Category Archives: Elections

Wait a sec! Whom will I vote for now?

You know, I was so busy last night writing about the Huntsman departure from the race that only now has this thought occurred to me: For whom will I vote on Saturday, now that he’s out of it?

That’s a toughie. Let’s look at my options, in alphabetical order:

  • Newt Gingrich — He’s a knowledgeable guy. As one uncommitted Republican (the same one who called Romney a “Plastic Banana Rock ‘n’ Roller”) said to me the other night, Newt Gingrich is like the professor and the others are like the students in debates. But knowledge and wisdom are not the same things. And a vote for Newt Gingrich is like a vote for a live grenade with the cotter pin pulled out. You’re only going to be able to hold the safety lever in place for just so long…
  • Ron Paul — No way in the world. As I often say, despite being an UnPartisan I can frequently find points of agreement with both Democrats and Republicans. But Ron Paul comes about as close as anyone can to being the polar opposite of what I believe in. Some times you can with justice call me liberal or conservative (even though I don’t like it), but no one who knows me would call me a libertarian.
  • Rick Perry — Nope. He just doesn’t bring anything to the table that I’m looking for. If all you can offer me is that you’re a Christian and you served in the military, as fine as those things are, you aren’t telling me why you should be POTUS.
  • Mitt Romney — We know about all his failings, mostly arising from his fundamental opportunism. In his favor I’ll say that I don’t think he’d lead the country down a wrong path. But that’s because I don’t think he’d lead it down any path at all. He would just manage what we have.
  • Rick Santorum — I like this guy more than I thought I would (I just thought of him as that culture warrior who got crushed by Bob Casey), and of course as a Catholic I share a lot of fundamental values — more so than with the evangelical Perry. But as much as he touts his foreign policy experience as a former senator, I find it hard to see what about his resume demonstrates a readiness to be POTUS.
I’ve got to pick somebody, because this is my one chance as a South Carolinian to have my vote count (since the November vote here is always a foregone conclusion).
However I do vote come Saturday, I doubt that I will share the decision with y’all — because I won’t feel good about it, and won’t feel like defending it…

Yo, Lee: David Yepsen says “Hey”

Above you see David Yepsen and me, looking relieved and happy that we’re done with our panel presentation at the Senate Presidents’ Forum in Key West over the weekend, and that it went well. Funny how those kinds of things — just talking — can take a lot out of you.

It was an honor to meet David, the legend of Iowa political journalism. And of course when we met, he asked after another legend of political journalism, a man whom everyone knows — and, more remarkably, everyone likes and respects — my longtime friend and colleague Lee Bandy.

I’m lucky to have worked with both Lee and the Tennessee legend, John Parish. And while it was brief, I was honored to share the panel with David Yepsen, who is now director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute (he left The Des Moines Register about the same time I left The State), Saturday. And to get to know a couple of political pros I had not met before, who also served on the panel: First, John Marttila, longtime friend and ally of Joe Biden ever since he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972. John continues to be a senior political adviser to the vice president. From the Republican side, we had Mike DuHaime, who ran Chris Christie’s successful run for governor of New Jersey in 2009.

We had a great discussion, both during the panel and at meals and events before and after.

What did I say during the presentation? Well, not anything I haven’t shared here. I essentially scrapped my prepared remarks, as mentioned previously — which is probably a good thing, because things flow better when I’m winging it. But preparing — not only the writing, but all the conversations I had with top Republicans in SC, right up to a couple of minutes before the program — did help me get my thoughts in order. Hey, if I hadn’t made all those panicked calls Friday night and Saturday morning after seeing those poll numbers, I wouldn’t have known to call Romney a “Plastic Banana Rock ‘n’ Roller,” which still cracks me up — the idea of Romney as ANY kind of rock ‘n’ roller, actually.

Anyway, I’m back from Key West. And it’s going to be a busy week…

Mike DuHaime (or the back of his head, anyway), David Yepsen and John Marttila, during the panel discussion.

In an interesting parallel, Tom Davis backs Ron Paul

Tom Davis signs on with Ron Paul.

Earlier this evening, Sen. Tom Davis put out this release:

SENATOR TOM DAVIS ENSORSES RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT“It’s easy to campaign on lower taxes, less spending and fewer regulations – it’s another thing entirely to stand up for these limited government principles when the entire Washington establishment is aligned against you. Yet for more than three decades Ron Paul has cast thousands of lonely votes in our nation’s capital based on the constitutional principles that this country was founded on – and that the Republican Party has promised to protect. Yet while generations of politicians – including far too many Republicans – were losing their way or caving to the status quo, Ron Paul was standing as a Tea Party of one against a towering wave of red ink.”
“2012 marks the fifth consecutive year in which the federal government is going to spend well over $1 trillion in money it doesn’t have. Each and every American taxpayer is now on the hook for $135,000 worth of federal debt – and last year’s debt deal adds another $7 trillion in deficit spending over the coming decade. Meanwhile the U.S. Senate hasn’t passed a budget in nearly 1,000 days.”

“I’m endorsing Ron Paul because enough is enough. Despite this wave of unprecedented government spending, our unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent for the last 34 months and 146.4 million Americans – one out of every two people in this country – are now classified as poor or low-income.”

“Government activism and government intervention clearly hasn’t fixed our economy – which is why the Republican Party needs a nominee who isn’t wedded to that failed approach. We won’t chart a path to fiscal solvency or victory in November by running toward the failed ideas of the left – we will achieve those victories by returning to the principles that the Republican Party once stood for.”

“That is why I am proud to endorse Ron Paul for president.”

“Ron Paul’s record matches his rhetoric, his fiscal plan matches the fiscal challenges that our nation is facing and his movement represents the taxpayers whose interests have been ignored in the political process for far too long.”

“I’m also endorsing him because unlike what the pundits have led you to believe, he is the candidate who gives the Republican Party the best chance to beat Barack Obama in November.”

“We have a choice: We can keep electing candidates who talk about change only during political campaigns as a way to get elected, or we can finally elect a candidate who will walk the walk and make that change a reality – restoring our bottom line, our individual liberties and our national pride in the process.”

To learn more about Senator Tom Davis visit www.senatortomdavis.com

My first thought was “Wow.” I’ve always liked Tom and have a lot of respect for him, and even though he worked for Mark Sanford all those years and was so close to him, I never regarded him as being nearly as much of a radical libertarian as the former governor. But with this move, he has exceeded his friend in that regard.

But you know what? In his own way, he has done much the same thing that The State did in endorsing Jon Huntsman. Yes, in one regard he did the polar opposite — Ron Paul is the last of the GOP candidates that The State, or I, would endorse. As Cindi Scoppe wrote:

Like any libertarian, Ron Paul embraces the worst positions of the far right and the far left: no social safety net, unregulated markets, an isolationist foreign policy and no moral standards. He is the candidate for those who refuse to accept that they are part of a society and can’t see how much their vision of a crippled government would hurt all of us, themselves included.

But in another sense, the two endorsements were alike.

Surely Tom knows that Ron Paul will never be the Republican nominee for president just as well as The State knew that this was not to be for Huntsman this year. But he went with the candidate he thought it should be, rather than the candidate that it would be. So good for him.

Oh, and lucky Tom. As hopeless as his candidate’s cause is, at least he won’t embarrass Tom by suddenly pulling out. Ron Paul’s candidacy is forever.

All in the family now.

Huntsman, the best man for the job, drops out

I was accustomed over the years to being interviewed by national media on the Sunday morning when a presidential endorsement came out in the paper. Today was no different, as a reporter with NBC called to ask me about The State and and its endorsement, prior to interviewing Jon Huntsman today.

I was happy to explain the Huntsman endorsement within the context of the ongoing consensus of the editorial board. I could well have written many of the words that appeared in the paper today. And I told her to remember the one thing I have said, more often than anything else, in explaining what an endorsement is not, and what it is: It’s about who should win, not who’s going to win. We all knew Huntsman wasn’t going to win, just as we knew Joe Lieberman wasn’t going to be the Democratic nominee in 2004. But he should have been.

And Huntsman was the man who should have won the Republican nomination, as well expressed in the editorial:

We need a president who can work within our poisonous political environment to solve our nation’s problems, not simply score partisan points. Someone who understands that negotiation is essential in a representative democracy, and that there are good ideas across the political spectrum. Someone who has a well-defined set of core values but is not so rigid that he ignores new information and new conditions. Someone who has shown himself to be honest and trustworthy. And competent. Someone whose positions are well-reasoned and based on the world as it is rather than as he pretends it to be. Someone with the temperament and judgment and experience to be taken seriously as the commander in chief and leader of the free world.

We think Mr. Romney could demonstrate those characteristics. Mr. Huntsman already does. And we are proud to endorse him for the Republican nomination for president of the United States.

Exactly. And Cindi’s accompanying column (Nina Brook years ago dubbed this sort of pairing “steak and steak”) went on to explain why none of the other candidates would do. All well reasoned.

And The State‘s reward for having done the right thing, and having clearly stated why, will be catcalls from detractors delighted that its chosen candidate quit only hours after the endorsement was published. (This will particularly thrill the ones who truly hate the newspaper, and maintain that its endorsement is the “kiss of death.” So seldom does anything happen to support their erroneous thesis — the newspaper’s chosen candidates win about 75 percent of the time in general elections — that I suppose we must indulge them in having their fun, eh?)

Have you seen the news? It just broke a few minutes ago:

Huntsman Says He’s Quitting G.O.P. Race

By JIM RUTENBERG, JEFF ZELENY AND MICHAEL D. SHEAR

CHARLESTON, S.C. — Jon M. Huntsman Jr. informed his advisers on Sunday that he intends to drop out of the Republican presidential race, ending his candidacy a week before he had hoped to revive his campaign in the South Carolina primary.

Mr. Huntsman, who had struggled to live up to the soaring expectations of his candidacy, made plans to make an announcement as early as Monday. He had been set to participate in an evening debate in Myrtle Beach.

Matt David, campaign manager to Mr. Huntsman, confirmed the decision in an interview Sunday evening. “The governor and his family, at this point in the race, decided it was time for Republicans to rally around a candidate who could beat Barack Obama and turn around the economy,” Mr. David said. “That candidate is Gov. Mitt Romney.”

Huntsman was right to back Romney, thereby seconding The State’s point that he would be the second choice.

But the nation is worse off for not having Huntsman as an option.

Capt. Romney’s crew fights both sides at once

Note the two sides, above and below, of a mailer I received at home.

One of the good things about being a Patrick O’Brian fanatic is that it provides one with so many good metaphors.

For instance… one of the most difficult things for a man of war’s crew in the age of sail was to fight both sides of the ship at once. One way this might occur would be if a ship sailed between two enemy ships and fired with its larboard and starboard guns at the same time. This took not only a very well-trained crew, but a numerous one — remember, it took a lot of men just to keep changing sail and maneuvering the ship, plus twice the usual number of gun crews. Each gun required a crew of several men, and they weren’t much good if they hadn’t had plenty of experience firing live ammunition at targets under all sorts of conditions.

This required a wealthy commander, because the Royal Navy provided a minuscule amount of powder and shot, and the captain had to shell out his own money if he wanted his men to be able to perform well, even to survive, in a fight.

And only a captain with a numerous, well trained crew would attempt anything so taxing as dashing between two enemy ships to fight both sides at once.

Either that, or a very desperate captain.

I suppose you could interpret this mailer I got at home either way. It was sent out by Restore Our Future, Inc., which exists to promote Mitt Romney.

We know he’s a wealthy captain, with a numerous crew. But is he also desperate?

His foes are the ones who should be desperate. They know that if they don’t stop him in South Carolina, they are done for. But he also knows that, and probably just as soon have done with them all.

So he fires both broadsides at once; never mind the cost.

That plastic banana rock ‘n’ roller Romney is letting me down

Drat.

To borrow from an SNL skit, this is something you can put under the heading of White People’s Problems.

While others at this conference were out playing golf and having fun, I was sitting here in my room in this Key West resort overlooking the aquamarine water, sweating away over my presentation for the panel discussion tomorrow.

In their longest form, my notes were 1,825 words in length, so I pared and whittled, and got it down so it glittered and shone.

And the upshot? After all the hemming and hawing GOP voters have done over the last few months, Romney has it sewn up.

But then I started looking at these polls Gingrich has been touting today:

ICYMI: Recent Polls Show Newt as

Clear Conservative Alternative in SC

Three recent polls show Newt Gingrich emerging as the clear conservative alternative to Mitt Romney in South Carolina.

An American Research Group (ARG) poll shows Newt Gingrich closing the gap with Mitt Romney to just four points in South Carolina, while support for Rick Santorum has collapsed from 24% to just 7% in 7 days.

The results: Romney 29%. Gingrich 25%. Paul 20%. Perry 9%. Santorum 7%. Huntsman 1%. Other 2%. Undecided 7%.

These polls reinforce trends that show Gingrich emerging as the clear conservative alternative to Mitt Romney in South Carolina.

·     Evangelical Support. Gingrich has a commanding lead among evangelical Christians with 40% support compared to Governor Perry with 15% in second.

·     Tea Party Support. Gingrich leads amongst supporters of the Tea party 28% to Governor Romney’s 24%.

Meanwhile, Governor Romney is losing his support amongst independents to Ron Paul, suggesting that the Governor’s support amongst independents is not strong, and would be lost to President Obama in the general election.

Poll Results: http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/sc/

This poll from ARG echoes the findings of two other recent polls.

An Insider Advantage Poll from January 11th shows Newt Gingrich in a statistical tie with Governor Romney with 21% support to the Governor’s 23%.  Rick Santorum has faded to 14% support, with Ron Paul at 13%, Jon Huntsman at 7% and Rick Perry at 5%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/InsiderAdvantage_SC_0111.pdf

A Rasumussen Poll from January 12th also shows Newt Gingrich well ahead of Rick Santorum and Ron Paul with 21% support compared to their 16%. The poll results are available here.

###

And I started to fret. Gingrich has mo.  Here we have all these pols from all over the country ready to hear me in the morning, and what if I make a prediction that was completely off? David Yepsen is here. Today, a guy with PBS was asking me on the phone, “Who is the David Yepsen of South Carolina.” I resisted the temptation to say, “You’re talkin’ to him, baby!”

In any case, the actual David Yepsen (he’s the Brad Warthen of Iowa) is here, and I’m about to make a fool of myself in front of him.

So I started making phone calls to Republicans whose judgment I trust in South Carolina. And the very first one I reached said there’s no way this thing is sewn up, that there’s movement and Gingrich is impressing people.

He said he suspects Romney is going to fail in South Carolina for the same reason he failed with our voters four years ago.

Why is that, I asked?

“Because he’s a plastic banana rock ‘n’ roller.”

What does that mean, I croaked?

It means South Carolinians look at him and see a phony.

Oh.

Anyway, I’m scrapping my presentation for tomorrow. I’m going to wing it. Here’s hoping my “winging-it privileges” haven’t been revoked.

Remembering the Air Florida crash in D.C.

When I was traveling with Howard Baker in Iowa in 1980, before the caucuses, it looked like we were going to be iced in at Dubuque. We had flown in earlier in the day. I had been in the second plane, with a couple of guys from an NBC crew. It was a four-seater, and flying in from Des Moines, the pilot only had a tiny patch of windshield, about the size of my hand, that he could see through by constantly squirting alcohol on it. When I got out of the plane, I was trying to button my trenchcoat when the wind caught it like a sail and I started gliding across the frozen tarmac.

Later, I was scheduled to fly back to Des Moines in the “big” plane, which wasn’t all that much bigger, with Baker. We waited in the tiny general aviation terminal for more than an our while the wings of our plane were deiced, then deiced again, and again. Finally, we got in and took off. Someone told me that they only let us go because it was Sen. Baker.

Two years later, I realized that the aviation officials had done us no favors letting us go. I had no idea how very dangerous ice on the wings could be. Until the Air Florida crash.

In the end, SC Republicans vote for the ‘boss’

Thought I should share with you this story by my friend and former colleague Aaron Sheinin, writing in the Atlanta paper. I think this is officially the umpteenth story about South Carolina to put “down and dirty” in the headline.

Here’s the good part:

Brad Warthen, who spent 22 years writing and editing political news at The State newspaper in Columbia, said South Carolina voters are typically “boring” when it comes to presidential contests.

“Even though we are the state that seceded first and would do it again and all that kind of stuff, there is this anti-establishment, anti-government, hyperindividualism thing, but when it comes right down to it, we kind of vote for the ‘boss,’” said Warthen, now a public relations executive who still writes about politics on his personal blog.

The 2012 cycle seemed different, though, until about mid-December, Warthen said. Perry leaped to the top of the polls after joining the race in August. Then it was Georgia’s Herman Cain who enjoyed front-runner status while Gingrich held that role from late November through mid-December.

“Finally, it’s like, ‘Oh, well, we know we’re going to nominate Romney, let’s just get on with it,’” Warthen said…

After I gave that “boss” quote to Aaron, I told him I had been about to say, “in the end we kind of vote for the massa,” playing a bit on our history. But I had decided against it, partly because people might have found the reference confusing. He said he thought that was a good call.

(Here’s what I was thinking when I thought of “massa.” I was thinking of all the poor whites who got suckered into fighting the Civil War by the massas back then. Nowadays, while those same whites’ descendants love to get excited about fringe candidates, particularly the ones who appeal to their sense of personal freedom — which was the same thing the slaveowners played on in 1860 — in the end they go with the candidate who looks most like the master of the plantation. See? People wouldn’t have gotten all that. They would have thought I was saying something about black voters, and gone, “Huh?”)

There goes the Senate GOP, picking on dead people…

Wesley and the gang at the Senate Republican Caucus are making sure that you didn’t miss this story:

DMV: 900 Dead People May Have Voted

Columbia, SC (AP, WLTX) — The director of South Carolina’s Department of Motor Vehicles has told the State Law Enforcement Division that more than 900 people who were recorded as having voted were actually dead.

DMV Director Kevin Shwedo told legislators about the issue Wednesday as the U.S. Justice Department questions a new state law requiring people to show photographic identification when they vote in person.

In response, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson asked SLED to review the evidence.

“Director Shwedo’s research has revealed evidence that over nine hundred deceased people appear to have ‘voted’ in recent elections in South Carolina,” said Wilson in a statement. “This is an alarming number, and clearly necessitates an investigation into potential criminal activity. I have asked SLED Chief Keel to review Director Shwedo’s research.”…

First, of all, technically, the dead people didn’t actually vote. So they are innocent in this.

So I am shocked that the GOP senators are using this unfortunate incident to insist that their Voter ID law be reinstated. I mean, think about it — these dead people didn’t do anything wrong, and the senators want to penalize them. Do you have any idea how much harder it is for a dead person to get a picture ID than it is for you and me? I mean, have a heart…

The big news in South Florida tonight

This is the big news in these parts tonight:

The company that manufactures Mercedes-Benz luxury cars unleashed outrage among Cuban-Americans in Miami and other cities on Thursday for using the image of Argentine revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara to promote their vehicles.

While Daimler AG, the German company which controls Mercedes-Benz, quickly apologized for the use of the image in a presentation in Las Vegas this week, the damage was done.

Many Cuban exiles in South Florida who have fled the island since Fidel Castro took power with the help of Guevara in 1959 not only rejected the ad campaign but also expressed disgust that such a prestigious company would use the image of the revolutionary blamed for executions and implementation of communism on the island…

Oh, one other thing. Apparently, Mitt Romney was down this way (remember, I’m in Key West) today campaigning. Sounds like somebody’s taking South Carolina for granted, a little bit.

Jon Stewart enjoying SC, as always


The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 – In the South of Madness
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Note that this time, he’s not even waiting for us to make fools of ourselves. He’s just riffing on our reputation.

I guess this is what you call pre-emptive mockery…

A day in the life of the South Carolina primary

Huntsman speaks to students at USC.

Yesterday I was so busy running from one candidate event to another that I didn’t have time to write about any of them. I left the last one while Rick Santorum was still talking, and grabbed a late dinner and packed and hit the sack for about five hours sleep.

So here are some brief notes from what I saw out there on Wednesday:

Rick Perry — The event was set for 1:10 p.m. at Doc’s Barbecue — Kirkman Finlay‘s place. Or one of them, anyway. Kirkman was there, as was Sunny Phillips, the ex-blogger (y’all remember the Crunchy Republican? she’s thinking about starting it back up!) who is working for the campaign. So were plenty of media, as mentioned back here.

Perry arrived reasonably close to the scheduled time, then went around and shook some hands among the sparse, late-lunch crowd. Then he went into the back room, which was packed. But it was a tiny room. There were maybe, maybe 30 people in there who were not press. Tops.

He  pretty much gave his standard God and Country speech, and it was well-received. But as I said, not many there to receive it. Later in the day, an operative with a competing campaign would claim to me that our own Katon Dawson called Perry in Texas after Iowa and talked him into staying in through South Carolina. Next time I see Katon, I’ll ask him about that. I’ll bet Perry’s wondering about that advice.

Jon Huntsman — He also spoke to a full room, but it was a much bigger one, on the top floor of the Moore School at USC. I’m guessing about 300. Of course, it was mostly students, and who knows how many were assigned to be there? Still, they seemed less bored than such groups often look to be.

The room was stifling, it was so packed. Hard to get in or out. Cindi Scoppe actually got out of the office to attend, and had to stand in the doorway. There were USC faculty and staff types there whom I recognized, but mostly a young crowd. When I arrived, Henry McMaster said he was glad to see somebody else there with gray hair. Thanks, Henry. I guess he couldn’t see Richard Quinn, who was out in the hall. Richard was griping about the play Huntsman’s strong New Hampshire finish had gotten. He and others with the campaign told me about how  they had been surging ever since the Sunday morning debate, and the NH result showed it, but analysts were saying Huntsman hadn’t done as well as expected.

For his part, Huntsman talked less about the red-meat stuff he’d been talking about in recent days (term limits, etc.) and concentrated more on wonkish stuff, perhaps because of his academic audience. He talked about congratulating ourselves on what we’ve accomplished in Afghanistan (kicking out the Taliban and al Qaeda, encouraging civil institutions and the like), and getting out. And he talked about the economy, saying banks that are too big to fail are too big — and that government policies encouraged them to be. (OK, that last bit was kind of populist, but he said it in a respectably wonkish way).

He was well, but politely, received. Perry’s tiny assemblage was more into the stuff he was saying.

Mitt Romney — This gathering, which was at The Hall at Senate’s End (former site of Sterling Garden Center), was completely unlike any other I saw on Wednesday. Of course, it was after work, but that doesn’t explain the crowd that I can’t begin to estimate (I couldn’t get to a vantage point to see it all), but I’ll just call it 1,000 people.

This wasn’t a typical, come-out-and-hear-what-this-guy-has-to-say gathering. This was a victory party, and every Republican who wanted to be on the winning team (and that’s a big crowd) was there. Nikki Haley, Curtis Loftis, Ralph Norman, Chip Huggins and all sorts of elected folks, and a lot of people were there to cheer for the presumptive nominee.

The program started late, and a miracle happened: Nikki Haley acknowledged Curtis Loftis — who, after all, was supporting Romney before she was. But she didn’t share the limelight. She and Romney were the only ones I could see — they were on some sort of platform — from where I stood. Unfortunately I got no good pictures, as both my camera and iPhone set exposures automatically, and exposed for the crowd, not for Nikki and Romney, who were over-illuminated by TV lights.

Yep, Nikki basked in that light. And basked, and basked, and basked. I didn’t think she was ever going to let Romney speak, and I wasn’t the only one thinking that. Someone behind me uttered a grunt of irritable satisfaction when she finally started to wrap it up.

Romney, of course, just did what he’s been doing in recent days, talking about that awful Obama fella, who has singlehandedly ruined the economy and given the country’s security away to foreigners. And the crowd ate it up, occasionally making roaring sounds. Like a pep rally.

I had to leave while he was still talking to make it to any of the next event.

Rick Santorum — Things were quieter at the next event. It was a good crowd — bigger than Perry’s; smaller than Huntsman’s. It filled the building out back of the Springdale House on Platt Springs Road. But this was a sit-down-and-listen crowd, very polite and attentive. A number of parents had brought babies and small children. The seats were filled, and the standing room pretty packed as well, with some spilling outside. On the veranda, among others, were Hogan “Chuckles” Gidley and Ted Koppel. Later, I saw Koppel posing for a picture with a fan. (For some reason, a nice lady was also impressed that I was there and wanted to take my picture. I know know why. Maybe she thought I was there as a supporter.) Rusty was there, of course. Rusty was wearing a sweater vest; the candidate was not.

This was a crowd less interested in being on the bandwagon than in hearing the answers they wanted to hear. And in an understated fashion, Santorum provided them. I arrived in the middle of his opening remarks (I would have missed them entirely if I had waited for Romney to finish).

Wrapping up, Santorum did this really effective thing that I’ve never seen before, at least not done this well. Instead of building to a big, rah-rah finish (which Perry had done, for instance), Santorum said something about not really wanting to run for president, having better things to do as a family man, and then said, very quietly, “… but it’s my duty.” The crowd didn’t roar, but you got the sense that they loved him for it.

He talked about three reasons Romney would be weak in a general election: He can’t hit Obama on health care because of Romney care; he’s vulnerable as a Wall Streeter, and he has no more foreign policy experience than Obama himself had.

One woman got up and said she wanted to know his positions on three things: abortion, the family, and Israel. The juxtaposition, the way she said it, caused laughter in the room, even from Santorum. But he politely presented his bona fides on those scores.

In spite of what Ron Paul may say about him, Santorum is pretty hard core on federal spending. He not only wants a balanced budget amendment, but he wants the Constitution to limit the budget to 18 percent of the economy.

I had to leave before he was done, to go pack.

Greetings from way, way, WAY on down South

I’ll be missing the craziness in SC the next day or so, as I’m in Key West talking about it.

You know how the Tea Party and the Occupiers get really worked up about the coziness between politicians and corporations? Well, I’m at the nexus of that. Or one of the nexuses. Or nexi. Or whatever.

Or at least, that’s what the protesters would probably say.

I’m at the Senate President’s Forum, where top officers from state senates across the country get together with corporate types and talk politics. So far, I haven’t met any of the participants, as the first event is tonight. I’ve never attended anything like this before; it promises to be interesting. I’ll tell you what it’s like. (Our own Senate president pro tem, Glenn McConnell, isn’t coming. SC is to be represented by Tom Alexander.)

I’m here to participate on a panel discussion about the presidential election. I’ll be joined by David Yepsen, former chief political editor at The Des Moines Register (somewhere, there are senior political editors who still have newspaper jobs, but I seldom run into them) and now director of the Paul Simon Institute at Southern Illinois University; John Marttila, President of Marttila Communications; and Mike DuHaime, Managing Director, Mercury Public Affairs and former Chief Strategist for Chris Christie’s successful gubernatorial campaign.

My job, of course, is to explain politics in the state that everyone is watching this week.

I need to write some opening remarks, which I worked on a bit on the plane this morning, but have only roughed it out. When I get it written, I’ll share it with y’all.

I’ll also be doing some walking around. This is my first time to Key West.

Look out, y’all — here they all come, right at us

I hadn’t finished eating dinner when an AP alert on my phone told me Mitt Romney had won the New Hampshire primary.

So since then, it’s just been a matter of seeing how they line up behind him.

With 66 percent reporting, Romney has 38 percent, Ron Paul 23 percent, and John Huntsman 17 percent. Which means Huntsman is effectively in second place, since Ron Paul isn’t going to be the nominee. Which was probably about where he needed to be to continue.

Gingrich and Santorum at tied at less than 10 percent. And Rick Perry? Less than 1 percent. He has an explanation for that: “I skipped New Hampshire and aimed my campaign right at conservative South Carolina, where we’ve been campaigning hard and receiving an enthusiastic welcome.”

He and others will be much in evidence henceforth in these parts. Busy day tomorrow. I’m going to try to drop by as many of the following as possible:

  • 1:10 p.m. — Rick Perry at Doc’s Barbecue
  • 3 p.m. — Jon Huntsman at the Moore School at USC
  • 6:10 p.m. — Mitt Romney at The Hall at Senate’s End
  • 7 p.m. — Rick Santorum at the Springdale House in Lexington County

Looks like Gingrich doesn’t make it to town until Thursday — when I will be out of town (more about that later).

Here we go again, y’all…

Rusty DePass, who’s supporting Santorum, says it’s all over for Obama

On Monday, I started getting serious about interviewing SC Republicans, both those who have committed to candidates and one or two who are staying on the sidelines.

I arranged to meet fellow Rotarian Rusty Depass before our weekly meeting. Rusty is supporting Rick Santorum, and made sure to tell me that he’s backed him from the start — no post-Iowa bandwagon-joiner is our Rusty.

It’s very much like Rusty not to support Mitt Romney, whom he calls “the successor to Ford, Dole and McCain” — all relative centrists who led the party to defeat in the fall.

And Rusty isn’t looking for a defeat this year. In fact, he surprised me when he explained why he is unmoved by Republicans who say they back Romney because he can beat President Obama in the fall.

“We’re not trying to beat Obama,” he said, which grabbed my attention. “He’s beat. We’re picking a president.”

Really, I said? Other Republicans have sounded far less certain. Some — not for attribution, of course — just come out and say that they’re resigned to a second Obama term, as much as it displeases them. I got the strong impression that some of the people who did not run this year — Mike Huckabee in particular — stayed out for that very reason. In fact, Huckabee was saying it as early as the start of 2010. And I think he was right, to the extent that anything like that can be predicted so far out.

But Rusty definitely doesn’t think so. And he wants “a real conservative,” rather than “some milquetoast moderate leading us to defeat again.”

But why Santorum?  It’s not like Rusty is always drawn to cultural conservatives. I can understand why my friend Hal Stevenson — who dropped by our table while Rusty and I were speaking (to tell me what he thought of “Tinker, Tailor”) — is supporting Santorum. But Rusty supported Rudy Giuliani last time. (And we all remember what Alec Sanders said about him: “He supports gay rights. He supports banning all handguns. He supports abortion. His wife kicked him out, and he moved in with two gay men and a Shih Tzu. Is that South Carolina values? I don’t think so.”)

Well, we know why he’s not for Romney — aside from the wishy-washiness, Rusty wants “a real person… I don’t begrudge Romney his money, but he’s hard to relate to.” And he maintains that the others have become such “luminaries” that they’re “hard to talk to.”

There are things he likes about the others. “Newt Gingrich has more bright ideas before breakfast than most people do in a lifetime.”

“I would like to see a debate between Gingrich and Obama, and see him just demolish him.” But “when the debate’s over, people don’t like him.”

And Santorum is likable. Rusty DePass thinks so, anyway.

For more on the subject, go read Rusty’s letter to the editor from last week. Here’s how it begins:

Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania is not only well-informed and articulate, but he is a likeable, dedicated, committed, unapologetic conservative. The one election he lost, which seems to be the only gig against him, was because he refused to budge from his conservative principles, and in a heavily Roman Catholic state, he got beat by the last pro-life Democrat in America. All of which brings us to the practical political considerations of nominating a candidate for president. What do they bring to the table? Except for Santorum, the answer would appear to be nothing.

Rusty’s not a guy to mince words. As he sums up, “We have a country to save, and Rick Santorum is the right man to do it.”

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2012/01/05/2101217/santorum-has-best-chance-against.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy

I like some of the things Santorum has to say

Before last week, I confess, I had pretty much ignored Rick Santorum. To me, he was just that former Senate culture warrior who had gotten his clock cleaned by Bob Casey in 2006.

But like a lot of people, I started paying attention to him after Iowa. And you know what? He said some stuff I really liked in the debate Saturday night.

(Meanwhile, I was less than enchanted by some of Jon Huntsman’s statements. For instance, I do wish he’d stop going on and on about term limits…)

My very favorite thing I heard Rick Santorum say was this, in response to Ron Paul:

I’m a conservative. I’m not a libertarian.

Wow. True, not all Republicans are libertarians, but when was the last time you heard one of them stand up and renounce that ideology? And then go on to say… you need to sit down before you hear this:

I believe in some government.

He actually said that! He dares to be a pre-2010 Republican! I just wanted to reach into the TV and shake his hand. Imagine, speaking truth to Ron Paul that way!

Earlier in the debate, he had done something even better. He pointed out that governing and running a business are two different things, and that being a CEO didn’t actually qualify you to be president!

I had gotten so used to Republicans either trying to sound like Mark Sanford or at least being afraid not to sound like Mark Sanford, that these statements were like a balm upon my soul.

And it reminded me — I always have liked the “values” conservatives more than the radical libertarians. (To my ears, “God and Country” sounds a whole lot better than “I, Me, Mine.”) And in general, more than the old school country-clubbers.

Maybe there’s a political future for guys like Bob Inglis yet. I hope so…

But what does “Patriocracy” mean, exactly?

Someone passed this invitation on to me. I think I’d like to attend, although I’m double-checking to see whether I’m welcome, since I wasn’t invited directly. I mean, I assume I’m included in “everyone,” but does a gentleman assume?

You Are Invited to Attend…

The South Carolina Premiere of the Documentary Film ‘Patriocracy‘, Followed by Panel Discussion

6 pm, Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce Auditorium, 930 Richland St., Columbia

Sponsored by the League of Women Voters       Co-Sponsored by the Greater Columbia Community Relations Council

The League of Women Voters invites everyone to a special free screening of ‘Patriocracy’. This new, award-winning documentary film drills down to the roots of political polarization in our nation and offers sound solutions to move beyond it. Brian Malone, the film’s producer and five-time Emmy Award winner, will introduce the film in person. The film features an A-list of national political and media personalities, including former MT Senator Alan Simpson, VA Senator Mark Warner, ND Senator Kent Conrad, former SC Congressman Bob Inglis, Bob Schieffer (CBS News), Eleanor Clift (Newsweek/McLaughlin Group), Ken Rudin (NPR),  and many more.

After the film there will be a panel discussion, moderated by Elisabeth MacNamara, national president of the League of Women Voters. The A-list of panelists includes former Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr.(D; SC 5th Congressional District); Charles Bierbauer (USC College of Journalism and Mass Communication Dean and former CNN senior White House Correspondent); Lee Catoe (Greater Columbia Community Relations Council Interim Dir., former SC Dept. of Alcohol and Other Abuse Services Dir., appointed by Gov. Mark Sanford, Exec. Assistant for Gov. Carroll Campbell); filmmaker Brian Malone; and others.

This event is free and open to the public. Refreshments will be served. Please share with everyone you know.

Film information is available at http://www.patriocracymovie.com/.

RSVP requested, but not required at 803-251-2726 or [email protected].

Save Wednesday evening, January 18 at 6 p.m., and see the film ‘Patriocracy’ being shown at Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce Auditorium, 930 Richland St., in downtown Columbia.

One thing I’m frustrated about, though — I don’t understand where the title came from. Why “Patriocracy?” What do the filmmakers mean by that word? I hope the movie will tell me.

Why do people keep coining new words, instead of using the tried and true ones. Such as, you know, “UnParty.”

Ayn Rand is alive and well in the Club for Growth

It’s been really interesting to see his rivals tear into Mitt Romney for being some sort of heartless capitalist. And it’s been equally interesting to see the Mark Sanford wing of the GOP defend him.

I didn’t have time this morning to finish reading the front-page piece in The Wall Street Journal (which unfortunately is hiding behind the pay wall) about this phenomenon, but I can share with you this release from the Club for Growth:

Statement On Newt Gingrich’s Attacks On Mitt Romney And Bain Capital
Club for Growth President Chris Chocola: “Newt Gingrich should stop his attacks on free markets and apologize to Governor Romney for them”

Washington, DC – The Club for Growth PAC issued the following statement today in reaction to Speaker Newt Gingrich’s attacks on Governor Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital. Yesterday, Gingrich said “Those of us who believe in free markets and those of us who believe that in fact the whole goal of investment is entrepreneurship and job creation…we find it pretty hard to justify rich people figuring out clever legal ways to loot a company, leaving behind 1,700 families without a job.” (Source: New York Times, 1/8/11) Gingrich’s attack was echoed that same day that by the Democratic National Committee, which also attacked Romney for his job creation record at Bain Capital. (Source: Democratic National Committee YouTube Page, 1/8/12)

“Newt Gingrich’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital are disgusting,” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “There are a number of issues for Mitt Romney’s Republican opponents to attack him for, but attacking him for making investments in companies to create a profit for his investors is just wrong. Because of the efforts of Bain Capital, major companies like Staples, Domino’s Pizza, and the Sports Authority now employ thousands of people and have created billions in wealth in the private economy. Attacking Governor Romney for participating in free-market capitalism is just beyond the pale for any purported ‘Reagan Conservative.’ Newt Gingrich should stop his attacks on free markets and apologize to Governor Romney for them.”

Ayn Rand, high priestess of the cult of Self, may be technically dead, but who needs her when we have the Club?

No word, by the way, on whether Chris Chocola is related to the Count. Probably not, given the spelling difference.

Sheheen named as one of 12 to watch nationally

Vincent Sheheen in 2010 with his dad, Fred, and the last Democratic candidate for governor to do better than he did.

Vincent Sheheen in 2010 with his dad, Fred, and the last Democratic candidate for governor to do better than he did.

I was shocked, shocked, to see that Governing magazine named Sen. Vincent Sheheen one of its 12 legislators to watch in 2012:

Sen. Vincent Sheheen exceeded all expectations in his 2010 race for governor. Running in a strongly Republican state in a strongly Republican year, he lost to Nikki Haley — who attracted considerable national media attention — by just four percentage points. An effective legislator, he had sponsored 18 bills that became state law prior to his gubernatorial campaign.

Sheheen, whose father was a state education commissioner, served as a city prosecutor and a state representative before winning election to the Senate in 2004. “Sheheen represents the pragmatic tradition of South Carolina found in dynamic leaders such as former U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings and former U.S. Secretary of Education Dick Riley,” says Andy Brack, publisher and columnist of StatehouseReport.com.

He is widely expected to run again for higher office. “Sheheen remains a public critic of Gov. Haley, which may help explain her rather extensive out-of-state fundraising during her first year in office,” says Jack Bass, a College of Charleston political scientist.

Why was I shocked? Because I thought it was some sort of physical law of the universe that national media were incapable of acknowledging Vincent’s existence.

Over and over, we heard (and still hear) about the terribly exciting miracle of the Indian-American woman who won the GOP nomination in our state, and then went on to be elected by the skin of her teeth, garnering a small percentage of the vote than any other statewide Republican in a huge year for Republicans.

Not once did I see even a hint of that sort of interest in the first Lebanese-American Catholic nominee in state history — who did better than any Democrat since Jim Hodges won, by hitching his star to a state lottery, in 1998.

Until now.

What Romney said about NLRB was technically wrong, but his message was accurate

Late last week the Obama re-election campaign brought to my attention a PolitiFact piece that said something Mitt Romney said about Obama’s NLRB was untrue.

And it was, technically. But what he was trying to say was essentially true.

Politifact described the Romney ad this way:

In the ad, Romney stands in front of workers on a factory floor and says that “the National Labor Relations Board, now stacked with union stooges selected by the president, says to a free enterprise like Boeing, ‘you can’t build a factory in South Carolina because South Carolina is a right-to-work state.’”

Here is Politifact’s ruling (and go ahead and read the entire explication that precedes it):

The Romney ad claimed that the NLRB told Boeing that it “can’t build a factory in South Carolina because South Carolina is a right-to-work state.”

The NLRB’s complaint started a legal process that could ultimately have resulted in a factory closure, but the NLRB as a whole didn’t tell Boeing anything. What’s more, the legal basis for the action centered on whether Boeing was punishing the union for staging strikes, not that Boeing had opened a factory in a right-to-work state. We rate the statement False.

Bottom line, Boeing had said it wanted to get away from all those strikes, and that’s that got it into trouble. Well, one good way to get away from strikes is to go to a “right-to-work” state, where you are less likely to be dealing with a union.

So… as an editor, if someone had written for publication the words spoken in the Romney ad, I wouldn’t have allowed it. I’d have reworded it. But I would have understood what he was saying.