Category Archives: Elections

A candidate to be taken seriously

36 Replies

I don’t know a whole lot about Jon Huntsman. I mean, I know a few things, but not enough to reach critical mass for a judgment in my own mind.

But I know I’ll be watching him closely, now that he’s announced:

JERSEY CITY, N.J. — Jon M. Huntsman Jr. officially launched his White House bid here Tuesday morning, setting up a campaign for the GOP nomination that, if successful, would lead to a matchup against his former boss.

“I’ve been a governor … I’ve been a businessman and a I’ve been a diplomat. I’m the husband of the love of my life … and the father of seven terrific kids,” Huntsman told a crowd of supporters at Liberty State Park, the Statue of Liberty rising just behind him. “I’m from the American West, where the view of America is limitless with lots of blue sky.”…

I look at it this way: Jon Huntsman has a reference that is almost as good as having the UnParty seal of approval — Barack Obama. The president hired him for a job of considerable responsibility, ambassador to China. You know, that big place across the water that owns all that U.S. debt. The place where all that stuff at Walmart comes from.

So if Obama thought enough of him to hire him, and now he’s turned in his notice in order to run against Obama — well, that’s a guy who might have something to say worth listening to. He might be a credible, informed critic.

So I’m going to listen.

Speaking of listening, I listened in to a conference call Dick Harpootlian had today with media types to talk about Huntsman, after which he put out this release:

Harpootlian welcomes “ambassador, governor, Democrat, Republican Jon Huntsman to South Carolina”

Columbia, S.C. –  South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Dick Harpootilan held a conference call today to welcome Jon Huntsman to South Carolina.

While Huntsman travels to our state to kick off his Presidential campaign Harpootlian welcomes him by saying, “we always welcome Obama administration officials in South Carolina.”  Harpootlian called Huntsman a political “schizophrenic” who’s “very similar to Mitt Romney” in his flip-flopping on key issues such as the Recovery Act.

“Between Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, we have, actually, four candidates rather than two,” said Harpootlian.

That’s pretty much what he said to us on the phone. Afterwards, I asked him whether he was more worried about Huntsman than he was the other Republicans. He said he wasn’t. But I think he should be.

Yeah, Huntsman has a challenge before him getting the nomination with his party momentarily in the thrall of the Tea Party. But from what little I’ve seen so far, he seems like he could have a better chance in the general if he could get that far.

But as I say, that’s how it looks so far. I’ll keep watching.

Making use of the “women are grownups” argument

16 Replies

A couple of days back, in the midst of an argument about something else, I started griping about a piece I’d read somewhere by a feminist of the “men and women are just alike and don’t you dare say otherwise” variety (there are all sorts of feminism, and that is but one type), suggesting that there’s nothing to the idea that male politicians are inherently more likely to engage in sexual misbehavior than are female politicians.

I begged to differ, citing my oft-asserted belief that, in general, women are more likely than men to be actual grownups. To elaborate:

You know me; I hate Identity Politics. I don’t care whether our legislative bodies are all male, or all female, or all white or all black, as long as we get the best candidates (which we don’t, but don’t stop me; I’m on a roll). I’m not for electing women qua women. But there’s a side benefit apart from the IP one: Elect more women, you get more grownups.

Yes there are exceptions. And we could have a debate, if you’d like, about whether the problem with Nikki Haley is that she “governs like a guy.” But in general, the principle holds….

Well, I’m not the only one thinking that way. The Southern Institute for Women in Politics is pushing the same line:

Retrospective on scandal

Lessons learned from the likes of Anthony Weiner

Comedians will regret the loss of great material provided by Anthony Weiner’s denial and later admission of lewd electronic behavior. Weiner’s Congressional colleagues will be relieved by his resignation so they can return to business. But Weiner’s sad tale of self-destructive and testosterone-induced behavior is just one in a growing list of elected men (of both political parties) that tells a bigger story to tell: In 2011, U.S. politics is still a boys’ club.

When we’re all finished clucking our collective tongues, we need to get focused and recognize that this is a call to action for women – including women in South Carolina.

Research points to a substantial gender gap in the way women and men approach running for office. Women have different reasons for running, are more reluctant to do so and, because there are so few of them in politics, are acutely aware of the scrutiny they draw – all of which seems to lead to differences in the way they handle their jobs once elected.

“The shorthand of it is that women run for office to do something, and men run for office to be somebody,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. “Women run because there is some public issue that they care about, some change they want to make, some issue that is a priority for them, and men tend to run for office because they see this as a career path.”

So, it’s time for more of us to step up to the plate.

Not everyone needs to be a candidate, but all women need to be more informed, more involved, in politics at every level. At a minimum, we need to vote – cast a ballot for everything from who runs our children’s schools to who sets the tax rate for our towns – have a say in who gets to make these decisions that affect our lives.

We desperately need good women to run for office. We can’t win the game unless you play, so come on ladies, let’s get moving.

How you can help clean the political house:

So, friends, let’s learn some lessons from Anthony Weiner (and Elliott Spitzer, Mark Sanford, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc., etc., etc.) and make 2012 the year we run and elect more women to office in South Carolina than ever before.

Read news that directs our lessons

Weiner Scandal: A Victory for Women Leaders?
The mentality has to change. The world is half men and half women. The government has to >>

In political scandals, girls won’t be boys
“I’m telling you,” said Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., “every time one of these sex scandals goes, we just look at each other, like>>

More Women Needed in Politics
The story of U.S. Rep. Anthony and his Weiner is more disappointing than surprising.Another male>>

Women are better investors, and here’s why
Call it the Weiner principle: men self-destruct. Anthony Weiner has put men in a pickle.Here’s why>>

How about Dan Adams’ new book?
Man Down: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Women Are Better Cops, Drivers, Gamblers, Spies, World Leaders, Beer Tasters, Hedge Fund Managers, and Just About Everything Else. Read more>>

Welcome to the team, girls. I mean, ladies. I mean — aw, I’d never make a good feminist anyway…

And I take exception to the beer taster thing.

What is marriage? (Hint: It’s not what Ron Paul thinks it is)

88 Replies

One of the more foolish things said in that debate last night was said by Ron Paul and I responded thusly:

Paul: “Get the government out” of marriage? What? What? What does he think marriage is? A secret agreement between 2 people? It’s a CONTRACT!

(Are you proud of me that I went with the more traditional “What? What?” rather than resorting to “WTF?” I am.)

To elaborate — and I fear I must elaborate, because for whatever reason this seems counterintuitive to a lot of folks — it is instructive to think for a few minutes about why we have marriage. Yeah, I get what Ron Paul thinks — that it’s some sort of private and/or religious thing. And yes, for us Catholics, it is indeed a sacrament.

But we had marriage long before there were Catholics. We had it before the Hebrews discovered monotheism. We had something like it, anyway, if it involved no more than jumping over a stick, or living together openly in the eyes of the whole community (thereby inviting its censure or assent). Because when humans are gathered into tribes or clans or whatever, it’s an important institution. It has to do with the fact that human offspring are so difficult to raise from the time they are born — no clinging to the mother from birth while she goes about her business the way apes do.

It is in society’s interest to have the male responsible be bound in some way to the female he impregnated. Yep, we’re still struggling to accomplish that today. (And much of the social dysfunction we struggle with today arises from our failure to get it right, as a society. Which only underlines the stakes in continuing to try to get it right.) But bottom line, that is the legitimate motivation of the full society in having such an institution. It gives the whole village somebody to yell at when there are all these kids underfoot: “Hey, you! Can’t you control your kids?” The village was wise to come up with this practice, to protect itself. And then, gradually, to develop the idea that it’s wisest to keep males and females apart, or turn hoses on them or something, until you have arrived at this society-protecting contract. (Something we’ve sort of forgotten in the past generation, but some in the more culturally conservative halls of academia are rediscovering it.)

So we started the institution, and developed all sorts of rules and regulations and codicils and rituals around it, such as the rehearsal dinner, and bridezillas. In a time when there was no notion of separation of religion and civil authority, it was perfectly natural that religious rituals and practices would become intertwined with the civil expectations and obligations. We should not, as a result of that, make the mistake of thinking it is “merely” a religious arrangement.

Of course, as well as “What does he think marriage is?” I could ask “What does he think government is?” Well, it’s nothing if it’s not simply the arrangements we come up with among ourselves for living together in a crowded society. I realize that libertarians think it’s some THING “out there” that’s menacing them, but it’s just us. Particularly in this country, the one with the longest-running experiment in self-government, it’s just us.

Anyway, to recap: We have marriage because long, long ago, it was noticed that if you left a man and a woman alone together, there was a tendency to have all these kids running around in short order. Primitive societies realized they needed to mitigate the potential ill effects of that explosive situation, and invented marriage. Put another way, we don’t have marriage for the couple, or for their priest or whatever. We have it for the kids, and the village they have to grow up in.

Recalling the national overreaction to that Edwards column

13 Replies

A few days ago, Mike Fitts posted this on Facebook:

This seems like a good day to re-post my former boss’ column, written not all that long ago in the summer of 2007, about his gut feeling that John Edwards was “a big phony.” Got Brad Warthen national attention then, but all too obvious now.

Which I thought was nice of him to remember. I suppose it was because a certain person was back in the news…

Mike linked to the version at thestate.com, which is appropriate because that’s the one that got all the page views — 190,000 the first day, as I recall. Totally screwed up the stats for the paper’s website for the next year. Whenever the online folks presented stats at senior staff meetings, they had to explain, “We’re actually doing well, it’s just that is looks down because we’re up against that Edwards column of Brad’s…”

I was jealous of that traffic; it certainly would have been cool if it had gone to my blog. That would have been a huge hit — like months worth in a day. (Back then, I only got about 20,000 or 30,000 page views a month. You may be surprised to know that today, my traffic is closer to 200,000 a month — sometimes more, sometimes less.) Also, the version I had posted on my blog was better. I had written the column at home on my laptop and didn’t realize how long it was, and had to chop it down much more than I would have liked to get it into the paper. The version on my blog — the “director’s cut” — was shorter than the original, but quite a bit longer than the paper version. My point came across better in the blog version, because the anecdotes weren’t quite as truncated.

But still, the lesser version created a weird sort of splash. Still does. I got a letter just a week or two ago from a reader who says that he was an Edwards supporter and gave me grief in a letter at the time (I don’t recall), and is sorry now. But a lot of smart people didn’t see the problems with this guy at the time. In fact… I’ve told y’all before how I talked myself hoarse in a three-hour meeting to get the board to endorse Lieberman in the 2004 primary, right? What I may not have mentioned was that a couple of my colleagues wanted to back Edwards, and I was determined not to let that happen — so determined that I just won my point by exhausting everyone. I’m very glad not to have an Edwards endorsement on my record. (By the way, when people give me a hard time for how horribly Joe did in that primary, I have a ready answer: “Yeah, the voters went with Edwards. I’m more satisfied than ever that I was right.”)

I was shocked at the reaction the column got. It was just something I had had on a back burner for months. I had said something on my old blog about Edwards being a phony, and readers demanded to know what I meant, and when I realized how many words it would take to explain (being based on several encounters with the guy), I told them I would do a column sometime. I had been on vacation the week before I wrote this, and for one reason or another decided to take one more day — the following Monday — off as well. Feeling guilty, I told my colleagues that to make up for it, I’d whip out a column over the weekend, so nobody else would have to write one for Tuesday. This was an easy one to do, the “legwork” for it having been done inadvertently years before. So I dropped by the office Sunday just to check my memory on a couple of dates and such, wrote it that night at home, and turned it in on Monday morning — and didn’t think about it any more.

Then, the next morning, two people stopped me on the way into the building to talk about the column, and the reaction that was already manifest. I think Drudge had already picked it up. Later in the day, the column — or rather, the Edwards campaign’s reaction to it — was the LEDE political story on the Fox News site. As the week wore on, I was about worn out with media interview requests. I did as many as I could, including Dennis Miller’s show, which was fun. It was a day or so before I had any actual contact with the Edwards campaign (it led to no more than a lunch with the lovely Teresa Wells, in which she told me how wrong I was and I told her that no, I wasn’t). But I had heard that Mrs. Edwards, among others, had gone somewhat ballistic.

The media reaction surprised me. I hadn’t thought much of the column myself, and it was some time later before I figured out why the reaction was so much bigger than anything I could have imagined: The thing is, I had SO completely dismissed Edwards in my mind by that time. I had decided years earlier that I didn’t take him seriously, in spite of his having won the primary here in 2004. So who cared what I thought of him at that point, right? I mean, the column was still worth doing on a day when I just needed a column because he WAS still in the news. But I was convinced the nominee was going to be Obama or Clinton. And I just wasn’t seeing the enthusiasm for him in SC that had so alarmed me in 2004.

But a lot of folks, including national media, were very much taking him seriously still. Hence the reaction… And when I saw how the news stories about it were written, I realized: Oh. Everybody’s thinking, the editorial page editor of the largest newspaper in a state where Edwards HAS to win has just totally dismissed him. That’s the deal. The situation reminded me of that Mark Twain quote: “I was born modest; not all over, but in spots; and this was one of the spots.” It was one of those rare occasions when other people thought my opinion was a bigger deal than I thought it was. Doesn’t happen much.

I was reminded of this when the Mark Sanford Argentina thing broke. Sure it was a big story here, and pretty big nationally as well. I got that. But there’s a difference between a big story that everybody talks about, and something important enough to be the lede story in The New York Times. I’ve written before how the NYT has a VERY conservative, old school idea about its lede position — which I respect. As a front-page editor back in the 80s, I’m kind of old-school myself. There is a huge difference between the most interesting story of the day and  the most important. Sometimes, the same story is both. This was not one of those times. I expected it to be a big story above the fold in The Times — maybe with a picture. But no, it was a simple, sober, one-column lede story. Which startled me.

Remember, I was helping out The New York Post on that one. (By the way, my first interaction with the Post had been when they asked to reprint the Edwards column. Dig the headline they put on it.) A story under my byline led that paper. But that was to be expected. That was the Post. I thought the NYT would have a greater sense of perspective — yes, interesting scandal, but not that earth-shattering, I thought they’d harrumph.

Here’s why I was wrong: Again, the national media were overestimating a South Carolina political figure. Since I knew Mark Sanford well, I didn’t take any of that “presidential contender” garbage seriously. The NYT did. Hence this wasn’t just a juicy scandal to them. It was a contender’s White House chances being dashed.

It’s interesting when you suddenly see things from another editor’s perspective…

And then afterwards, a beer. Or two…

1 Reply

Cleaning out the old IN box, I ran across this Tweet I had sent myself meaning to blog about it last week:

Taegan Goddard @pwire

Taegan Goddard

New poll: Which presidential candidate would you want to have lunch with?http://pwire.at/mJNvAf

Turns out that far more Americans polled — 53 percent — would rather have lunch with Barack Obama than any of the GOP candidates. Sarah Palin came in at a “distant second” with 16 percent.

Last election cycle, all the talk was about who you wanted to have a beer with. Asking the question this way is going to foul up our stats, for comparison purposes.

But it may be a better, more rigorous question. Most of us are probably less picky who we have a beer with. Although it depends on who’s buying.

A realistic view from another smart Republican

4 Replies

To elaborate on my theme that smart Republicans know that unseating Barack Obama will be a tall order (something that the fringe people, such as those who think the Tea Party is the “voice of the people,” completely miss), I point you to this piece by Daniel Henninger.

He blames, interesting enough, new media. He says GOP candidates who start this early will be cut down to nothing by the time the campaign is over by the constant drip of criticism on Twitter. It’s related to what we spoke of four years ago as Romney’s YouTube problem.

Strangely, he doesn’t see this as a problem for Obama, and his explanation of that is odd:

Meanwhile, it’s good to be president. With his opponents determined to spend a year and a half telling each other why “no one” is worth supporting, turning off contributors and independent voters, Barack Obama floats below the radar vacuuming up campaign cash at fund raisers.

He does make a legitimate point in the next sentence, however:

Every GOP candidate’s utterance is wholly political, but the Obama fundraisers and “policy speeches” are submerged in the presidency.

But he got the metaphor wrong. A president doesn’t fly BELOW the radar, but in a way above it. He’s fully visible, but can cloak his political statements in doing the job. Yep, that’s an advantage of incumbency. And always has been.

What Henninger ignores is that Obama has been thoroughly tested by new media, and not found wanting. There is nothing that can be thrown at a candidate via Tweets that hasn’t been hurled at him millions of times. And he sort of dropped the Big One on those flak sites a couple of weeks ago with the long form of his birth certificate, and his well-tempered scorn at his most imaginative critics. And, you know, by killing bin Laden. And, more substantially, by not being the extremist that his most extreme critics would paint him as.

If the GOP wants to prevail, it needs to come up with a candidate who can likewise endure the thousand slings and arrows. But the ones with that kind of substance are increasingly reluctant to get in.

In the end, Henninger rightly assesses the situation thusly, given the field as it stands:

A Republican candidate committed to running this gauntlet has to believe that come November 2012, the party will have nowhere else to go but to the polls to pull the lever for the last one standing. This assumes that the messaging power of electronic networks will magnify them. I believe the opposite: Given this much time, the medium eventually will melt them. The president, head ever up, will hold his ground.

The message in this for Republicans is that they need to come up with a candidate who, after being whittled at for 18 months, still has some substance left.

Oh, and by the way. I don’t know how Henninger votes. But if he isn’t a Republican, he missed a good chance.

Like Tessio, Huckabee was always smarter

12 Replies

It’s the smart move. Tessio was always smarter.

— Michael Corleone

There was little surprise in Mike Huckabee’s decision to stay out of the 2012 presidential contest. He was one of the first to come out and speak of how hard it would be to beat Barack Obama, back in the fall. He said it again during the winter. And probably plenty of other times when I didn’t notice it.

And as hard as it might be for some Republicans to believe, he was not immediately struck dead by a lightning bolt on any of these occasions.

Yes, anything can happen between now and next year, but serious candidates have to get rolling NOW, and right now, things don’t look good for anyone seeking to go up against the incumbent.

The other day I exchanged email with a prominent South Carolina Republican who — when I brought up the subject of Jon Huntsman — said he doubted he had the traction to win the nomination. I responded,

Traction is the issue. Because unfortunately, these things tend to boil down to whom the party faithful want — which isn’t what wins elections.

Personally, I’m convinced that, given most scenarios, Obama wins this one. The GOP’s best chance is to come up with someone who appeals to people who might otherwise go for the incumbent. Who better to win over independents than someone who actually served in the Obama administration, then decided to oppose the president? THAT’S a story that works with independents, whereas the “Obama is and always has been the devil” people don’t get anywhere with swing voters.

The amazing thing was that in 2008, both parties went with the candidate most likely to appeal to swing voters. It doesn’t seem likely that the GOP will do that this time, on account of the Tea Party and such. Which means I wouldn’t give much for Republican chances this time (at this point, of course, which must always be our caveat).

To which my unnamed (for his own good) Republican said, “Unfortunately, I tend to agree with your analysis…”

I think a lot of smart Republicans are thinking along the same lines, if not saying it. Which is why these days we hear mostly from the yahoos who don’t get what’s going on…  (Or the sad cases like poor Mitt Romney, a guy with an actual accomplishment under his belt who has to run AWAY from said accomplishment.) The smart ones are quieter, understanding the situation better.

So, how does Donald Trump’s announcement today fit with my “smart guy” theory… well, um, not so well… I know! He is the exception who proves the rule! I mean, if Huckabee is Tessio under my theory, then… well, there was nobody in “The Godfather” like Trump, unless it was Moe Green. Trump is like… Crazy Joey Gallo.

Seriously, I don’t care why he dropped out, since I never thought he was worth speaking of seriously. I guess he found another shiny toy to play with.

I just can’t get THAT much into political trivia

8 Replies

Twitter alerted me to this item on Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire:

Iowa Straw Poll Rises in Importance

“With the Iowa straw poll a mere 90 days away, the absence of an obvious leader in the GOP race for the presidency, or even an obvious lineup, has left Republicans in a state of unease — but the uncertainty has also heightened anticipation,” the Des Moines Register reports.

First, I don’t care all that much about the Iowa caucuses themselves. That is to say, I don’t believe they should have the impact they have had for the last few decades. I wrote about that in a column several years ago.

Second, I can’t think of when I was ever impressed by a “straw poll” — anytime, anywhere. If I did, it was a moment of weakness in which my sense of perspective was badly diminished, perhaps by a nutritional deficiency of some sort.

But the idea of anybody being so a-quiver about such things as to write the phrase, “With the Iowa straw poll a mere 90 days away…” causes me to think that somebody needs to get a life…

Whew! I feel SO much better…

13 Replies

No doubt you, too, will sleep more soundly once you read this:

Haley dismisses risk of debt
ceiling disaster

… Haley was asked Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” whether the debt ceiling should be raised.

“Absolutely not,” she said. “We are seeing total chaos in D.C. right now. The very first thing they need to do is make sure that they stop raising the debt.”

However, the federal government finances itself partly by selling debt to investors and other countries through Treasury bills that must be paid back, Obama said in a town hall style meeting shown on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

“If they thought that we might renege on our IOUs, it could unravel the entire financial system,” he said, and the result would be a recession worse than the last one.

“So we can’t even get close to not raising the debt ceiling,” Obama said.

Asked about the possibility of damaging America’s credibility, Haley said, “Government is notorious for saying the sky is falling.”…

And remember, our gov knows about money stuff like this. She is a way skillful accountant. Just ask her; she’ll tell you.

Also, she never makes mistakes. Ever. We are in such good hands…

And if you read further in that same story, you encounter this:

“I find it silly,” Haley said about talk of her joining a Republican presidential ticket in 2012.

Right again, governor! Nothing sillier… Told you she was awesome.

Of course, there is a downside to this good news:

Haley said she is committed to serving out her term as governor.

“The people of South Carolina took a chance on electing me,” she said. “It is my job and my family’s job to prove to them that they made a good decision.”

Poor Mitt Romney, having to flee his strength

8 Replies

How weird has it gotten in the GOP presidential field this year? This weird:

Mitt Romney is making it official. No, not that he’s officially running for the White House. (That will come soon enough.) That he really, really doesn’t like the health care reforms President Obama signed into law last year.

“If I am elected president, I will issue on my first day in office an executive order paving the way for waivers from ObamaCare for all 50 states,” Romney writes in an op-ed in Thursday’s USA Today. “Subsequently, I will call on Congress to fully repeal ObamaCare.”

The former Massachusetts governor will take his show on the road later Thursday, when he lays out his five-part health care alternative in person at an afternoon speech at the University of Michigan’s Cardiovascular Center.

The event is Romney’s most direct attempt yet to address what is widely seen as his biggest political liability: his work as governor to establish universal health-care coverage in Massachusetts…

Poor Romney. His chief virtue is that he tried, way out ahead of most of the country, to address our chief domestic challenge. And he showed that he understood one of the fundamentals of ANY reform with a chance of doing any good, that a mandate would have to be part of it. And now, to remain viable in a party that has charged over a cliff into an irrational vacuum on the issue, he has to run from that achievement.

Pretty sad.

The connection to the royals didn’t do the trick

5 Replies

That's 2nd Lt. Prince Harry (Henry Charles Albert David) of Wales on the right, Lt. Col. Bill Connor on the left, in 2008 (or late 2007; I'm not sure): "He called me Bill and I called him Harry."

Remember all the back-and-forth between the candidates for Democratic Party chair back before the convention, some of which I kept track of here (to the point that I was sort of sorry I started)?

I just didn’t get those kinds of releases from the candidates for GOP chair beforehand. Oh, I saw some back-and-forth on Twitter about how Nikki Haley was backing one candidate, and her critics at SCTruth were backing another, and so forth and so on. But they didn’t give a lot of context, and if there was a battle of emailed press releases, I missed it. Even though I had specifically asked to be kept in the loop (and folks, I seldom ASK for press releases), and at least two of the three campaigns said they’d send me whatever they sent out.

But about all I received via that medium in the last days was this one Facebook alert from Bill Connor, on the day of the royal wedding:

“Brad,
Thought you might like this bit of history in honor of the Royal Wedding (the picture is on my fb profile).  Hope you are well!:  http://www.facebook.com/l/ae801_1klnj9MQbQucenXRWIjsA/seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004253009_harrypal01.html“

As it happened, I had already known that about Connor. In fact, he had written us an op-ed piece about it, right after his highness had spent a brief time serving alongside SC Guard troops in Afghanistan (before the word got out and they had to yank him out of the country). The above photo ran with that piece.

Anyway, so much for any of the fairy-tale effect of the royal wedding rubbing off. Bill Connor came in third in the competition state GOP chair.

Which reminds me — I need to get winner Chad Connelly in here for a “Brad Show.”

Bachmann running DOUBLE ads at thestate.com! Where’s my taste?

10 Replies

OK, this is getting ridiculous. I knew that Michele Bachmann throwing around Web ad money in SC, but multiple ads per page on thestate.com? (On one page, I saw THE SAME AD twice, with one copy of it stacked on top of the other, the way those two slightly different ones are below. But when I tried to call it up like that again to grab a screen shot, I couldn’t get it to refresh quite that way.)

And not a single ad on bradwarthen.com. Which would probably give her a better deal.

At least, not yet.

Is this right? Is this fair? Is this the way the world should be? To quote the guy in the movie that came out today, “I say thee nay!”

If this pattern keeps up, I’m going to start seriously questioning this lady’s judgment…

Anybody see anything good at GOP debate? (FYI, this post mentions Ron Paul)

11 Replies

As I mentioned before, I didn’t go. To the GOP debate in Greenville, that is. And I didn’t even think to watch it on TV last night (was it even on live? I wouldn’t know). When I got home from the Five Points event, the fam was watching a 1944 musical comedy called “Bathing Beauty,” starring Red Skelton, Esther Williams, Basil Rathbone, Xavier Cugat and Harry James and his orchestra. Which caused me to realize something: When he was young, Red Skelton looked a lot like Conan O’Brien.

Anyway, I read the stories about the debate in The State today — this one and this one — and didn’t get the sense that I missed anything at all.

But perhaps some of my readers DID see it, and were impressed by something or other. If so, this would be a good time to share.

I’m sure it wasn’t as bad as this guy says:

Hollywood is reportedly at work on a remake of the 1991 film “Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s Dead.” This, however, is unnecessary, because a remake is already playing. It’s called the Republican presidential primary.

In the original, a mom leaves her kids with a babysitter for three months, but after the babysitter dies of a heart attack, the children fend for themselves for the summer.

The GOP nominating contest so far follows a very similar plot. With the grown-ups (played by Jeb Bush and Mitch Daniels) out of town, the field has been left in the custody of caretakers (played by Mitt Romney, Donald Trump and Newt Gingrich). When even the babysitters fail to show up at the first debate of the season, the juveniles run the thing themselves.

At Thursday night’s debate in South Carolina, Libertarian Rep. Ron Paul explained why heroin and prostitution should be legal and why the Department of Homeland Security should be eliminated…

As I said, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t that bad. But… I don’t seem to have missed anything. There IS quite a bit of excitement among Ron Paul fans, partly because they’re always excited (which is why I put him in the headline — that’s always good for about 1,000 page views), and partly because apparently no one at the debate offered him any competition in attention-grabbing.

Bottom line, what’s going on here is… nothing. You might see some activity at some point in the future among some Republicans who, if they gain the nomination, just might have a chance of giving Barack “Hey, I Just Killed bin Laden” Obama a run for his money, but none of them were going to poke their heads out this week.

And I’m not going to bet that this ever gets competitive, with serious candidates really running hard. At least, not soon. (Which is a shame because, you know, I’d like to get some of those ad bucks here on the blog.)

The contrast to four years ago is palpable. In May 2007, there was a GOP presidential debate here in Columbia, and while I didn’t actually go to that one, either, I did watch it on TV. I watched it in a bar with Bob McAlister. The reason we were in the bar was that John McCain was supposed to show up there after. He did, and that’s when I shot my most popular candidate video ever — the one that has been viewed 62,671 times on YouTube — the one in which McCain refers to Lindsey Graham as “that little jerk.”

There were enough actual contenders for the nomination there that Ron Paul, while he attracted attention, was regarded as a curiosity, as the outlier he is. Not this time. Did you see that Rep. Paul had again raised a boatload of money? Don’t know exactly what he plans to do with it. Surely not even he believes he is ever likely to be president of the United States. I suppose it will be like last time — lots of posters and such, not all that many voters beyond the passionate core, who are sort of doing their own thing. Perhaps Doug can explain it to us…

AP, Reuters ALSO sit out B-team debate tonight

7 Replies

First, most of the candidates who count decided to skip tonight’s GOP debate in Greenville.

Then, so did I. Just not worth the trip. THAT did not make news. Partly because I didn’t tell anybody.

Now, The Associated Press and Reuters are staying away, as a protest:

The Associated Press announced Wednesday night that it’s not going to cover tomorrow night’s Republican presidential debate, citing “restrictions placed on media access.”

“The debate sponsors, Fox News Channel and the South Carolina Republican Party, will only allow photos to be taken in the moments ahead of the debate and not during the event itself,” the AP said in an advisory to editors.

“These are restrictions that violate basic demands of news-gathering and differ from other debates where more access was granted. Accordingly, the AP will not staff the event in any format nor will the AP disseminate any pool photos taken by another outlet.”

The AP said the decision was “consistent with longstanding policy” in coverage of events like these, and would be reassessed “should access conditions change.”

Reuters confirmed that it would not be covering the event photographically, because it shared concerns about access. However, Reuters did not confirm whether it would be going as far as AP and not filing text either.

While I suppose he won’t be there covering it, The AP’s Jim Davenport DID do an advance story, which you can find here.

The Harpootlian offensive begins

16 Replies

I told you over the weekend that Dick Harpootlian said he was going to run right out and start raising money.

It seems he’s already spending it. The above video was just released. Not sure why NOW exactly, except that Dick couldn’t wait. Maybe it’s timed for the GOP debate tonight, or the convention this weekend. Regarding that debate, Harpootlian said,

The only candidates Republicans can get to show up for their debate tonight are a bunch of no-names and crazies.

Not so sure about THAT. But it’s definitely a B-team lineup. Maybe C-team. But hey, there will be a big crowd. After all, Ron Paul will be there, and you know how his fans are…

And no, I’m not going. I intend to go to the convention this weekend, though.

The once and future Democratic chairman

8 Replies

I went to my very first ever state Democratic convention today. (You have to understand I spent most of my career as an editor, and going to conventions was reporters’ work.) It started at 10 a.m., but I didn’t arrive at the Carolina Coliseum until about 12:20, having had errands to run this morning. I wasn’t too worried about missing anything, though. After all, this was an event run by Democrats, rather than by Republicans. Or Germans. I refer you to Will Rogers.

Near as I can tell, I was right. I did apparently arrive too late to get press credentials — the table that I think was for that purpose was no longer manned — but it didn’t matter. I went down and wandered about on the floor without being challenged.

The headline: Dick Harpootlian won the party chairmanship on the first ballot, with 624 votes to Phil Noble‘s 331 and 68 for the third candidate whom, throughout this competition, was always referred to as that nice guy from Marion County. It still took a while for that first ballot to happen. After having rejected a proposal to vote merely by standing up (a most UN-Nikki Haley voting method that would have been), which would have dealt with the matter quickly since it was so lopsided, paper ballots were decided up. Then they were distributed, and… there was no place on the ballot to indicate which candidate one preferred for chairman. (Disclaimer — I’m describing this as it was described to me by delegates; that minor fiasco was one thing I DID miss by being late. Which still tells me I didn’t miss much.)

They were in the midst of voting again when I arrived, as speeches continued. So I settled in and listened, and mingled and gabbed, and waited for a result.

Here are some of the things I saw and heard over the next couple of hours before I left:

  • Upon my entrance, Steve Benjamin was giving the key to the city to former Rep. John Spratt. Spratt looked pretty good, and had no trouble speaking to the crowd. It was the first time I’d seen him since his defeat, or since his illness was announced, for that matter.
  • As I sat at an empty chair at the small press table, Jay Parmley was telling the crowd what an awesome job the party had done

    Twitter wag @brookbristow termed this "The best political sticker OF ALL TIME."

    of organizing in 2010. “So,” thought I, “how come y’all got so totally creamed?” Well, he explained, the party did well on the county level.

  • Of 289 county offices that were up last year, Democrats contested 190 and won 167. Yeah, OK. But when you lose every office that anyone is paying attention to, that doesn’t exactly add up to Big Mo, does it? He went on to say that 47 percent of the first-time voters of 2008 (remember the Obama Effect?) turned out in 2010, which was much higher than turnout in the general population. This made me think about baseball statistics. I sort of felt like I was listening to a manager brag on his losing pitcher for having thrown so many great pitches during the game.
  • One speaker, later in the program, said “I want to thank our next governor, Vincent Sheheen,” and got a big cheer. I’m not sure what the cheer meant: Were the assembled Dems giving him an attaboy for having almost won as their standard-bearer last year, or were they endorsing him to be the nominee next time as well? That’s the trouble with crowds cheering. You’d have to interview everybody to know what they were thinking.
  • I learned that the chairman’s race was over from Phil Noble. I ran into him on the floor and, not having any other questions on my mind, asked him how he thought it was going. He said not so well: He had already lost, on the first ballot, and it would be announced from the podium momentarily. Oh. OK. And yes, I felt like an idiot. I excused myself, and Tweeted it out.
  • After that announcement was made, Mr. Noble got up to make a concession speech. I whipped out my camera to try to shoot video, and less than three seconds after I hit the button to start recording, he was leaving the podium. He had pledged his support to the winner and to the party, and that was it. He was off that stage.
  • As it happened, Mr. Harpootlian didn’t speak all that long, either. I won’t trouble you with quoting from his acceptance speech, because I have the whole thing on video above. I recognize that the sound quality isn’t good (and the video itself is shaky, because I was busy looking around the room), so if you have trouble hearing it say so, and I’ll give you some quotes. But beyond quoting Harry Truman and promising to give Nikki Haley and her party a hard time, there wasn’t much to it.
  • Afterwards, Dick told me that he was anxious to get out of there and start raising money. He said he could raise more money in the next two hours than he ever could at any other time — flush of victory, I suppose he meant. I looked around for him not long afterward, and I guess he had left to do just that.
  • John Spratt got up again to address the crowd, and announced that he wanted to be the very first to contribute to the party under its new regime — giving a check for $5,000.
  • After staying maybe an hour after Harpootlian’s acceptance, talking with various sources about other stuff while 17th vice chairmen and such were being elected, I decided to split. A lot of people already had. As I left the hall, I heard behind me a speaker saying, “Whereas, according to rule 6.2….” Yeah, I think I found the right time to leave.

There had never been a lot of doubt among observers that Dick Harpootlian would win this, once he got in. And media types are positively looking forward to having The Mouth generate good copy over the next couple of years. So I could hardly blame Phil Noble for seeming a bit put-upon when I interviewed him earlier in the week, seeming resentful that after all those months of work, this would be taken from him so easily. Today, after his concession speech, he said to me something along the lines of “That’s life.” It’s certainly politics. But I wouldn’t blame him a bit for feeling kind of alone at that moment.

Not entirely alone, though — he did get 331 votes. And I had the opportunity to speak to as couple of those 331 during the convention. The ones I heard from were more anti-Harpootlian than pro-Noble, and their reasons ranged from their sincere belief in political correctness — which the new chairman definitely does not share — to their conviction that Harpootlian is all talk, and the party needs more than that.

But you know, if I were a Democrat, I’d have been concerned about something else. Dick is way more than talk; he had a lot to do with the party’s success in 1998. I think he’ll pull out all the stops to reverse momentum and win victories over the Republicans. And if I were a Democrat, I’d wonder, “At what cost?” In 1998, he brought video poker money to the table, and helped Jim Hodges (who had been a staunch opponent of both video poker and a state lottery) win on a lottery-based campaign. If you’re a Democrat and you’re OK with such things, you’re bound to be happy with your new chairman. If you worry about such tactics, you might be concerned at what lengths he’ll go to to win.

But there’s no question that for media types, it’s going to be more fun to write about the Democrats over the next couple of years.

Phil Noble on ‘The Brad Show (Guerrilla Edition)’

3 Replies

Welcome to the cinéma vérité version of “The Brad Show.” Just to give it a fancy name.

Scheduling time with Phil Noble, candidate for SC Democratic Party chair, wasn’t quite as easy as getting together with Dick Harpootlian. Dick’s office is right down the street and around the corner, whereas Phil is based in Charleston.

So we went back and forth, back and forth, via email and phone, trying to get together. On Good Friday (while I was taking a three-day break from the laptop), Phil wrote to tell me he’d be in town on Monday. So when I got that on Monday, I got back to him and left a message. He called me back during Monday’s Rotary meeting, proposing to meet me in a couple of hours. I checked with Gene and Jay, and that we too short notice for a full studio session.

So I improvised. I asked Phil to come by the office anyway, and interviewed him with my little Canon A1100 set on my cheap little tripod I got from Walmart.

The video quality really isn’t all that bad, considering the gonzo, guerrilla way in which it was shot. Of course, to get that kind of resolution, you’re talking about a freaking HUGE file — like, 770 MB. Transferring it from the camera to the laptop was an hour. Converting the format was another hour. Uploading it to blip.tv was more like four or five hours (I don’t know how long, because I finally went home and left it running).

And now, to you.

Why couldn’t we wait for studio time? Because the state Democratic convention is Saturday. Which reminds me — if I’m going, I need to see about whether I need credentials or something.

As for what Phil had to say — what, you think I’m going to sit here and type it out for you? I went to enough trouble getting it to you; the least you can do is watch it.

Warning — it’s the longest Brad Show ever, at more than 34 minutes. Another drawback from not having a pro like Jay handle it (and boy, do I appreciate him more than ever now) was that there was nobody to give me significant looks that meant “wrap it up!”

If you’re interested at all in who should be the chairman of the state Dems, you should find this interesting. So WATCH it. (And go back and watch the Harpootlian one, too, if you haven’t — as Kevin Fisher recommended…)

Haley Barbour drops out: What does it mean?

28 Replies

OK, so that last post about the 2012 GOP presidential field was a few days old. This one happened today:

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) announced today that he will not run for president. The decision comes as something of a surprise — the Associated Press reported just Sunday that Barbour could launch his campaign as early as this week. He had been making moves toward a campaign, including a recent visit to New Hampshire.

“A candidate for president today is embracing a ten-year commitment to an all-consuming effort, to the virtual exclusion of all else,” Barbour said in a statement. “His (or her) supporters expect and deserve no less than absolute fire in the belly from their candidate. I cannot offer that with certainty, and total certainty is required.”

Barbour had previously voiced concerns about the time commitment involved in running for president, and both his wife and son had expressed reservations about the campaign.

He was also struggling to get above the low single digits in polls, even in the south. His past career as a lobbyist, though he tried to present it as an advantage, was expected to dog Barbour on the trail. His stumbles in statements on civil rights raised questions about his readiness…

So what does it mean? I like that Aaron Blake of The Fix says that “Barbour already had obstacles as a southern governor with a thick accent…” Huh. And we-uns down heuh thought that was one of his strengths…

The Post speculates that this promotes Barbour buddy Mitch Daniels. Maybe so. Or maybe Pawlenty. I would imagine it would make the aforementioned Huntsman a little more sanguine about his chances in SC.

Something it just might indicate — and the slowness of the GOP field is getting rolling this cycle tends to back this up — is that Republicans who know what they’re about don’t think they can beat Obama. And it’s hard to get, as Barbour says, a “fire in the belly” for a long, hard campaign that would in the end be unsuccessful.

We hear so much from the Obama-hating fringe of the GOP that it’s easy to remember that fringes do not constitute majorities. The people who’ve been involved in politics a bit longer than the Tea Party’s been around know that…

Huntsman uncampaign takes aim at Romney

4 Replies

Tim Miller, who introduced himself to me via email a few days ago as the guy “likely to be doing the media work should Jon Huntsman decide to run for President when he returns from Beijing,” wanted to make sure I saw these two pieces.

The first casts doubt on the viability of Mitt Romney, widely seen as the leading contender among the non-crazy aspirants to the GOP presidential nomination, in South Carolina:

COLUMBIA, S.C. — He may be the presumed national frontrunner, but when he launches his all-but-certain presidential campaign, Mitt Romney figures to be a heavy underdog in the historically decisive South Carolina presidential primary.
During his 2008 run, Romney competed fiercely to win the first-in-the-South primary state, which has voted for the eventual GOP nominee in every contest since 1980. But after more than a year of pouring significant time and money into the state, Romney pulled out his South Carolina resources with 10 days to go before primary day in order to focus on friendlier ground in Michigan and Nevada.
This time around, his South Carolina prospects are not looking much better.
“He finished fourth here last time, and if he hasn’t really done a lot of groundwork, it might be an uphill battle,” said South Carolina State Rep. Nathan Ballentine, who endorsed Romney’s last campaign. “So maybe you focus on New Hampshire and then head up to Nevada and Florida — things like that.”
Ballentine, who is one of South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s closest allies in the state legislature, described himself as a “loyal guy” who was inclined to endorse Romney again but had not yet made up his mind. Ballentine was frank in his assessment that the former Massachusetts governor, who tried to convince South Carolinians throughout 2007 that he was a “Yankee governor” with “southern values,” might again have a difficult time connecting with voters here….

The second piece, by our old buddy Peter Hamby, portrays Jon Huntsman as the Mormon more likely to do well here — not to mention, a guy likely to gain the support of those looking for someone who might actually have a chance against President Obama with us swing voters:

Columbia, South Carolina (CNN) – If ambassador to China Jon Huntsman does decide to run for president after returning to the United States in early May, his advisers are planning to make a serious play for South Carolina, the early primary state that traditionally propels Republican candidates to the presidential nomination.

The conservative-leaning state might seem like a curious place to make a stand for a Mormon ex-Obama administration official who supports same-sex civil unions, but his team is confident that South Carolina Republicans are hungry for a fresh face in a lackluster 2012 field.

“If he gets in the race, from everything I’ve heard, his plan would be to plant a flag in South Carolina,” said longtime Columbia-based strategist Richard Quinn, who helped John McCain win the state’s primary in 2008. “I really think we can win here.”

Quinn is working for Horizon PAC, Huntsman’s campaign-in-waiting, and will steer his presidential bid in South Carolina should the ambassador officially enter the race after his China post concludes on April 30.

He said New Hampshire and South Carolina – two of the four early states that allow independents to participate in their presidential primaries – “are ready for the arrival of a major new player.”

“I think moving from New Hampshire to South Carolina, that’s the traditional path,” Quinn said, mapping out Huntsman’s potential path to the nomination. “No disrespect to Iowa, but New Hampshire and South Carolina are two parts of a three part rocket, along with Florida.”

Huntsman, also a former Utah governor, will return to the United States just before the South Carolina Republican Party sponsors the first Republican presidential debate in Greenville on May 5, but his advisers are doubtful that he will participate.

He will, however, have an opportunity to introduce himself to the state when he delivers a May 7 commencement speech at the University of South Carolina.

Make of that what you will.

Meanwhile, Huntsman’s last day on the job in Beijing is Saturday.

He said/he said: Hard to keep up with this Dem chair race

10 Replies

I’m really busy today with Mad Man stuff, but if I don’t go ahead and share some of this stuff with y’all I’ll never catch up again.

Since my last post on the subject last night, SC Democratic Party chairman candidate Phil Noble has sent out TWO more releases in his war of words with opponent Dick Harpootlian. Here’s one:

Noble: Harpootlian’s Response Inadequate – Contributions to GOP
are Insider Politics as Usual

Yesterday, I called on Dick Harpootlian to withdraw from the race for South Carolina Democratic Chair after it was revealed on a political blog that he contributed more than $15,000 dollars to Republicans like Jake Knotts and Henry McMaster.

I was very disappointed he didn’t seem to take this seriously. He essentially dismissed the issue by saying he’d given much more to Democrats than Republicans, and Democrats should be happy about that. He didn’t even say that he regretted what he did, or that he wouldn’t continue to do it in the future.

This is not a trivial concern.

How does a party chairman go out and recruit Democratic candidates to run against Republican incumbents to whom he has personally made substantial financial contributions?

How does the leader of a party recruit volunteers and donors to support a Democratic candidate who is trying to unseat those Republicans he apparently admires enough to write them a big check?

I believe the Democratic party in South Carolina needs to set a new course. We need to show the people of this state that we do have a fresh vision for the future that does not include good ole boy politics, backroom deals, and an I’ll-scratch-your-back-you-scratch mine mentality.

I was particularly disappointed that Dick’s response to this matter was to resort to the old politics of half-truths and misinformation to discredit me.

Here are the facts:

Fact 1: I gave money to Barack Obama via his website within an hour of his announcement. Early in 2007, long before he was a popular candidate in South Carolina, I was organizing lit drops, and precinct activities to help his campaign get off the ground. I was proud of my support for him then, just as I am now.

Fact 2: I am a member of the board of the South Carolina Archives and History Foundation. As a board member, I was asked to contribute to the mounting of an official state historical marker designating the site of the signing of the Ordinance of Secession. It had nothing to do with supporting the idea of secession of the civil war. The same evening the marker was dedicated, a “Secession Ball” was held in Charleston. While that event was underway, I was speaking at an NAACP rally protesting the Ball.

Fact 3: My opponent claims that in 2002 I contributed $900 to a conservative Illinois Republican by the name of Phil Crane. This is simply not true. I don’t support his far-right politics, and I certainly have never given him any money. Period, full stop. As I said in my original statement, I have never given money to a Republican candidate and I never will. Any records that would appear to contradict this are obviously in error or fraudulent, and I’ll be happy to release my check register or bank records from that year or any year to verify that I don’t give money to Republicans.

We need to have a debate on the future of our party and how we can change and win. Let’s move forward and have that conversation now.

###

And here’s the other:

Former FEC Commissioner: Harpootlian Charge Rests On Fraudulent Documents From Convicted Felon

Yesterday, I called on Dick Harpootlian to withdraw from the race for South Carolina Democratic Party chair after it was revealed that he has contributed more than $15,000 to Republican candidates for office in South Carolina.

To my surprise, Dick responded to this news by actually trying to justify these donations to right-wing Republicans like Jake Knotts and Henry McMaster, and by accusing me of having given a $900 donation to an Illinois Republican named Phil Crane in 2002. As I immediately made clear in a statement last night, I have never given money to Phil Crane or any other Republican and I never will. “Any records” I said, “that would appear to contradict this are obviously in error or fraudulent.”

Today, former Federal Election Commissioner Scott Thomas has come forward to tell us it was the later.

“Christopher Ward was treasurer of the Phil Crane campaign when this fraudulent donation was allegedly made by Phil Noble,” Thomas said in a statement issued today. “Ward was a crook and he pled guilty in 2010 to massive embezzlement from several political committees. Ward committed multiple scams, frauds and forgeries affecting many party and candidate committees where he served as treasurer. One of his tricks apparently, was to move money from a party committee account to a candidate committee under false names so he could then embezzle the funds more easily. This would explain why Noble’s name was fraudulently used by Ward and the Crane campaign.”

Commissioner Thomas was a Federal Election Commissioner from 1986 – 2006 during the time that the fraud was perpetrated. He is available for comment by phone at 202 420 2601 or email at [email protected].

Statements and Stories detailing Chris Ward’s Fraudulent Campaign Finance Activity:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/md/Public-Affairs/press_releases/press08/FormerTreasurerofNationalRepublicanCongressionalCommitteePleadsGuiltytoEmbezzling844718.html
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/03/former-gop-committee-treasurer-christopher-ward-pleads-guilty-to/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/03/christopher-ward-nrcc-embezzlement-guilty_n_705533.html

I suppose I need to step out of the way before I get hit in the head by another one from Harpootlian…