Category Archives: Elections

Don’t miss Cindi’s package comparing Nikki’s & Vincent’s records

7 Replies

This afternoon, a friend who is an experienced observer of South Carolina politics asked me whether I’d read Cindi Scoppe’s package on today’s editorial page comparing the records of Nikki Haley and Vincent Sheheen.

I said no, but I had glanced at it, which pretty much told me everything I needed to know. Or rather, what I had already known without tallying it all up. But Cindi did that for us, and the result is both superficially telling — because Vincent’s accomplishments take up so much more room on the page — and also substantively so. It tells the tale rather powerfully of who is better qualified to move South Carolina forward — or in any direction you choose. It shows that Vincent Sheheen is far more qualified, and inclined, to take governing seriously.

Of course, as I told my friend, the fact that Nikki has accomplished virtually nothing will be embraced as a positive by her nihilistic followers. They will vote for her for the same reason they voted for Strom Thurmond, and Floyd Spence — because they did very little in office — with the added Sanfordesque twist of blaming the Legislature, rather than herself, for her lack of accomplishments. But the truth is, Nikki simply hasn’t even tried to accomplish much at all.

Basically, what Nikki has done is get elected, introduce very few bills of any kind, gotten almost none of them passed because she doesn’t care about accomplishing anything, then run for governor. That’s Nikki in a nutshell.

Vincent, by contrast, has taken the business of governing as a serious responsibility, one bigger than himself and his personal ambitions.

And there’s much more to it than sheer volume. As Cindi wrote:

The easiest, though not necessarily most useful, way to compare the lists: Ms. Haley has introduced 15 substantive bills, of which one has become law and one has been adopted as a House rule. Mr. Sheheen has introduced 119 substantive bills (98 when you weed out the ones that he has re-introduced in multiple sessions), of which 18 have become statewide law and four have become local law….

What’s most striking about Mr. Sheheen’s list is its sweep, and the extent to which it reflects initiatives that either know no partisan boundaries or that easily cross them. Although his focus has been on giving governors more power to run the executive branch of government and overhauling our tax system, his bills touch on far more — from exempting small churches from some state architectural requirements and prohibiting kids from taking pagers to school to giving tuition breaks to the children of veterans and eliminating loopholes in the state campaign finance law.

This is the body of work of someone who understands what the government does and is interested in working on not just the broad structural and philosophical issues that politicians like to make speeches about but also the real-world problems that arise, from figuring out how to move police from paper to electronic traffic tickets without causing problems to writing a legal definition for “joint custody” so parents will know what to expect when they go to court.

One thing that’s notable in relation to this campaign: Ms. Haley attacks Mr. Sheheen as being anti-business because he does some workers compensation work (although his firm represents both businesses and employees), but he has written only one bill regarding workers compensation — and that was a “pro-business” bill that said employees of horse trainers didn’t have to be covered.

Cindi published this list of Nikki’s legislative record, such as it is, and this list of Vincent’s, in the paper. Vincent’s was obviously far more weighty. But in truth, she couldn’t fit all of the Sheheen record in the paper. Here’s the fuller record, including the ones that Cindi found too boring to put in the paper.

I doubt this will win over anyone, because the kind of people who would vote for Nikki view lack of experience, and the lack of the ability to accomplish anything in government, as virtues. They care about ideology, not pragmatic governance. I just publish this for the sensible, serious folk who see things differently.

Which is sort of the point of my whole blog, come to think of it…

No wonder The Washington Post dumped Newsweek

27 Replies

When Newsweek first put Sarah Palin (I mean, Nikki Haley — I know the difference, but the superficial, pandering twits editing Newsweek apparently don’t) on its cover, I wrote about how Vincent Sheheen faces a problem that no other candidate for governor of South Carolina had ever faced — an opponent who gets vast amounts of free national media coverage. It’s a disadvantage that no candidate can raise enough money for paid media to overcome. It distorts everything. (See “The Newsweek endorsement of Nikki Haley,” July 6.) I wrote:

Oh, you say it’s not an endorsement? Don’t bore me with semantics. As I said, the national media — not giving a damn one way or the other about South Carolina, or about who Nikki Haley really is or what she would do in office — is enraptured at the idea that South Carolina will elect a female Indian-American (Bobby Jindal in a skirt, they think, fairly hugging themselves with enthusiasm), which just may be the most extreme example of Identity Politics Gone Mad that I’ve seen.

I told you we would have to expect this. And this is just the beginning…

Hey, am I a prophet or what? Now, in their slavish devotion to all things Sarah (and Sarah surrogates are almost as good, especially if you can create a collage of them WITH Sarah), Newsweek has done it again.

And do they have any serious, substantive reason to do this? Of course not. The putative reason for putting Nikki’s smiling mug on the cover again is to discuss the burning issue of “mama grizzlies.” I am not making this up.

Of course, if you turn inside to one of the few remaining pages in this pamplet — right in there next to the scholarly treatise on “Men Look at Women’s Bodies: Is Evolution at Work?” — you can find some home truths about Nikki. Such as:

Haley, who has two children but has never referred to herself as a grizzly [so why the freak did you put her on this stupid cover? never mind; I realize there’s no rational answer, beyond maybe that you had a picture of her in red], is just the sort of pro–business, low-tax, limited–government conservative Palin loves. Her platform is focused mostly on economic issues: creating jobs and unleashing entrepreneurial energy by slashing taxes. She holds herself out as a paragon of fiscal responsibility (never mind that she and her husband have failed to pay their taxes on time in each of the past five years).

But I must ask you: How many of the undecided voters who might be gullible enough to be razzle-dazzled into voting for Nikki do you think will read that far into the piece? Just being on this cover is all Nikki could possibly ever want or need from Newsweek.

Folks, I gotta tell ya — I never thought a whole lot of Newsweek. Back in the day when I was even in the market for such a publication, I always read TIME — and I haven’t done that in 30 years. Whatever value that format had ceased to be anything you could take seriously so, so long ago. Those publications became pretty much everything I disdain about TV “news.”

Recently, The Washington Post apparently decided the same, selling the mag to a guy who made his fortune selling stereos. And as The Wall Street Journal observed:

Since he agreed to purchase the magazine from Washington Post Co. earlier this month, pundits have called Mr. Harman’s motives—and sanity—into question. He took on more than $50 million in liabilities and agreed to keep most of Newsweek‘s employees—all for a magazine on track to lose at least $20 million this year, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Good luck with that, pal.

My advice to you readers? You want to read news in a magazine format? Go with The Economist. That is still a serious source of news and commentary. Interestingly, it calls itself a “newspaper,” in spite of its format. It’s certainly better than all but a handful of newspapers on this side of the pond. Yet another reason to love The Economist — so far, no Nikki Haley covers (that I’ve seen, anyway).

500 or so Women for Sheheen

18 Replies

A month or so ago, Phil Bailey brought my attention to the fact that former Rep. Harriet Keyserling was trying to counter all the “first woman” buzz that Nikki Haley had by putting together a bipartisan “Women for Sheheen” committee.

As y’all know, it’s hard for me to identify with people who actively want to see someone of a particular gender, or race, or whatever, elected. To me, every candidate should be evaluated on the basis of his or her suitability without reference to such considerations. But I know lots of women across the political spectrum — women of good will — who do care about such things. They actually deeply identify with other women, something that is unimaginable for me (personally, I get no charge one way or the other from the successes or failures of other white guys qua white guys), but I have to acknowledge that they seem to be sincere about it.

So when Harriet sent me a letter on behalf of 100 women, I was interested — but I wanted to see the list of women. She said wait a bit, and she’d be able to give me a list — a much longer one.

So I waited. And now I have this:

Dear Friends:

Well, here it is. Not the 100 signers I hoped for, but over 500 from all across  the state. And what a wonderful mix these women are: stay-at-home-moms, doctors, lawyers, ministers, artists, realtors, executives ,teachers, college professors, democrats, independents and Republicans.
I hope you will look over the list,  find some friends from your town,  then  together  find a way to spread the word. Talk to your newspaper editors,   have a press conference, write letters, sign up others.  Soon.  Time is fleeting.  To refresh your memory, I ‘ve attached my original letter.  We have also created a website “Women for Sheheen” and solicit your input.

For further information,  go to  “Women for Sheheen” on Facebook  to which 600 people have signed on. It was startedby Madeleine McGee who organized, in Charleston, a 90 women paying $90 to sponsor a Sheheen fundraiser in appreciation of his support of women,  and in honor of  the 90th  anniversary of the women’s vote. 296  people attended and they raised $20,000.  I hear women in other cities are planning similar events. Click here for the original letter.

Madeleine McGee* Kit Smith* Sally Huguley* Mary (Rab)Fleming Finlay* Page Miller*Susan Hilfer*Catherine Ceips* Patty Robinson*Leah Greenberg*Juliana W Weeks*Terri Hartley*Dr Catherine Anne Walsh*Ann Pincelli*Abbot Land Carnes*H Murchison*Catherine Rogers*Robin Copp*Jenny Rizo-Patron*Linda Ott*Jean Lindsey*Mary Ann McDow*Regina Carmel*Kate Bullard Adams*Eleanor Welling*Saundra Carr*Nancy Sargent*Virginia Nelson*Wilhemina Rhoe*Elizabeth Harris*Alice DuPre Jones*Judy Lineback* Lynn Teaque*Fay Brown*Katrina Sprott Riley*Shayna Hollander*JoAngela Edwins* Sara Castillo*Teri Hutson Salane*Suzanne Rhodes*Caroline Vreede*Anne Harmon*Jane Riley*Sandy Linning*Pat Symons*Barbara Lewis*Lolita Watson*Dr.Sissy Kinghorn*Julie Lonon*Gail Richardson*Sidney Thompson*Liz Wheeler*Lucy Waddell*Anne Beazley*Sally Powell*Claudia McCollough*Eleanor Hare*Lynn Robertson*Lenora K White*Cherie Mabrey*Dr Anne Osborne Kilpatrick*Barb Barham* Cary Lafaye*Carol Fishman*Lynn Baskin*Stacie Vulpen* Karen Hardy*Anne Wynn Johnson*Eleanor K Whitehead*Frances Mabry* Judy Kalb*Margit Resch*Katherine Nevin*Greta Little*Carol Ward*Jerue Richard*Laura Von Harten*Laura Williams*Cathy Tillman* Mariellen Schwentker*Caroline S Voight*Linda Hollandsworth*Beth Moon*Cathy Wilson*Elaine Nocks*Ann Timberlake*Sally Howard*Patricia Battey* Nancy Vinson*Carol Lucas*Kay Hanks*Dr. Paula Orr* Cathy Battle*Patti Knight Hilton*Johnnie Fulton*Doris Wilson*Priscilla Hagins*Joan Fensterstock*Barbara Burgess*Holley H Ulbrich*Dot Tunstall*Marion MacNeish*Amaryllis Duvall*Mary Noonan*Kelly Wilson*Beebe James*Caroline Rice*Joan Tumpson*Margaret Bell Hane*Lowndes Macdonald*Rev Elizabeth Wooldridge*Paula Jane Goldman* Karen Jamrose*Pam McAlpine* Geraldine Ingersoll*Judy Beazley*Katherine Hopkins*Loretta Warden*Caroline Jenkins*Barbara W Elow*Sandra O’Neal*Betts Bailey*Judith Waring*Virginia Koontz*Gail Touger*Mimi Wyche*Abbot L Carnes*Angela Viney*Marjorie Trifon*JeanneLove Ferguson*Billie Houghton*Pat Manix*Ellen Kochansky*Jan Collins*Kate L Landishaw*Heather Jarvis*Beatrice Bailey*Lesesne Hudson*Anne Knight Watson*Bert Bob*Evelyn Byatt*BettyJo Carson*Sue Olson*Barb Smith*Cary LaFaye*Julia Forster*Rev Joyce Cantrell*Carol Ervin*Barbara Young*Beverly J Hiller*Jo Ann Walker*Sally Knowles*Cynthia Bolter*Jane Smith Davis*Joy Pinson*Nancy Lewis Tuten*Hillary J McDonald*Lenora Price*NJ Nettles*Nancy Stockton*Martha D Greenway*Eileen Barrett*Anne B Macaluso*Grace Gifford*Katya Cohen*Kathy Belknap*Mary Bernsdorff*Libby Elbe*Catherine Malloy*Claudette Humphrey*Marjorie Spruill*Francie Markham*Krista Collins*Linda Gallicchio*Jane Freeman*Maittese Jasper*Betty Humphreys*Keller H Baron*Linda Combs*Carol Pappas*Ann Funderburk*Kay McCoy*Jill Halevi*Stephanie Hunt*Marguerite Archie-Hudson*Mimi Kinard*Edith T Chou*Heather McCalman*Dr Penny Travis*Barbara Scott*Courtney McDowell*Cathy Bennington Jenrette*Cassie Premo Steele*Lilla Folsom*Susan Gregory*Andrea Stoney*Patricia Maners*Amy Kinard*Judy Speights*Barbara Jackson*Judy Ingle*Carole Parrish-Loy*Tidal Trails*Kelly Draganov*Kay McCoy*Susan Shaffer*Elizabeth Sinkler*Gail Siegel Messerman*Liz J Patterson*Ellen S Steinberg*Gail Morrison*Karen Volquardsen*Maittese Lecque*Diane Fox*Linda York*Phyllis Miller Mayes*Fran Marscher*Holly Hook*Kristen Marshall Mattson*Polly Player*Linda K Combs*Giselle Wrenn*Ellen Reed*Linda Kapsil*Marie Meglen*Vida Miller*Pam Taub*Frances D Finney*Janet Marsh*Rubye Johnson*Jo White*Patrice Brown*Virginia Lacy*Sally Mitchell*Catherine Hammond*Diane Smock*Dallas Shealy*Patricia Berne Mizell*Harriet D Hancock*JanetDow Bailey*Josephyne Spruill*Elizabeth Hills*Holly Massey*Frances Heyward Gibbes*Kathy Folsom*Flo Rosse*Elizabeth Drewry*Katherine K Hines*Regina Moody*Marisa Sherard*Krista Ryba*Page Rogers*Elena Martinez-Vidal*Linda Gallicio*Catherine McCullough*Mary Louise Mims*Jill John*Kathy Belknap*Colleen Condon*Mary Jane Hassell*Natalie Kaufman*Dale Rosengarten*Amanda Payne*Della Jo Marshall*Marquerite Willis*Barbara Banus*Mateja Johnson*Clay Swaggart*Barbara Connelly*Sally Boyd*Margaret Feagin*Cappi Wilborn*Gayle Douglas*Mindy Johnson Saintsing*Ann Cotton*Audrey Shifflett*Gayle Douglas*Sylvia Echols*Helen Hicks*Allianne Duvall*Sally Boyd*Ann Stirling*Sheila Bickford*Rebecca Dobrasko*Becky Carr*Julie Tait*Diane Jerve*Alice Craighead*Norma Thompson*Betsey Grund*Eve Stacey*Pattie Robinson*Susan Pearlstine*Sandy Brooks Carr*Tina Forsthoefel*Linda Tarr-Whelan*Annie M Terry*Carol Dotterer*Kay K Chitty*Heather Ford*Terry Hussey*Cheryl  Lopanik Paschal*Martha Boynton*Rebecca Thompson*Natalie Dupree*Marsha Millar*Lucie Eggleston*Sue Inman*Dana Gencarelli*Libby Law*Diane Salane*Diane DeAngelis*Keller Cushing Freeman*Louise Bevan*Lucy Griffith*Mollie Fair*Dorothy Mungo* Dr J Kay Keels*Ellen Jean Capalbo*Ellen Graber Sinderman*Helen B Hicks*Lynn Nordenberg* Susan Biteyward*Helen H Farmer* Mary Sue McDaniel*Grace Dennis*Ellen Read*Sarah Smith Graham*Lauren Michalski*Cheri Crowley*Bailey Symington*Elaine Camp*Suzanne Galloway*Paula Gibbs*Jamee Haley*Gloria Douglass*Joanne Harper*Sheila Wertimer*Nancy Gilley*Kathryn Symington*Nan Johnson*Sandie Merriam*Rev Karin Bascom Culp*Evin Evans*Phyllis Martin*June Lee*Jenny Rone*Joyce Kaufman*Cynthia Gilliam*Stephanie Edwards*Libby Bernandin*Elise Evans*Alicia Mendicino*Sallie Duell*Susan Breslin*Lori Christopher Glenn*Susan Mathis*Mary Rose Randall *Betty Commanday*Diane Smith*Bonnie Gruetzmacher*Lucy Gordon*Karen Jones*Lucy Rollin*Susie Glenn*Karen Durand*Eleanor Evans*Toni White*Joyce Trogden*Drucilla Brookshire*Cynthia Smith*Brooke Caldwell*Sue Graber*Jean Denman*Polly Dunford*Diane Salane*Rheta Geddings DiNovo*Julie Dingle Swanson*Dot Gnann*Martha Hatfield*Melissa Herring*Laura Keenan*Mitzi Ganelin*Bonnie Smith*Sally Hare*Mary Rogers*Anna Griswold*Carolyn Means*Mary Hipp*Elaine Epstein*Beverly Guerre*Judi Murphy*Mimi Greenberger*Kathy Handel*Mary Ann Burgeson*Carlanna Hendrick*Barbara Kelley*Roxanne Cheney*Helena Fox*Janneke Vreede-Schaay*Gloria Bell*Valerie Bunch Hollinger*Toni White*Virginia Rone*Lynn Hanson*Nancy Jarema*Ann B Smith*Kate Heald*Jennifer Philips*Harriet Smartt*Diane S. Hirsch*Francee Levin*Susan Mathis*Cary Caines*Cam Patterson*Maria Kendall*Carol Plexico*Catherine Hammond*Lynne Ravenel*Stephanie Billioux*Jeanne Garane*Patricia Battey*Susan Hester*Carolyn Bishop-McLeod*Dr. Anne Osborne Kilpatrick*Michelle Shain*Olga Caballero*Cindi Boiter*Vickie Eslinger*Mary Elizabeth Blanchard*Chris Kenney*Helen LaFitte*Susan Shirley*Susan Hogue*Margaret Willis*Nancy Bloodgood*Glenda Owens*Jane Morlan*Nancy Tuten* Barbara Pinkerton*Lisa Rentz*Cassandra Fralix*Cecelia Byers*Patricia Barnes*Valerie Hollinger*Beverly McClanahan*Monica Boucher-Romano*Barbara Bettini*Anne Arrington*Sej Harman*Barbara James*Barbara Kelly*Barbara Burgess*Aleksandra Cahuhan*Liz Key*Coleen H Yates*Beth W Moore*Bee K Brown* Mary Burkett*Barbara Young*Beverly Hiller*Charlene Gardner* Renate Moore*Pamela Meadows*Mary Bundrick*Bootsie Terry*Gwendolyn Brown*Wanda Meade*Mary Bryan*Marian Brilliant*Brooke A McMurray*Katherine Brown*Susu Ravenel*Patricia Agner*Catherine McCullough*Amanda McNulty*Nancy Cave*Ashley Brown*Wendy Brown*Cary LaFaye*Laura Gates*Joan Rubenstein*Janet Swigler*Evadna Kronquist*Kathy McLeod*Louise A Allen*Joan McGee*Marsha Beazley*Margaret Glover Bruce*Virginia S Moe*Meg McLean*Lucinda Shirley*Grace Rice*Lil Mood*Andrena Ray*Teresa Bruce*Terry Murray*Elaine Fredendall*Cornelia McGhee*Betsey Carter*Edna Anderson*Jane Frederick*Sidney Heyward*Ann Dibble*Dottie Ashley*Carol Ervin*Jane McGee-Davis*Liz Carroll*JoAnne Liles*Martha Bryan*Carole Moore*Kathryn Rhyne*Audrey Shifflett*Marilyn Summers*Mimi McNeish*Kay F. Bodenheimer*Susan T. Julavits, Shirley Henderson* Helen H. Farmer*Dr. Alice McGill*Ethel Sims*Dr. Joann B. Morton*Cynthia Rosengren*Cynthia Setnicka*Linda G Sosbee*Betty Huntley*Bernadette Scott*Bonnie Dumas*Beth-Keyserling Kramer*Marilyn Shaw*Dr. Julia Lipovsky*Eva Dior*Cynthia B Carpenter*Sharon Smith-Matthews*Russell Holliday*Rachel Hodges*Eleanor Spicer*Barbara Warley*Catherine Campbell*Ellie Setser*Jennifer Parker*Connie McKeown*Marianne Currie*Francis Allison Close*Anne Springs Close*Caren Ross*Anne Frances Bleecker*Marianne Currie

Yep, there are a lot of Democrats on that list. But there are some Republicans, too. And some who might be nonpartisan like me, and those are the ones I care most about. After all, we independents are the ones who decide general elections. And independent women would seem to be more susceptible to the “let’s elect a woman!” mania that would lead the Identity Politics-oriented to disregard qualifications and vote for Nikki.

But I have to say that while it’s great that Harriet has gone to the considerable trouble of recruiting this list, I’m not sure how indicative it is of Sheheen’s strength.

Harriet is like me in this respect: Her list of acquaintances, and the acquaintances of her acquaintances, are likely to be highly engaged voters, whatever their political orientation. If only people who are highly knowledgeable about these two candidates voted, of course Sheheen would win in a walk. The more anyone knows about Nikki and Vincent, the less inclined one is to take a chance on Nikki.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of voters are not that engaged. They are more likely to vote according to party (and this is Republicans’ year), or on some fleeting glimpse of mass media (and Nikki was on the cover of Newsweek).

So it’s great that these 500 or 600 women are backing Vincent. But he needs many, many times that. And most of the ones he needs are hard to reach, by any means. The latest Rasmussen poll showed us that they just aren’t paying attention.

By the way, here is Harriet’s original letter:

Subject: Letter from former State Rep. Harriet Keyserling

Women Supporting Vincent Sheheen for Governor

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

I’m writing on behalf of a bi-partisan group of women who have long
hoped to see a qualified woman governor of South Carolina. Alas,
Nikki Haley is not that woman.

We support Vincent Sheheen for governor. He will lead us responsibly
to improved educational achievement, protection of our natural
resources and more and better jobs.

1. PRIORITIES:

How legislators vote best demonstrates their priorities. We are
alarmed that Haley voted to sustain Governor Mark Sanford’s budget
vetoes, which, if passed, wouldhave irreparably harmed the very
agencies South Carolina needs to attract new industries and provide a
future for our children.

Haley was one of the few legislators who voted for Sanford’s budget vetoes
on:

• K-12 Education – Extensive funding cuts to textbooks, buses, and
the prestigious Schools for Math and Science, and Arts and Humanities.
• Higher Education – Across-the-board cuts for all universities, which
already had less state support and higher tuitions than any other
Southern state; ending Clemson’s extension programs for farmers and
gardeners.
• Cultural Agencies – Crippling cuts to the State Museum; the State
Library, which services local libraries; the State Arts Commission,
which supplies grants for arts in our schools and local programs; ETV;
and the Department of Archives and History, which preserves our
historical records.
• Health Services – Severe cuts to state services for diabetes,
hypertension, infectious diseases, rural hospitals and community
health programs.

Haley abstained from voting on other vetoes her colleagues overrode
almost unanimously: Technical Education (106-0), Ethics Commission
(102-2)), Airports, (105-1) and Aid to County Governments, (97-9).

In contrast, Vincent Sheheen voted against these vetoes; the budget
sent to the Governor by the legislature was balanced, the money was in
hand, no taxes were raised. If Sanford and Haley had prevailed,
unemployment would have increased by thousands, and the infrastructure
for education, the economy and the humanities would have been weakened
for years to come.

2. INEFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

• In Haley’s six years in the House, she sponsored only one bill that
passed (relating to cosmetology).
• Haley chose confrontation to pursue her primary campaign issue of
transparency in government. Rather than reaching for compromise, Haley
traveled statewidewith Governor Sanford, campaigning against leaders
in her own party, garnering publicity for her own campaign. This kind
of leadership style would continue the present gridlock and stagnation
for years to come.

Haley was removed by the Republican leadership from the powerful
Labor, Commerce and Industry Committees, which she had hoped to chair,
because of these issues and more.

In contrast, Sheheen has led bi-partisan reforms, including tax reform
and restructuring state government for more efficiency. Sheheen also
led the successful floor fight for the Conservation Bank. The South
Carolina Chamber of Commerce endorsed him, noting his ability to work
with others, as did the Conservation Voters of South Carolina for his
outstanding environmental record.

3. STAND ON PUBLIC EDUCATION

• Haley did not attend one meeting or subcommittee meeting in 2010 as
a member of the Education Committee, where policy is molded,
indicating her disinterest in our public schools and colleges.
• Haley vigorously supports vouchers and tax credits for private schools.

In contrast, Sheheen strongly supports public education following the
tradition of his mother, a teacher in the public schools for 30 years.
He strongly opposes diverting public funds to vouchers for private
schools.

4. HYPOCRISY

• Haley calls for transparency with mandatory roll call votes, but
personally avoids it. According to Sen. Larry Martin (R.), Chairman
of the Senate Rules Committee (The State, June 24), Haley could easily
have asked for roll call votes on any sections of the budget, but she
did not.
• Haley would not release her e-mails, although every other government
official, including the governor, must legally do so if requested.
Although the Legislature exempted itself from the law, there is no
reason Haleycould not do so if she wished.
• Haley did not declare on her legislative ethics statement the
$40,500 consulting fee that was paid to her by a private company to
“make contacts” for them.

In contrast, Sheheen has released ten years of tax records and his
e-mails.

For all these reasons, we support Sheheen. We hope to have 100 women
sign on to this message, which we will spread across the state before
Election Day by Internet and in the media. We hope you will be one of
them.

Please forward this to five or more friends.

Thank you,

Harriet Keyserling

I get off the sidelines, and take a stand: Pass the penny sales tax for transportation

28 Replies

Caroline Whitson speaks to the gathering at the Penny Sales Tax campaign kickoff.

You know that press conference that they had at the Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce Thursday to support the sales tax referendum for transportation Thursday? I was there, and not as a blogger. I mean, I’m always a blogger — here I am writing about it — but that’s not why I was there.

I was there to support the referendum. Ike McLeese and Betty Gregory with the Chamber had asked a group of supporters (and I had told them I was willing to help) to show up so that the media people could see a nice cross-section of the community willing to stand up for it.

This would not be a big deal for most people, but it is for me. I’ve always been a professional observer, which is to say, I’ve always been on the sidelines. Sure, I’ve been telling people in writing where I stand on issues off and on since the early ’70s, when I was the editorial page editor of The Helmsman, the student newspaper at Memphis State. And ever since I joined The State‘s editorial board in ’94, I’ve not only written what I thought about all and sundry, but I’ve also always been clear about my views when I speak to groups in the community.  In fact, since we were SO strongly against the state lottery, and we were so committed to using any venue we could in trying (against all odds) to defeat it, I actually argued against it in some public debates in the months leading up to the referendum. My good friend Samuel Tenenbaum and I had a regular road show going — he would be “pro” and I would be “anti.” I had right on my side, but of course his side won.

But this is different. I have agreed, in writing, to be a public supporter of an issue before voters on the November ballot.

Why have I taken this stand? Well, I’ll tell ya…

In some ways, it’s an unlikely place to start being involved. If I’d tried to predict it, I would have said I’d save myself for something big, and statewide — say, helping Vincent Sheheen get elected. As y’all know, I have held for many years that THE most important electoral decision voters make every four years is choosing a governor. With our state being so dominated by the Legislature, and the Legislature by nature being extremely resistant to change, the only way our state is ever going to stop being last where we want to be first and first where we want to last is for someone elected statewide to use the bully pulpit (which is about the only tool the governor has) to exert a counterbalancing force for reform and progress. And it is especially critical that Sheheen be elected rather than the Sanford disciple he’s up against. But beyond what I write here, I’m not doing anything to help him. (Disclosure: ADCO Interactive did the new Sheheen Web site, but I was not and am not involved with that project.)

But I got involved with this instead. Here are some reasons why:

  • I believe public transit is essential for our community to grow and prosper (as J.T. McLawhorn said at the meeting, public transit is a vital part of a community’s circulatory system, and without that, “You’re dead.”), and next year the bus system — a rather poor, lame excuse for public transportation, but it’s all we’ve got — runs out of money.
  • Every other venue for keeping it going has been thoroughly explored. And I think you will notice that those opposing this referendum don’t present a viable alternative. A community group spent vast amounts of volunteer time two years ago studying all of Richland County’s transportation needs. $500,000 worth of studies were done. This was the only viable way to do it, given the straitjacket that the Legislature puts communities in when it comes to taxing and spending. Ask Columbia College President Caroline Whitson, who chaired that effort: This is the way to do it. The unpopular temporary wheel tax that’s keeping it going now is not a workable permanent solution.
  • That revenue would also pay for a number of other needed improvements to transportation infrastructure — bike and hiking trails, and road improvements — that were identified through that same wide-ranging community conversation two years back. This answers those who say “I don’t ride the bus” (as if taxes were a user fee, but let’s not go down that philosophical rathole right now). This plan has something for everyone in the county. And it’s not a wish list; there is considerable community support behind each of these projects.
  • Funding from other sources for the road projects is not any more forthcoming — from state or federal sources, or anywhere else — than is funding for the bus system. This is truly a case in which a community has come together to determine it’s needs, and identified a sensible way to pay for it without asking for a handout — a handout that, as I say, isn’t coming. This is something Richland County needs to do for itself, and this is the best way available to do it.
  • It’s a fair way to pay for this. Some may protest that I don’t live in the county, so who am I to speak out? My answer to that is that THIS is the way to get people like me — who spend almost all our waking hours in Richland County, and benefit from its roads and other services — to pay our share. I’m more than willing to do it. Richland County residents who pay property taxes should be twice as willing, even eager.
  • Like many of you, I’m concerned about putting too much stress on the sales tax. Nikki Haley and the other lawmakers who wrongheadedly supported Act 388, and adamantly refuse to repeal it, badly distorted our already fouled-up tax system. They eliminated school operations taxes on owner-occupied homes by raising the sales tax by a penny. They did this on top of the fact that they had forced local communities to turn to a local option sales tax by proscribing or restricting other revenue sources. Because of all that, this is the only option local communities have for such needs as this. And of course, it also has the virtue I mentioned above. A magnet county like Richland, drawing people from all over central South Carolina, should rely more on a sales tax than other counties.
  • This method has been used with great success in other communities across the state — Charleston, Florence and York counties have benefited greatly. For a lot of the business leaders who are lining up behind this, watching those communities improve their infrastructure and get a leg up in economic development while we continue to fall behind is a huge motivation factor in supporting this.

There are other reasons that aren’t coming to me at the moment as I type this, which I will no doubt write about in the coming weeks. In the meantime, you might want to peruse this summary of the proposal.

The folks who turned out for the kickoff Thursday were a pretty good group. As I stood in the crowd listening to the speakers, I could see from where I was standing: Ted Speth (the first speaker), Steve Benjamin, Joel & Kit Smith, Barbara Rackes, Samuel Tenenbaum, Rick Silver, Emily Brady, Col. Angelo Perri, Cathy Novinger, Bernice Scott, Jennifer Harding, Chuck Beamon, J.T. McLawhorn, Candy Waites, Paul Livingston, Greg Pearce, Lee Bussell, Sonny White and Mac Bennett.

Here’s a longer list of folks who pledged ahead of the kickoff to support the campaign. But I know it’s not complete, because my name isn’t on it.

More about this as we go along. This campaign has just begun.

Area man says he’s not Alvin Greene

5 Replies

My apologies to The Onion for using their “Area Man” gag, but since they stole it from those of us who actually used that lame, unimaginative, oddly comical construction many times without irony in the rush of getting a paper out every day, I guess I’m entitled.

Darrin Thomas

Anyway, even though this is from Rotary before last, I still wanted to share with you the story that Darrin Thomas shared with us when he did Health & Happiness Sept. 13.

Here’s the audio in case you’d like to listen to it.

Here’s a summary: First, he skilfully misdirected us by making us think this was another case of his being mistaken for Steve Benjamin. He’s had a real problem with that, and having confused white folks (at least, I assume it’s always white folks) repeatedly for that OTHER black man in a suit, we thought that was what this was about.

But it wasn’t.

It began with a trip to the supermarket, during which he noticed that an elderly woman standing near the turnip greens was staring at him with disdain — a look he hadn’t seen since he was in parochial school. He turned his attention to inspecting the produce, but when he looked up again, there she was, still staring at him “with this awful look.”

Finally, he decided to inquire. He said “Ma’am, have I done something wrong?”

She shook her head and said loudly, “You’re an embarrassment to our state!”

Flabbergasted, he said, “Pardon me?”

She repeated that he was an embarrassment to the state, and to everyone who had ever worn a military uniform.

He said, “Ma’am, I don’t understand, and I think you’ve mistaken me for someone else.” By this time, several people had gathered around to witness the exchange.

Then the old woman said, “I’m no Republican, but I hope and pray that Jim DeMint destroys you…”

He took a moment to regain his composure, then said “Ma’am, I’m not Alvin Greene.”

She replied, “Yes, you are. [This next part is hard to hear because of the laughter of Rotarians, but I think she goes on to say…] I’ve seen you on TV many times. I know who you are.”

He denied it again, and said, “I can prove it to you. I’m not Alvin Greene.”

She said, “I don’t want to hear it. Get away from me!”

He was stunned, embarrassed and frustrated. He concludes: “Unfortunately, my family won’t eat this week, because I left the entire basket, and simply walked out…” He then conducted a tutorial on “How to distinguish Darrin Thomas from Alvin Greene:”

  1. “I was never in the military.” The closest he got was when he wore a Boy Scout uniform.
  2. “My idea for economic development would never include the creation of an action figure in my likeness.”
  3. “While I did many things to procure dates while I was a student at the University of South Carolina, showing a young lady pornography was not one of them.”
  4. If he were unemployed, yet had $10,000 in the bank, “Please know I would not invest in a campaign.”
  5. “Thanks to my English teacher in high school, Darrin Thomas speaks utilizing complete sentences.”

He got a big round of applause. He deserves it, for being able to laugh at this.

Nikki and the “slush fund:” Belly up to the trough

31 Replies

Have you seen the latest Nikki Haley ad? As I said in a comment yesterday:

Wow. Did you see that incredibly weak, intelligence-insulting ad that Nikki released attacking Vincent?

It’s all about attacking him as a “liberal,” a “Columbia Insider” and a “trial lawyer.

So there you have it: Vincent criticizes Nikki for things that she — an actual, living, breathing woman actually living in South Carolina — has actually done. (You may have noted that the keyword here is “actual.”)

And her response is to throw some of the less imaginative canned, off-the-shelf, standard-issue GOP epithets at him — because, you know, since he’s a Democrat it must all be true, right?

How utterly pathetic. What total contempt she obviously has for the South Carolina electorate.

The only thing Nikki had to offer as a specific, relevant charge in her weak effort to paint Vincent as a tax-and-spend “liberal” was that he had voted to override the governor on the Orwellian-named “Competitive Grants Program” and Nikki had voted to sustain.

Of course, I take a back seat to no one in my disdain for the grants program. Sure, it’s not much money in the grand scheme, but it’s a textbook example of the wrong way to spend, with no regard for state priorities. The local projects the money tends to go to are sometimes worthwhile, but that money should be raised locally.

So bad on Vincent for going along with the majority on that. But Vincent’s voting with the Republican majority while Nikki voted with the minority says more about the fact that Nikki is one of Mark Sanford’s few reliable allies than it does about who is tighter with a buck.

Especially when you consider the following, which the Sheheen campaign was so thoughtful as to share today:

Nikki Haley’s Slush Fund Hypocrisy

Camden, SC – Nikki Haley’s credibility has taken another hit after she released a misleading advertisement yesterday criticizing Vincent Sheheen for supporting a “legislative slush fund,” a fund that she vigorously supported.  Haley requested over $1.5 million in legislative earmarks for her home district from the South Carolina Competitive Grants program but has campaigned boasting of her opposition to the program.

Nikki Haley has been a full-fledged participant in the program, requesting at least $1.5 million in earmarks for special projects in her district and county.  She has sponsored at least twenty-four applications for competitive grants including $90,000 for the Lexington Fun Fest.

After she ran for governor, Haley decided that she could score political points by opposing the program, claiming that she objected to state money funding her local Gilbert Peach festival.  Yet that same year, 2008, she requested at least $160,000 in other projects.

Kristin Cobb, Communications Director for Sheheen for Governor, had this to say: “Once again Nikki Haley has created an even greater level of hypocrisy with her recent attack ad against Vincent Sheheen.  Haley claims she voted against this program but apparently that was because her $1.5 million earmark requests were not approved.  She wasn’t against the program, she was just upset she didn’t get her share.”

“The more South Carolinians are learning about Nikki Haley the less they like.  If we can’t trust what she says on the campaign trail, how can we trust her to be governor,” Cobb concluded.

Here is a sample of Haley’s Earmark Requests:

West Columbia – Sewer Project $370,600
SC Parents Involved in Education $100,000
SC Office of Rural Health $100,000
West Columbia – Riverwalk Expansion $100,000
Newberry College – Nursing Program $99,000
Lexington County – Web-based Tourism $91,099
Lexington Fun Fest $90,000
Lexington County – Industrial Park $80,000
Lexington County – Clean Water Act $77,700
SC Philharmonic $69,274
Alliance for Women at Columbia College $60,000
Healthy Learners $50,000
Brookland Foundation $50,000
Outdoor Journalist Education Foundation $34,450
Killingsworth $30,000
Lexington Downtown Renovation $26,000
SC Office of Rural Health $25,000
Lexington Fun Fest $25,000
YMCA Adventure Guides Program $24,445
Girl Scout Council of the Congaree $21,520
Lexington County Museum $20,000
Lexington – Video Conferencing System $15,000
Lexington County Museum $10,000
Lexington Community Fun Day $3,500
TOTAL: $1,572,588

They also attached this PDF of supporting documents for your perusal.

That assertion about “She wasn’t against the program, she was just upset she didn’t get her share” reminds me of something. Nikki has a habit of being selectively principled — as in, principled when it serves her ambition. For instance, remember the Tweets Wesley Donehue put out a while back about Nikki’s effort to stop the Senate from passing a roll-call vote bill?

Wesley, who works for the Senate Republicans, was pretty insistent about making sure we knew how hypocritical she was on the subject:

Nikki Haley called me last year angry that the Senate filed a roll call voting bill.    about 1 hour ago  via TweetDeck
Nikki Haley told me that she didn’t want the Senate “stealing my issue.”    about 1 hour ago  via TweetDeck
Let me repeat – Nikk Haley asked me to get the Senators to pull the companion bill from the Senate.     about 1 hour ago  via TweetDeck

I haven’t heard Wesley mention this since the primary — since, that is, she has become his party’s nominee. I’m going to be with him on Pub Politics this evening, and will ask him about it…

It’s not about whether it’s legal; it’s about whether such a person should be governor

6 Replies

My sense is that John Barton was right when he said in The State this morning that John Rainey’s charge that Nikki Haley has violated ethics law by taking 40 grand from Wilbur Smith is without legal merit.

Barton knows about such things, and if he says that payment didn’t cross the line, he’s almost certainly right.

Which of course is beside the point.

That story, which fretted mightily over whether the law was violated or not by that deal, is yet another example of something I’ve bemoaned in the MSM for many years. “Objective” news folks, who fear exercizing judgments, obsess over whether something is legal or not to such a degree that the conversation becomes about THAT, and if in the end it’s determined it’s NOT against the law, then everyone goes “all right, then” and moves on. As though being legal made it OK.

But legal or not, it’s not OK. The issue is that the way Nikki Haley handled this shows her lack of fitness for high office.

And the ultimate issue isn’t her, but us. It’s about the decision we make.

And we have to decide whether we want someone to be our governor who, in this instance:

  • Took more than $40,000 from a business that can’t tell what she did for them, just that they wanted to retain her because she’s “very connected.”
  • Avoided disclosing that.
  • Insists that she should be elected because she champions transparency.

So I doubt that Rainey’s letter will lead to legal action against her. I doubt that she’ll have the pay a penalty the way she keeps having to do because of not paying taxes on time.

But it does serve the useful purpose of making sure voters don’t forget something they should remember.

Negative Nancy? She’s negative? SHE’S negative?

20 Replies

Wow. Wow. Wow.

Just got yet another release (it’s a daily ritual) from Joe Wilson that is all about Nancy Pelosi rather than the 2nd Congressional District race.

And this one calls her “Negative Nancy” in the head:

Help Send “Negative Nancy” A Message

What would you do if the policies you cherish and forced on the country caused mass unemployment and economic despair?Chances are, you would admit defeat, apologize profusely to the public, and then proceed to jump in a hole so deep that you would land in China (where your liberal agenda may actually be popular, so everybody wins).

However, Nancy Pelosi and her liberal friends lack the humility to retreat quietly into the night. Instead, “Negative Nancy” constantly barrages voters with tired rhetoric and liberal talking points. She would rather attack conservatives who voice your opinion than admit defeat.

Since we know that this is the way liberals operate, it should come as no surprise that Nancy Pelosi is coming to Charleston this weekend to make a speech. She is absolutely committed to punishing true conservatives like Congressman Joe Wilson, who have the integrity to stand up to her job killing liberal agenda.

“Negative Nancy” is planning on coming to our state from her lofty perch to energize her liberal allies. She thinks that with enough money and tired rhetoric she can defeat conservative ideals.

Help Joe Wilson stop the barrage of negativity coming from Pelosi and her liberal friends. Please click here now to support Joe and help him reach his goal of $25,000 this week!

Sincerely,
Dustin Olson
Campaign Manager
Joe Wilson for Congress

Wow, again. Release after release calling her every bad name you can think of, and you call HER “negative.” Wowee.

I think you might want to go back to calling her “liberal” over and over and over and over and over. At least that’s true, for whatever relevance it has.

Election shocker: The vote is actually tomorrow!

14 Replies

… if you live in Anton Gunn’s district, where Democrats are picking a nominee to go up against Sheri Few in light of Anton’s sudden decision to take a job with the federal gummint.

I got this today from Boyd Summers and the Richland County Democrats:

Let’s get ready!!!

A major decision will be made tomorrow regarding Rep. Anton Gunn’s seat in Northeast Richland and Kershaw Counties.

As many of you know, Gunn received a Presidential Appointment a few weeks ago to become the Director of Health and Human Services for the southeastern United States. Gunn was a rising force in South Carolina politics and had a proven ability to work on both sides of the aisle to get things done for his district.

The district includes the Sandhills region, the Summit, Lake Carolina, and many neighborhoods throughout Elgin and Lugoff. If you are not sure if you are in the district, check here!

The polls will be open tomorrow from 7am to 7pm.

There will be three candidates vying for the Democratic nomination. Check out this article featuring the candidates and their positions:

We encourage you to vote in this primary so that we choose a great candidate to run against Tea-Partyist Sheri Few in November.

Also, it is imperative that we get active! We must make calls, knock on doors, and host events for Vincent Sheheen, Matthew Richardson, Ashley Cooper, Rob Miller, Paige George, our House District 79 nominee, and our County Council candidates.  We are open for business and will work around your schedule so sign up to VOLUNTEER to bring progress to South Carolina. If you have any questions please call Joey Oppermann at (864) 934-7910 or Stanley Davis at (646) 322-5565.

For information on what’s happening around Richland County stay tuned to www.RichlandCountyDems.com!

I’m glad I don’t live in that Richland-Kershaw district, because I know zip about those candidates. If you DO live there, perhaps the above links will help.

Uh-oh — Sheheen has conceded Texas!

12 Replies

Over the weekend, I missed this ominous development (it went out on Saturday):

SHEHEEN CONCEDES TEXAS

Camden, SC–Today, Vincent Sheheen directed his campaign to withdraw all staff and resources from the state of Texas, effectively conceding the state to opponent Nikki Haley.  Haley continued her nationwide tour of ignoring South Carolina today by campaigning in Austin, Texas, where she is a featured speaker at a national Republican convention.

Sheheen for Governor Communications Director Kristin Cobb said, “Campaigning in Texas shows Nikki Haley’s primary concern is promoting herself and not solving South Carolina’s problems. Her mentor Mark Sanford’s flirtation with the national spotlight proved disastrous and South Carolina needs a change.”

“While Vincent Sheheen campaigns in the Pee Dee and the Midlands today, Nikki Haley is again ignoring South Carolina by campaigning in Texas as she runs for governor of the United States.”

For more information, visit:

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/09/16/redstate-gathering-2010-3/

On the one hand, I worry about Vincent conceding these major battlegrounds. What’s next? Ohio? Pretty soon, only SC would still be in play, and then where would we be?

On the other, I have to applaud him for his masterful application of the “Hit ’em where they ain’t” strategy. And in Nikki Haley’s case, the place that she ain’t is here. Even when she’s here physically, her mind, her focus, and every word she says is all about other places. Her aim is not on being governor of SC. In her mind, she’s won that, left office and moved on…

Debates are more necessary than ever

42 Replies

In the print version, the headline on this story in The State was, “Have debates become unnecessary?” (Why it’s different in the online version I don’t know; it happens sometimes.)

The story is about the fact that, as things stand, there will only be two debates between Nikki Haley and Vincent Sheheen before the Nov. 2 vote.

I take keyboard in hand to answer the question:

No, they have not become “unnecessary.” In fact, in this election, it is more necessary than ever to have as many debates as possible. Having only two is unconscionable, tantamount to flipping a huge bird at the electorate.

One of two relatively little-known candidates will become our governor for four years. After having twice made the awful mistake of electing Mark Sanford — who as a congressman was much more widely known than either Haley or Sheheen before he ran — it is critically important that voters get as many unscripted opportunities as possible to hear them questioned, and compare them side by side.

This would not be for my benefit. I’m not the typical voter. I’ve known them both for years, well enough that there is not the slightest question in my mind: Vincent Sheheen would be a far better governor than Nikki Haley.

I believe firmly that if voters had the opportunity to observe and/or interact with them as much as I have, the majority of them would reach the same conclusion. Multiple, in-depth, face-to-face sessions with each voter is impractical. The best we can do would be to have multiple debates — 10 (the number that Sanford and Jim Hodges had) would not be too many. Far from it — 10 would merely be a good start. While Nikki, who is a very charming and presentable person on first acquaintance, will likely come through a couple of debates all right, each additional debate makes it more likely that voters will know her, and her opponent, a little better. And that would be a very good thing.

Nikki knows this. Hence the two debates.

Yes, I understand the conventional wisdom, and it’s correct as far as it goes. But the fact that she leads in the polls as her motivation for resisting more debates distracts us from a deeper, more strategic motive. You may have noticed that the more information that dribbles out about Nikki Haley, the more she is shown to be something other than what she lets on to be. That’s a far better reason for avoiding debates than her poll numbers.

But as I say, let’s not have more debates for me — or for Vincent, or for Nikki. Let’s have them because the people deserve more information about these young people than they currently have. And the more information they have, the more likely they are to make a decision that they will not regret later.

Waiting for Nancy, and trembling in anticipation

24 Replies

The last couple of days, I’ve been getting a flurry of releases from SC Republicans that I haven’t stopped to read, because they all seem to be about Nancy Pelosi, which doesn’t interest me since my area of concern is South Carolina.

But the headline on this one was just SO over the top, so indicative of a party (the GOP) just quivering in anticipation at the advent of an individual. You’d think this was the second coming of Ronald Reagan, or some other partisan messiah.

Here’s a sample:

NEWS RELEASE

Victory launches daily reminder of why

Palmetto Values don’t fit with Pelosi Values

(Columbia, SC – September 17, 2010) When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s jet touches down in Charleston a week from Saturday, you probably won’t see any South Carolina Democrat candidates welcoming her. When America’s most wildly unpopular official comes calling, it’s good to have something else on your agenda that day, because a political embrace from Nancy Pelosi is like getting kissed by Typhoid Mary.

Pelosi puppet-in-waiting Rob Miller and fellow liberal Democrat John Spratt, who juggles the books for Pelosi as chairman of the House Budget Committee, would prefer it if Pelosi’s visit went unnoticed.

But they don’t need to worry about that. Starting today and continuing every day next week, SC Victory 2010 will countdown until Pelosi arrives with a daily reminder of why her views are at odds with the majority of folks here in South Carolina…

… and so forth and so on… But I’ll give you a hint: At no time are we told WHY the woman is coming here, or in what way it bears upon our lives. Maybe she’s coming to see Jim Leventis, the godfather of her daughter, or for some other personal reason. I don’t know, and I don’t care.

Hey, ya got me convinced: This Pelosi woman is not popular in SC.

Good thing she’s not running for anything here, huh?

Now, do you have anything to talk about that’s worthy of my attention? You know, something having to do with South Carolina… If you have something critical to say about these Democratic candidates in SC, something about THEM, please share it. Or — if you can manage it — something persuasively positive about your OWN candidates. But don’t bore me talking about somebody from frickin’ San Francisco. I don’t vote in San Francisco. I don’t intend EVER to vote in San Francisco. Believe it; I wouldn’t kid you about this.

Political parties are just so unbelievably insufferable. They just get worse and worse and worse. Just when you think they couldn’t possibly insult our intelligence any more, they go a little lower…

OK, that’s ONE I’ve seen. Any others out there?

14 Replies

Today I saw my first actual “Republicans for Sheheen” bumper sticker on an actual vehicle.

And this was on an SUV, so it was definitely a real Republican, right? (Just kidding, GOPpers — can’t you take a joke?)

I’ve heard, privately, from a lot of folks whom you might otherwise expect to vote Republican who are backing Sheheen — both because they like Vincent, and because Nikki worries them a great deal.

And anyone who pays close attention will note that Henry McMaster sort of stands out these days, because there aren’t many other leading Republicans going out of their way to be seen with Nikki. (What we have is lots of people who don’t really know Nikki backing her in polls, while state business and political leaders who’ve actually dealt with her and know a thing or two about the issues generally aren’t too thrilled with her.)

But aside from the Chamber of Commerce endorsement, you don’t see a lot of visible, public demonstrations of intent to vote for Sheheen from traditionally Republican quarters.

At least, I haven’t.

Alas, I didn’t get to talk to this person, to get an elaboration on why he or she is taking this stand. This was in the drive-through queue at McDonald’s today. A couple of times I almost jumped out of my truck to run up and hand the driver my card and urging him or her to call me, but each time I put my hand on the door handle the line moved forward again.

So then I decided I’d follow the vehicle when it left Mickey D’s, and if it stopped anywhere nearby, try to cop an interview there.

But then, it happened again. I ordered a double quarter-pounder, without cheese (you know, because of my allergies). When I paid for it, I checked with the lady taking the money: “Without cheese, right?” “No cheese,” she said. Then when my food was handed to me in the bag at the next window, I said, “No cheese, right?” She said that was right. So I pulled up a few feet, and opened it up to check, and sure enough, each patty had welded to it one of those things that looks like a square of orange, molten plastic.

So I got out, walked back, squeezing between the car behind me and the window, knocked on the window and said, “THIS is with cheese.”

And then I was asked to pull over to the side and wait for what I had ordered, and had been assured twice I would get.

This happens to me roughly a third of the times that I go to McDonald’s. But McDonald’s isn’t special; I have similar problems at sit-down restaurants. That’s why I always check. It beats finding out five miles away (which has happened). What really gets me, of course, is when this happens after I’ve been assured, repeatedly, that it won’t.

Anyway, that’s why I didn’t get an interview with the Republican for Sheheen.

Do you have one of these stickers on YOUR bumper, or know someone who does? If so, send me your contact info at [email protected]. I’d like to chat with you.

Candidates owe it to us to debate, early and often

9 Replies

But which one would Nikki be?

This release from the Sheheen campaign…

Why won’t Nikki Haley agree to debate Vincent Sheheen?

CAMDEN, SC — Seventeen days ago, Vincent Sheheen challenged Nikki Haley to five substantive debates on five important issues in five different South Carolina locations.  She did not respond.  Six days ago, the Sheheen campaign called Representative Haley’s campaign and left a message, requesting a return call.  No response.  Four days ago, the Sheheen campaign called Haley headquarters again but were told that the appropriate staff could not be reached.

In a letter sent to Representative Haley on August 30th, Sheheen stated, “I challenge you to debates on jobs and the economy in Greenville, education in Columbia, governmental reform and transparency in Charleston, comprehensive tax reform in Rock Hill and infrastructure and tourism in Myrtle Beach. I propose the debates follow the Lincoln Douglas format as prescribed by the National Forensic League, the oldest and largest interscholastic forensic organization in the United States.”

“Voters, with such an important choice at such a crucial time, want the chance to fully know the candidates for governor,” he concluded in the letter.

Sheheen Communications Director Kristin Cobb had this to say: “Why is Nikki Haley afraid to debate Vincent Sheheen?  She is hiding her record from a public debate like she hid her tax problems and her income.  Maybe she would return our calls if we offered to debate her in Iowa or Arizona.”

###

… raises a question that is extremely easy to answer:

If she doesn’t debate, we’ll know its because she believes she’s more likely to win without doing so.

But you know what? There’s no way South Carolinians should allow anyone to become our next governor without hearing the competitors in multiple debates. Debates would allow us to hear:

  • Who would be the more credible and effective leader in building our state’s economy.
  • Who can more persuasively make the case for genuine governmental reform, beyond the soundbites.
  • How Nikki, as the “Transparency” candidate,  justifies her repeated failures to transparent in even the most elementary ways.
  • Whether Vincent is really committed to being governor, or is just a nice guy with good qualifications who will agree to be governor if we really want him to.

And other burning questions.

We deserve this. While it was kinda geeky and wonky, we would be well-served if Nikki would go along with the Lincoln-Douglas idea. Or if she’s got a better idea for multiple debates, let’s hear it NOW, so that we can make sure these things happen.

We’ve bought enough pigs in pokes lately. Let us get a really good look at these two.

Nikki vs. Vincent, by the ounce

24 Replies

As I occasionally have to clarify here, I’m about commentary, not reporting. You want reporting, go someplace else. I haven’t been a reporter in 30 years. You want an opinion writer who’s primarily a reporter, see Cindi Scoppe. She’s one of the best. (Her column today is a good example of that quality; I may post separately about that later.) Sure, I “cover” events from time to time, just so I can get my own first-hand impressions. But mainly what I do is make observations based upon the existing body of available information.

Now Corey Hutchins with The Free Times is a reporter. You’ll recall that he was the only media type to go out and track down Alvin Greene before the primary. Too bad more people didn’t read his report at the time.

Now, he has a facts-and-figures report comparing the legislative records of Nikki Haley and Vincent Sheheen. One way to characterize what he found is in this observation he posted on Facebook:

If one were to print out the list of legislative bills in the past five years primarily sponsored by the two lawmakers running for governor in S.C., Dem Sen. Sheheen’s would weigh 9.5 ounces and GOP Rep. Haley’s would clock in at 2.4 give or take a botched staple.

Of course, that doesn’t tell you much. Maybe Vincent is just wordy. You’ll get more to chew on reading his full report headlined, “Legislative Records: Sheheen More Active, Successful Than Haley,” with the subhed, “Since 2004, Sheheen Has Sponsored 96 Bills, Haley 13.”

An excerpt:

There are several ways to detail the disparity, but the easiest might be to look at the number of bills for which each candidate was listed as a primary sponsor and how far along each piece of legislation made it through the sausage maker.

Sheheen was elected to the state senate in 2004, the same year Haley was elected to the House. (Sheheen served in the House for four years before being elected to the Senate.) The difference in their legislative accomplishments since then is staggering.

According to state House and Senate records, during the 2005-2006 session, Sheheen sponsored 35 bills and was able to get eight of them passed. That same session, her first in office, Haley went zero for one.

The following session Sheheen went six for 30. Haley scored one out of seven.

During the latest legislative session that took place from 2009 to 2010, Gov. Mark Sanford signed two out of the 31 bills that Sheheen primarily sponsored. That year, the governor didn’t put pen to paper on any of the five bills backed by Haley.

Given these numbers, it would be hard to overstate the extent to which Sheheen — a Democrat in a Republican-dominated chamber —was able to navigate the legislative process in a more effective fashion than Haley. But from a philosophical standpoint — Haley being a candidate who wants government to do less — her rhetoric is at least somewhat consistent with her legislative record…

That’s a bit simplistic, a measure of Corey’s reportorial wish to be as fair to her as he can. What her record really underlines is the problem that I keep pointing to. In terms of accomplishing ANYTHING in dealing with the people who write the laws of the state (and in a Legislative State like ours, that thought could almost be framed as “accomplish anything, period”), Nikki Haley’s record indicates that, if anything, she’s been less successful even than Mark Sanford. Which is a very low standard indeed.

And remember, Sanford started out with a honeymoon, with a legislative leadership eager to work at long last with a governor of their own party. Those same leaders already know they don’t like Nikki.

Doug, of course, will turn that around into an attack on the legislative leaders themselves, which is satisfying to him but gets us nowhere. When you and I walk into the booth on Nov. 2, for the overwhelming majority of us, those leaders won’t be on the ballot (and the few of us who do live in their districts will find they don’t have viable opposition). What we get to pick is the governor. That’s how we get to affect the future course of our state.

Yeah, OK, I’ll help spread the truth

14 Replies

Just got this from the Sheheen campaign under the headline, “Help Vincent Fight Back with the Truth:”

Dear Brad –

This week, the race for governor changed. Vincent Sheheen’s second week of television ads have introduced him to a statewide audience and voters are impressed.  We learned that Nikki Haley, who claims her skills as an accountant qualify her to be governor, had even more problems paying her taxes, this time for her business.  The onslaught of bad news has the Haley campaign on the defensive.

Having already misled the public on her record, her positions and her business acumen, Nikki Haley has now resorted to false attacks on Vincent Sheheen rather than answering tough questions about her positions and her business problems.

In the last week, she falsely accused Vincent of wanting to raise taxes to solve the budget crisis but she is the only candidate who wants higher taxes; Haley wants to raise our grocery tax.

She claimed: “Vince Sheheen will kill our state’s competitiveness” but the Sanford-Haley philosophy of the last eight years has already left our job recruitment efforts in dismal shape and more of the same won’t improve them.

She even blamed Vincent for the fiscal problems of Washington DC and border security in Arizona.  Vincent responded that maybe Nikki Haley was running for governor of the United States that the last thing we needed was another governor focused on national office and not our state.

Then she called him “slippery.”  Her tactics are desperate and an embarrassment.  We need your help to fight back with the truth.  Donate today so South Carolina can elect a governor we can trust.

Thanks,

Trav

Trav Robertson
Campaign Manager
Sheheen for Governor

OK, all that is true.

But here’s some more truth: Nikki’s not on the ropes. She’s not on the defensive, even thought she should be, since every supposed strength she’s touted (transparency, business acumen) has turned out to be a weakness. She’s on a roll.

Today, I heard two different accounts of the appearance of the two candidates before the Palmetto Business Forum yesterday. Both said Vincent was fine and said the right things, but was low key and seemed to lack the fire in the belly.

Nikki, they said, was ON. She was in the zone. She had obviously been superbly prepared by her handlers, and recited everything perfectly. My witnesses knew, as I know, that Nikki’s understanding of issues is at best skin deep, generally not going beyond a bumper-sticker message. But she delivers the bumper sticker well.

This is a continuation of what I saw at the Sarah Palin event a couple of months back. I saw something that is unmistakable to me after my decades of observing politics and politicians closely: A candidate who was peaking, who was confident, poised, energetic and on message. She was ladling out stuff that that Tea Party crowd was lapping up, and she’s still doing it. Knowing that the business community doesn’t trust her, she has worked hard at learning key things to say to win them over. And that, according to my witnesses, was what was on display last night.

It is extremely important to South Carolina that Vincent Sheheen win this election. He is THE reform candidate, and the governor our state needs. But unless something happens to change the game, he’s not going to. Win, that is. And the business community, and the rest of us, are going to suffer another four years of a governor who fundamentally does not understand or appreciate economic development, and can’t work with key players to help move our state forward.

And we can’t afford that. But right now, that’s where we’re headed.

Howard Dean’s Scream will now be forgotten

8 Replies

For one thing, ex. Gov. Dean is really a pretty calm, well-behaved guy most of the time. At least, that’s the way he impressed me both times he came in to see our editorial board. The Scream, in his case, was but a momentary aberration.

But not so with this guy.

The first thing I thought as I watched the above clip was, “Everybody who sees this will forget about ol’ Howard’s indiscretion.” The second was, “This makes all of our candidates here in SC look good. Even Alvin Greene, who only howls when provoked.”

NPR characterized him as the “Craziest Stump Speech Ever Candidate,” which pretty much captures what I see when I watch it.

You’ll be relieved to know Phil Davison did NOT get the nomination for treasurer in Stark County, Ohio. The GOP has been moving toward the angry fringe this year, but thank goodness, not quite this far…

Fair or unfair? You be the judge

1 Reply

Y’all know I’m not overly enamored of TV “news” to begin with, so when a friend brought this to my attention, saying “Wow, very biased article…,” I sort of had a ho-hum response.

Is it simplistic? Yes. Superficial? Certainly. Irritating? Absolutely.

But biased? Well, obviously my friend was saying it was biased against John Spratt, so I get it to that extent. But almost anything that is simplistic and superficial is less likely to favor a thoughtful guy like Spratt. He’s not a bumper-sticker kind of guy. Throw in that infinitely irritating populist tinge (letting man-on-the-street interviews set the direction and tone of reporting, for instance) that is typical of TV “news,” and you have something far more likely to favor a TEA Party-style candidate than a Spratt.

So biased? Yeah, I guess. But the bias is sort of built-in, not intentional…

See what y’all think.

By the way, here’s the written report to which that kid refers on-air. An excerpt:

LAKE WYLIE, SC (WBTV) – Democratic incumbent John Spratt banned any video recording of the debate Tuesday night, but changed his mind when no media attended. However a member of a conservative group snuck a video camera into the room.

[Watch the videos on the right side of this screen]

It was the first debate for the two candidates in South Carolina’s 5th Congressional District.

Spratt and Republican Mick Mulvaney debated at the country club in Lake Wylie’s River Hills neighborhood.  The debate was sponsored by the River Hills Lions Club.

Spratt has represented the 5th District since 1982, but finds himself in the fight of his life against Mulvaney.

During the debate Mulvaney criticized Spratt, saying he’s not voting the way his district wants him to.

Mulvaney pointed out Spratt’s votes for President Obama’s health care bill and his stimulus plan.  Mulvaney says Spratt used to be more moderate but now is going along with whatever the national Democratic party wants.

“There was a time he would have stood up and said no to what’s happening in Washington,” Mulvaney said.  “Those times have changed and that’s why I think it’s time for a new congressman in Washington.”

Spratt said he always votes the way he thinks is best for the district…

Editorial in The State explains Wilson ethics case well

8 Replies

I’m going to shock my ex-colleagues at The State by saying “nice job” on today’s lede editorial, “Joe Wilson’s goblets.”

This would be a shock because, as former military writer Dave Moniz (who now works at the Pentagon) once observed when I was his editor in the early 90s, praise from me doesn’t go higher than “pretty good.” (Dave’s on my mind because, not knowing my current situation, he passed on a tip about a Defense-related job this week, a gesture which I appreciate.)

But this was better than that. The piece accomplished several things:

  • Gave a clear sense of what little is known about the investigation, which was handy to have. I feel I have a slightly better grasp of what we’re talking about now.
  • Called Wilson to task, in no uncertain terms (essentially saying him, “You lie!” but without the shouting), for his bogus response and misrepresentation.
  • Called Rob Miller to task for his equally bogus and untrue assertions in trying to capitalize on the case.
  • Explained clearly just what is wrong with Joe Wilson in general, not just in this case: He sees EVERYTHING in the universe as a partisan struggle against “liberals.” Nancy Pelosi is his Great White Whale. And I’m sorry, Ahab, but that Unified Field Theory simply does not always apply.
  • Showed just how irrelevant such a worldview is to this situation, since the ethics panel investigating him is “composed entirely of people outside the Congress, four Republicans and four Democrats,” in in this particular case is investigating two Republicans (Joe being one) and three Democrats. Of course, we knew that latter part, but I had not yet seen a clear explanation of the Office of Congressional Ethics. After reading this, one can only be outraged by Wilson’s attempt to play on voters’ ignorance by claiming this is a a partisan, personal attack on him for being a self-styled hero of the angry right.

And while it was sort of an afterthought, I particularly appreciated this summary of just how totally screwed we, the voters, are in this situation:

Unfortunately, these two are the choices voters in the 2nd Congressional District have in November. Oh how we wish that were a lie.

Oh, wouldn’t it be lovely if we could?

Apparently, the government had a really, really HARD time taking a dollar from Nikki

32 Replies

Alert reader J brings our attention to this AP story, which shows that not only can Nikki, the accounting whiz (just ask her; she’ll tell you), not pay her personal taxes on time, but neither could the business for which she acted as bookkeeper:

COLUMBIA, S.C. — A business owned by the family of South Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley has been penalized for failing to pay taxes three times since 2003, according to records obtained by The Associated Press.

Haley has frequently cited her experience as an accountant for her family’s clothing store, saying the state needs such business knowledge at its helm.

Records show the store’s taxes were at least 19 months past due each time the state filed a lien.

Two of the tax liens were for failing to pay corporate income taxes and one was for not turning over taxes withheld from employee checks. The company paid nearly $4,000 to remove the liens.

In response, Haley’s campaign said Thurday she is running for governor in part because she wants to cut red tape and taxes that are too burdensome. Her campaign declined to discuss the specifics of the liens.

“As a family, we saw how hard it was to make a dollar and how easy it was for government to take it,” Haley, a state House member, said in a statement. “I’m committed to making government friendlier to the people and businesses it serves.”

A key part of Haley’s economic plan is to eliminate corporate income taxes, an idea the Legislature rejected earlier this year….

Run that nonsense by us again, Nikki:

“As a family, we saw how hard it was to make a dollar and how easy it was for government to take it…”

Yeah, right! Where, precisely, did y’all SEE that? Obviously, in the case of your family business, the gummint had a heckuva hard time taking it.

And this is, apparently, what Nikki means when she says she wants to run government like her business.