, I’m writing you today to say THANK YOU for all you have done both for me and my campaigns.

As a special thank you, I have prepared a personal video just for you that I hope you will view right now. I’m excited to share this important breaking news about a decision I have made with you first.

After watching the video, I hope you will provide me your feedback or leave a comment.

Again, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for your continued support. I look forward to working with you in my future endeavors.

Michele

As I’ve mentioned in the past, Rep. Bachmann has for some time assumed a certain intimacy with me. I was particularly disturbed when I would get those “Are you free to talk tonight?” emails. It was like she thought we were married, or at least seriously dating.

I suppose I got on the list from my contacts with Wesley Donehue’s outfit, since they worked with her presidential campaign.

Maybe it’s over now. Do you think? Surely I won’t hear from her any more. Will I?