Category Archives: Elections

The non-impression Gresham Barrett makes

Remember what I wrote about Gresham Barrett in my last column for The State? Actually, it wasn’t the last column that ran in the paper, but it was the last I wrote. I’d already written the piece about Robert Ariail, who was leaving with me, and my “unfinished business” piece that ran the Sunday after we left.

But I was determined to get a Gresham Barrett column written, if only because I’d been frustrated trying to get ahold of the guy. I had decided to do a column on each gubernatorial candidate as he or she announced, and Barrett was the second to come along (I’d already written about Vincent Sheheen). I was doing this because I regarded the choice that voters would have to make in 2010 to be so important that I wanted to help the conversation along as much as I could — even if I weren’t around to do columns on any of the rest of the candidates.

The weird thing about this one was that I had been trying to get Barrett on the phone to interview him for a couple of weeks. That may not sound weird to you, but it was a unique experience for me in the 12 years that I served as editorial page editor of the state’s largest newspaper. I couldn’t remember when it took more than a few hours to reach anyone who was serious about wanting to be governor. It’s not that I was so special; it’s that they were that eager for the free media.

But I don’t think I’d ever have gotten Barrett if I hadn’t made a nuisance of myself. On that Wednesday morning, I told his aide B.J. Boling — who had always been so helpful when he handled media for the McCain campaign in 2008 — that this was it. I didn’t want this to be the last piece of mine ever to run in the state — I wanted it to be one of the other two previously mentioned. Which meant I had to reach him that day, and write it the same day for Thursday’s paper. Even then, B.J. was unable to get him on the horn until 5 p.m., which meant I had to make Cindi Scoppe stay late to read behind me. But I got it into the paper.

Since I was writing it in such a rush, I was wary of my own irritation with the candidate. So I held back from fully expressing just how unsatisfying that interview was, beyond noting that he was “light on details,” and that his “crowning achievement” from his time as a legislator in Columbia was a partial-birth abortion plan. That was the biggest thing he did, “absolutely, without a doubt.” Being a pro-life kind of guy, I’m all for such bans. But I would not list the need for one as being among the burning issues of South Carolina. Against the blank backdrop that his career seemed to me to be, that was pretty disappointing.

Beyond that, I dutifully listed each fact I was able to draw out of him, thin as it all was.

Anyway, I have since referred to just how blank a slate Mr. Barrett seems to me, and been taken to task by B.J. And I accepted service. He’s right; I haven’t interviewed the guy since. And with that in mind, I called B.J. the other day hoping to get some time with his candidate. But B.J. hasn’t called me back. He probably thinks I’m calling about something else.

Bottom line, since I haven’t talked with the guy for a year, I’m not qualified to judge. But I read with particular interest Cindi’s column last week in which she describes the results of a 90-minute interview with the guy:

I HAVE A HUGE problem with Gresham Barrett.

It’s not his political positions or his rhetoric. It’s not even that frenetic thing he does with his hands in his TV commercial, though if I watched more TV ….

It’s that I can’t figure out what I think about him.

I can’t get a clear impression of what distinguishes him from his opponents. Even after he spent nearly an hour and a half with our editorial board earlier this month, answering every question I could think of to try to help me and my colleagues form some opinion, I came away empty. I wasn’t the only one who felt that way.

This is both disappointing and bizarre.

Disappointing because I had such high hopes for him. It’s no secret that I’ve been impressed with the job Henry McMaster has done as attorney general, and came into this campaign thinking he would be my favorite Republican. But when he went over the top on tax policy and I had that whole bizarre conversation wherein I couldn’t get him to give me a clear answer, and then he started blurring the line between candidate and attorney general, I started hoping for a better choice. Since I have had the least interaction with Mr. Barrett, and since the main thing I could recall his having done in the past few years was to change his mind and act like a grown-up by taking the least evil of the two horribly horrible positions on the TARP, he was the obvious place to pin my hopes.

Bizarre because usually I get the most out of meetings with the candidates I know the least about. First impressions and all that.

So it’s not just me.

With me, you could chalk up a lack of results from an interview to my loose, let’s-see-where-this-goes style. But Cindi is a high-organized, task-oriented interrogator. She goes in determined to get answers to questions X, Y and Z, and woe to the subject that stands in her way.

So this struck me as interesting. Is Gresham Barrettt the Zelig of this campaign, the “curiously nondescript enigma” of 2010?

I’m just not believing this stuff from Henry

26 Replies

Shortly after I posted the thing about Henry’s “Vultures” ad, I came home, and in the mail was this flyer.

I’m just not believing Henry. He’s been such a sensible, grown-up attorney general after all those years of Charlie Condon’s pandering, and now this.

What office is he running for, anyway? Some office I’ve never heard of, some kind of super-sheriff to clean up Washington, and save it from Obama and the other godless commies?

“Our Founding Fathers Would Be Ashamed?” Yeah, I think maybe they would.

Let’s make the totally wild supposition, just for a moment, that the things he’s saying about Washington aren’t totally loopy. What on Earth does it have to do with the issues facing South Carolina?

Definitely not what we need in a governor.

I see that The State endorsed Vincent Sheheen Sunday, and made a good case. Presumably, that means the GOP endorsement will be this Sunday. The way things are going, I just don’t see how a credible case can be made for any of these folks. Not Henry, not in this mode. Not Nikki, the darling of BOTH the Tea Party and the Sanford crowd — and a sincere imitator of Sarah Palin. Certainly not Andre. That would seem to leave Gresham… who thinks we need an Arizona-style immigration law in SC.

I didn’t expect us to be here at this point. I figured by now, at least one of these folks would come across as acceptable, so that we could have a real choice in the fall. But most of them seem to be trying so HARD not to.

Have you seen that absurd McMaster ‘vulture’ ad?

18 Replies

I hate to pick on Henry when he’s dealing with death threats — and I hope and pray that comes out OK for him — but I forgot to mention this after I saw it a couple of days back.

Have you SEEN that thoroughly outrageous new TV ad of his? After having put out a fairly reasonable piece recently (which contrasted nicely with some of the stuff his rivals were doing), he now comes out with yet another bid to out-extreme the other Republicans.

I would compare it to the infamous 1964 daisy petal/mushroom cloud ad, except it actually contains MORE radical distortion of reality. To quote from the text:

They’re circling…After bailouts and takeovers…The Vultures want more. Our healthcare… our hard earned money… our liberty. South Carolina’s sovereignty is under attack… by politicians preying on our freedoms. Henry McMaster is leading the fight for the conservative cause….

Say what? If I believed half this nonsense about the Dems in Washington (who are not, near as I can tell, running for SC governor, so why is Henry running against them?), I’d say it was time for SC to fire on Fort Sumter again.

But I don’t. And I don’t see how anyone could.

Young lawyers vie for Kit Smith’s council seat

4 Replies

Scott Winburn

Quick, what do Seth Rose and Scott Winburn have in common that makes them both look like smart, capable candidates?

Yes! They both advertise on bradwarthen.com. That, of course, should be all you need to know, but then, how could you choose between them?

What else do they have in common? Well, they’re both young lawyers who happen to be Democrats. I interviewed each of them over breakfast this week. And both of them are running for the 5th District Richland County Council seat being vacated by Kit Smith.

They are not the only candidates running in the Democratic primary for that seat (which by the way IS the election, since no Republicans are seeking it). Moe Baddourah and Kayin Jones are also on the ballot, and Mr. Baddourah has some catchy signs you may have seen around town. For all I know, one of them could end up in a runoff, but without any polling or anything else to go on, my sense is that most of the energy in this contest belongs to Rose and Winburn (a Free Times piece this week on the back-and-forth between Rose and Winburn didn’t even mention the other two candidates).

So, what separates the two candidates? Quite a bit, actually. For instance:

The Kit Smith factor… Rose started running for this seat before Kit Smith said she was ready to vacate it. Why? Because, he says, he didn’t think she was visible enough in the community. He says his model for a good council member is his city council rep, Belinda Gergel — whom he says he sees everywhere at community functions. By contrast, Winburn — who didn’t announce until Mrs. Smith decided not to seek re-election — has her endorsement.
Last time I looked, Seth seemed to have a lot more yard signs than Scott. That could be because he’s raised a good bit more money.
Scott may not be old Columbia, but he’s old South Carolina. My uncle knows his mama and daddy up in my hometown of Bennettsville. In fact, my uncle called me last weekend to tell me to expect a call from Scott. (Initially, Scott had wanted to talk to me to get advice on how to get The State’s endorsement. I had to break it to him that The State wouldn’t be endorsing in his race. The overworked remnants of an editorial board are only endorsing for governor, attorney general and solicitor.) To cite another connection I have to him: My uncle serves on the board that supervises Scott’s father, who is Director of Disabilities and Special Needs for Marlboro County.
By contrast, Seth never knew his father, and his mom was 18 when she had him. He was born in West Virginia and raised in Florida by his mom and aunt. His grandfather was in a pipefitter and a union man, which Seth credits with helping start him down the path to being a Democrat. He also credits his background with having instilled in him a strong work ethic.
Seth went to USC on a tennis scholarship, and he made All-American. Scott went to Clemson, like fellow Bennettsville Democrat Doug Jennings.
Since I mentioned that I have indirect personal connections to Scott, I should mention that Seth is in my Rotary Club, and like him, my Dad went to a South Carolin college on a tennis scholarship (Presbyterian College). Dad still follows SC tennis, and when he saw his yard signs recently, asked, me, “Isn’t he the tennis player?”
Scott is in private practice with Rep. James Smith. Seth is a prosecutor in the 5th Circuit solicitor’s office.
Winburn claims the support of both Smiths (James and Kit), as well as former Gov. Jim Hodges and such conservation activists as Ann Timberlake. (He has in the past worked for Hodges and the Coastal Conservation League, and clerked for Ed Cottingham.) In contrast to that constellation of white Democrats, Rose cites the backing of Todd Rutherford, Chris Hart, Vince Ford and I.S. Leevy Johnson. I’m not saying there’s a racial thing going on, but it did strike me that there was that contrast among the first names each cited when I asked who was supporting them.

As for the “issue” that has emerged between the two… Winburn supporters have accused Rose of the “Don Tomlin candidate” because the developer has given his campaign $1,000. This, of course, is muttered darkly by the conservation-minded folk who back Winburn and have long supported Kit Smith. Rose indicates this all took him by surprise. First, he doesn’t personally know Don Tomlin. Then, once the name came up, he did a little research and found that Mr. Tomlin has given to other Democrats as well — including James Smith and Kit Smith, in 2006.

As an issue, that sounds kind of like a wash to me. I see no indication that Rose is another Brian Boyer. Mr. Boyer, if you’ll recall, was the young veteran who actually was in Tomlin’s employ when he ran against Belinda Gergel in 2008. By contrast, Rose is a great admirer of Mrs. Gergel, the historic preservationist. He also says he has worked to obtain limits on development in his community.

So I think those of you who live in Richland County’s 5th District will have to make your decision on the basis of something else. Check out their websites, which are linked from their ads, and from the first reference to their names above.

Seth Rose

Leighton Lord picks up support

2 Replies

Just had lunch with Leighton Lord, who I hear (according to unpublished polls) is leading the GOP race for attorney general. As we were eating at the Palmetto Club, the news broke that Andy Brack’s Statehouse Report was endorsing him:

In the race for state attorney general, Columbia lawyer Leighton Lord stands out for his vital

management experience. The lead lawyer for bringing Boeing’s billion-dollar investment into the state, he has run a major law firm and knows how to oversee the needs of a multimillion dollar operation like the attorney general’s office.

Lord’s opponents tout their experience in the courtroom, but it’s rare for the state’s chief prosecutor to get before a judge or jury often. The attorney general’s role is, rather, to pull together the disparate roles of police, prosecutors and other legal entities as a team to fight crime and improve safety. Lord has the pragmatic credentials to get things done and make our state safer without simply locking up more prisoners and throwing away the keys.

That took some of the Republicans at the gathering aback somewhat (Andy Brack? Isn’t he a Democrat?), but Lord was pleased to get the boost.

The gathering was a lot like a Columbia Rotary Club meeting: Gayle Averyt was the host, and was joined by Laine Ligon, Jimmy Derrick, Crawford Clarkson, Martin Moore, John Denise, John Durst, among others. I was there as the guest of ADCO’s Lanier Jones, who had been invited by Gayle.

Now that I’m back at my laptop and can see the item, I see that Andy’s also endorsed Frank Holleman and Brent Nelsen for superintendent of education, and Converse Chellis for treasurer.

Our Kathryn gets after McMaster

23 Replies

Kathryn called my attention to a piece in The Free Times about our fellow Rotarian Henry McMaster (“Henry McMaster: Slumlord Millionaire?”), and I moaned about how it was way too long to get to… not realizing that she wanted me to read it because she was quoted in it extensively. I’ll quote a portion of it, and you can go to The Free Times for the rest:

The whole spectacle regarding the McMasters and their lawsuit makes University Hill resident Kathryn Fenner bristle. She’s the vice president of the University Hill Neighborhood Association and serves on the city’s code-enforcement task force, a blue-ribbon committee that was set up to make recommendations on city ordinances.

Fenner has observed Peggy McMaster for years — Peggy sits on the board of the neighborhood association — and Fenner’s house is surrounded by five properties the McMasters own.

Sitting in her modern, brightly colored, sun-lit living room with two large dogs playing around her, Fenner launches into an all-out assault on the way Henry and Peggy McMaster have handled their role as local landlords in the neighborhood. To her, their actions have been offensive.

The McMasters, she says, have a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy with their tenants regarding the city’s over-occupancy laws. As an attorney, she finds it laughable that Henry is appealing a zoning ordinance because she thinks he’s clearly ignoring precedent of the law.

But that’s the thing with the McMasters, Fenner says: They have a sense of entitlement that allows them to act like complete hypocrites, apparently without even realizing they’re doing it.

“I think that if you are supposed to be the chief law enforcement officer in the state, you probably shouldn’t be nodding and winking at lawbreaking,” she says.

She’s speaking specifically about occupancy laws, which several tenants admitted to Free Times they were breaking but said they had a wink-and-nod agreement with their landlords about doing.

Henry has fought hard against the city to keep on doing what he’s doing and several tenants are happy their landlords are going to bat for them — with good reason. The McMasters enjoy more rent money coming in and renters end up paying less individually.

But it’s the way Henry has been doing it that bothers Fenner so much.

In testimony he gave on his wife’s behalf to the zoning board in 2007, McMaster said, “The constitution says if you’re a single housekeeping unit you may not be the traditional family, but you’re a family just the same and you’re not hurting anything any more than a traditional family.”

That really bothers Fenner, a self-described Democrat, who took umbrage to McMaster’s staunch, headline-grabbing opposition to same-sex unions when a constitutional amendment to ban state recognition of them was put on the ballot in 2006.

“What offends me chiefly is the hypocrisy,” Fenner says. “The hypocrisy that we’re going to protect non-traditional families when we can make a buck out of it and we’re going to pillory non-traditional families when we can make political bucks out of it.”

Conspiracy theory: He’s trying to get Nikki elected

29 Replies

First, let me answer a question of Bud’s:

THAT’s how fed up I am with tawdriness.
-Brad

Then why do you keep writing and talking about it? It’s your blog, you can ignore it.

Simple: No more important question lies before this blog than that of who will be our next governor. It is of supreme importance that we do a much, much better of choosing than we have in recent elections.

And there is one candidate who will come closest to exactly duplicating what we have now. That is Nikki Haley. Nikki Haley becoming governor is the single worst likely outcome we could have in this election. So anything that bears upon her chances is important.

And you know what? I think this sordid nonsense is helping her. Which brings me to a rather silly conspiracy theory: What if this is Will Folks’ way of helping Nikki Haley get elected?

Frankly, I don’t believe Will is capable of that kind of sublety, that level of subterfuge, “a feint within a feint within a feint.” So put me on record as not believing what I’m supposing here.

But the weird thing is that nothing else fits the facts — nothing other than simply believing Will when he says he was backed into making this revelation by The Free Times, and didn’t intend for it to cause such a splash.

Nikki says he’s lying. She denies the revolting allegation categorically. And when it comes to a “he-said, she-said” contest between Will Folks and a lady, I choose to believe the lady.

But that creates another problem. If she’s the one telling the truth, that means he’s lying outright. And answer this: What would be his motivation? I do not doubt for a moment that Nikki Haley IS his preferred candidate; no one else would even come close. Will might not seem to believe in much, but near as I can tell, to the extent that he believes in anything, it’s the anti-government extremism that Mark Sanford and Nikki Haley embody.

So why would he lie (if indeed he is lying) to harm her? I can’t imagine why.

But what if lying helps her? What if telling a loathsome lie, one meant to be seen through, is intended to play to the paranoia of her base, the people who cheer loudest for Sarah Palin when she’s cheerfully complaining about how elites pick on her? Those folks won’t distinguish between Will and the “liberal media.” They won’t care that the MSM is being led along as helpless as a child on this (they can’t ignore something that affects Nikki’s viability any more than I can), by someone who can only be credibly described as a Haley ally — someone who is, indeed, a “conservative” by their definition of the word.

Nikki loves playing Joan of Arc at the stake, the pure one being persecuted by the corrupt powers that be. This is her idiom, her strong suit. Not to mention the fact that this has sucked up all the political oxygen for two days at a critical time in the campaign, and right as she is at the height of her strength.

Anyway, bottom line: I don’t believe in this conspiracy theory, even as I present it to you. (And it will be easily exploded the minute Will presents credible support for his allegation, if he has any.) But I don’t believe in any of the other explanations, either. Maybe by throwing this one out there, it will cause someone else to think of an explanation that truly fits the facts, one that makes us all go, “Oh yeah!” and set this thing aside.

So that we can go back to considering Nikki Haley on her merits. That way, I think South Carolina comes out ahead.

If you think spending TOO MUCH MONEY is the main problem with SC schools, you’ve lost me

28 Replies

Had to scratch my head at this Tweet from superintendent candidate Kelly Payne:

Education spending is a fiscal time bomb, see my solutions. http://www.votekellypayne.com

I followed the link, and it didn’t help me understand her point better.

There are a lot of problems with public schools — the inferiority of poor, rural schools compared to the suburban ones; the difficulty in hiring and retaining good teachers and getting rid of bad ones; the absurdity of maintaining more than 90 separate district administrations, to name but a few.

But too much money — at least, that’s how I read “fiscal time bomb” (maybe she meant something else; I hope so) — isn’t one of them. Unless, of course, you’re running in a Republican primary. Sigh. Kelly, being a teacher, should know better.

Nikki up by 20 before the bombshell

7 Replies

This just in from the Nikki Haley campaign:

Nikki Takes 20 Point Lead

Friends,

Last week, I reached out with the news that Nikki had taken a double-digit lead in the polls.  Well, today we have even better news – another independent poll shows that lead has grown to more than 20 points!

Here are the results:

Nikki Haley – 39%

Henry McMaster – 18%

Gresham Barrett – 16%

Andre Bauer – 13%

We’ve also released our new tv ad, “Possible,” which started running statewide this morning.  The people of this state are rising up against the status quo, the momentum is on our side, and this ad seeks to capture the same energy and excitement that has helped to catapult Nikki to the top of the polls.  Watch it here.

This campaign has always been about the people, always been about building a movement from the ground up. That movement is taking off, and it’s thanks to each and every one of you.

We have a huge lead, and with that lead comes an equally huge target.  The determined efforts to make this campaign about anything and everything other than our fight to bring South Carolina government back to the people are already going on.  That’s no surprise.  But we will keep fighting, and ask that you join us.  Your contributions mean more now than they ever have before.

My very best,

Tim Pearson

Campaign Manager

The poll to which this refers is by Public Policy Polling. You’ll find that outfit’s release here. As it notes, the poll was in the field over the weekend, before all the gossip exploded. I’m not sure how credible it is, as it has Vincent Sheheen in a “tight race” with Jim Rex. But make of it what you will.

Also, note the whiny tone of persecution in the Haley release, as she more and more remakes herself in Sarah “Everybody’s Picking On Me” Palin’s image.

Chamber goes 100% for incumbents in House races

16 Replies

This just in from the state Chamber of Commerce:

SOUTH CAROLINA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ENDORSES HOUSE CANDIDATES AHEAD OF PRIMARIES

Columbia, S.C. – The South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, the state’s largest broad-based business organization, is pleased to announce the endorsements of the following House of Representative candidates who have primary challengers.

District 2 – Bill Sandifer, (Oconee)

District 10 – Dan Cooper, (Anderson)

District 17 – Harry Cato, (Greenville)

District 26 – Henry Wilson, (Pickens)

District 35 – Keith Kelly, (Spartanburg)

District 36 – Rita Allison, (Spartanburg)

District 38 – Joey Millwood, (Spartanburg)

District 39 – Marion Frye, (Saluda)

District 41 – Boyd Brown, (Fairfield)

District 55 – Jackie Hayes, (Dillon)

District 61 – Lester Branham, (Florence)

District 62 – Robert Williams, (Darlington)

District 75 – Jim Harrison, (Richland)

District 80 – Jimmy Bales, (Richland)

District 83 – Bill Hixon, (Aiken)

District 84 – Roland Smith, (Aiken)

District 86 – Jim Stewart, (Aiken)

District 87 – Todd Atwater, (Lexington)

District 98 – Chris Murphy, (Dorchester)

District 106 – Nelson Hardwick, (Horry)

District 112 – Mike Sottile, (Charleston)

District 123 – Richard Chalk, (Beaufort)

“South Carolinians who want good jobs and a strong economy should proactively support pro-business candidates,” said Otis Rawl, president and chief executive officer of the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce. “Candidates endorsed by the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce have demonstrated their support for priorities that support a strong economy and a competitive Palmetto State. These House candidates are committed to representing the people in their respective districts who each need good jobs, a competitive state economy and a pro-prosperity working environment to ultimately raise their individual incomes.”

The Chamber will issue further House endorsements after the primaries on June 8. In the race for governor, the Chamber has endorsed Gresham Barrett (R) and Vincent Sheheen (D). Visit www.scchamber.net for more information.

What do all of these candidates have in common? They’re all incumbents, or running in races without an incumbent. In District 26, incumbent Rex Rice is running for Congress; in District 87, Nikki Haley is running for governor; and in District 98, Annette Young is not seeking re-election.

It’s a shame the Chamber didn’t dig a little harder to make some real discernments (or at least give us some reasoning for its choices in the cases where there was no incumbent), because endorsements such as this WOULD mean more than usual this year, if they’d only put some thought into it. That’s because we won’t be getting an such fodder for thought from The State. This year, my former paper is only endorsing for governor, attorney general and 5th circuit solicitor, near as I can tell. And that leaves a big vacuum. I wish I could fill it, but I’m only one guy. And despite what that Lois Lane keeps saying, I am NOT Superman.

Do you believe DeMint is this vulnerable? I don’t

8 Replies

No offense to Vic Rawl, and I’d like to find out I’m wrong, but I’m having a bit of trouble believing this info he’s releasing is accurate:

New SCIndex/Crantford Poll Shows Rawl Within 7

DeMint Showing is “Tepid” in Head-to-Head Test

COLUMBIA, SC, April 25, 2010 — A new SCIndex/Crantford poll released today shows well-funded incumbent Jim DeMint is far more vulnerable to challenger Vic Rawl than expected. The poll showed DeMint’s lead at only seven points, despite DeMint’s great advantage in name recognition.

The poll, conducted last week among 438 voters likely to vote in November’s general election, has DeMint leading only 50-43 against Rawl, a retired Circuit Court judge and state legislator. Less than half of those surveyed said they were likely to vote for DeMint’s re-election, a result the poll called “well below the marks of a strong incumbent.”

Rawl spokesman Walter Ludwig said that the poll was not surprising. “South Carolinians know that despite his show-pony turns on cable news, Jim DeMint has not delivered for them. This poll shows that voters are uneasy about DeMint’s radical stands, and are hungry for common sense from Judge Rawl,” he said.

The full polling memo is available at http://scindex.blogspot.com/.

Of course, I have nothing to go by but my gut, but it would surprise me greatly to find out that Sen. DeMint is even that vulnerable to a relatively unknown (so far) challenger. What do y’all think?

Talk about a sleazy story taking on a life of its own…

16 Replies

Here are links to some of the things being written today as a result of one SC blogger essentially saying of a female candidate, “Yeah, I tapped that.” (What, you know of a classier way to put it? Please share, because I’m at a loss as we all go swirling down the flushing toilet together in this sordid mess.):

The Associated Press: SC governor hopeful denies blogger claim of affair
David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo: I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Man!
Politico: Palin Defends Haley
Free Times: Source: Folks Admitted to Haley Affair a Year Ago
Jezebel: Palin BFF Shows Women Can Have Sex Scandals Too
Wonkette: RUMOR: Political Blogger Had Sex With Lady?

Yes, the Wonkette. And ironically, the much-maligned (by me) Wonkette actually tries to responsibly answer the question, “Who should we trust?” (which of course should be “whom,” but why quibble?) and turns to my staid old newspaper to get the scoop on said blogger. Which is just weird. This disgusting mess is weird on so many levels…

By the way, Howard Kurtz shows he really doesn’t know South Carolina when he writes:

A year ago South Carolina wouldn’t have even been in the top half of my list of states with the craziest politics. But in the interim a lot has happened, and South Carolina is now in my top 10 and after this morning’s developments it’s making a strong bid for top 5.

I feel like he’s dissing us suggesting there might be four other states vying as hard as we are to be an insane asylum.

We are in a class by ourselves.

Benjamin’s transition team

Having Palin weigh in is no way to win points

7 Replies

Man oh man, there’s just no ignoring this loathsome story, as everyone gets in on the act:

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS/AP) – Nikki Haley took to the airwaves Monday afternoon to “emphatically” deny a political blogger and former Sanford aide’s claim that he had a romantic relationship with the Republican gubernatorial candidate in 2007….
… The Columbia Free Times has “been investigating a story involving an alleged affair between Haley and Folks for several weeks,” and on Monday cited an unnamed source who claimed Folks privately admitted the affair in 2009. “Furthermore, the source … says former Haley staffer B.J. Boling told him Haley had confided in him about the affair around the time Boling was working on her House reelection campaign in 2008,” the Free Times reported.

State Republican Party Chairwoman Karen Floyd criticized the media for covering the story at all, saying in a statement, “South Carolinians deserve a higher level of political discourse than this, and they frankly deserve a press corps that focuses on real, substantive issues rather than on Internet rumor mongering.” Palin also lambasted the “lamestream media” as she defended Haley on Facebook Monday afternoon.

“I’ve been there,” Palin wrote. “Any lies told about you will strengthen your resolve to clean up political and media corruption. You and your supporters will grow stronger through things like this.”

Clue for Sarah Palin: The Free Times is NOT the MSM. It may be a lot of things, good and bad, but it’s not that. I suppose she’s color-blind in that range. But then, she doesn’t read a lot, I hear…

If y’all want to discuss it, here’s a place to do it

25 Replies

Just to acknowledge the unsavory thing buzzing around on Twitter and the Web this morning (which Doug Ross brings up obliquely on a previous post) — now that the MSM has bowed to the inevitable and reported on it — I provide this place for you to discuss the implications.

I’m not going to mention the particulars. You can find them here, more or less.

Personally, I just hate the fact that I even heard about it. Something like this is to news what “Inglourious Basterds” is to cinema.

Vote for me, the liberal republican (or conservative democrat, if you prefer)!

15 Replies

You know, I don’t know if I can abide seeing one more mailer (such as the one above that came in the mail today) or yard sign trumpeting to the world that the candidate in question is a “Conservative Republican.”

You know, as opposed to all those liberal Republicans running around over here in Lexington County.

This is not new, but in the era of Nikki Haley and the Tea Party (which I’m considering using as the name of my new band, if Nikki will agree to front it), I’m hearing it more and more. And in the more extreme cases, such as with Nikki herself, “Conservative” is being touted as something apart from Republicans, mere Republicans not being worthy, you see.

Set aside the appalling notion that to the voters these folks are reaching out to, ordinary South Carolina Republicans just aren’t right-wing enough. I mean, think about that for a minute…

That’s long enough. Thankfully, S.C. Democrats aren’t given to this sort of redundancy, this rococo gilding of the ideological lily. If I saw one sign in my community that claimed to be for a “Liberal Democrat,” I believe I’d run for the hills. That would be just one extremism too many for me.

Remind me, if I run for office, to put “liberal republican” or “conservative democrat” (note the lower case; God forbid I should be mistaken for an adherent of one of those granfalloons). And I think I’ll refer to my opposition as “fascist anarchists,” to use Ferris Bueller’s term.

Anything for a little variety.

Rasmussen has Sheheen leading

1 Reply

The same pollster who reported Nikki Haley leading the Republicans now has Vincent Sheheen out front for the first time in his bid for the Democratic nomination for governor:

State Senator Vincent Sheheen has now opened a modest lead over two other hopefuls in the Democratic Primary contest for governor of South Carolina with less than three weeks to go. But nearly one-out-of-three primary voters remain undecided.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Democratic Primary Voters in South Carolina finds Sheheen with 30% support, closely followed by State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex with 22%. State Senator Robert Ford trails with four percent (4%) of the vote.

Twelve percent (12%) prefer some other candidate in the race, with another 32% undecided.

In March in Rasmussen Reports’ only previous survey of the primary race, Sheheen and Rex were tied at 16% apiece, with Ford at 12%. Thirty-seven percent (37%) were undecided at that time.

This, of course, is what I’ve been saying here for some time, although I had little to go by other than his leading in fund-raising and my gut — and the fact that Jim Rex seems to have dropped off the radar screen. I’d try to sell him an ad to give him a boost, but at this point I’d feel a little guilty taking his money. But only a little guilty.

I’d had a similar gut feeling about Nikki. Rasmussen seems to be working full-time to confirming my gut impressions.

Nikki Haley surges ahead

14 Replies

The other day, a reader made the following observations about Nikki Haley here on the blog:

For Haley, a bad day. The tea party simply has not caught on. Haley cannot turn the numbers out nor can she draw the bucks in (with the exception of Mark Sanford’s Club for Growth disreputably non-transparent $400k contribution)….

But on Saturday morning, May 15, 24 days out from the primary, Haley is visably collapsing. Mark Sanford’s cash will make an effort to prop her up, but you can stick a fork in her. She’s done.

I thought that reader was dead wrong, and that the opposite was true, but rather than spend time arguing on that thread, I wrote another post in which I went on at great length about how depressing I found her rally with Sarah Palin to be. I felt that I was watching a candidate coming into her own, surging in confidence and energy. (And the depressing thing is that that is bad news for South Carolina, and I sincerely doubted my ability to persuade her supporters of that — they seemed immune to reason.) But it was just a gut thing, based on all my years of experience. I had no way to back it up.

Until now. This just in from Rasmussen:

With South Carolina’s Republican Primary for Governor less than three weeks away, State Representative Nikki Haley, coming off a fresh endorsement by Sarah Palin, now leads the GOP pack.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary voters shows Haley earning 30% support. She’s followed by State Attorney General Henry McMaster who picks up 19% and Congressman Gresham Barrett with 17%. Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer captures 12% of the vote.

Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate in the race, but nearly one-in-five potential primary voters (18%) remain undecided.

The new findings mark a dramatic turn of events for Haley who ran fourth in March with just 12% support.r McMaster earned 21% of the vote at that time, with Bauer at 17% and Barrett at 14%.

Of course, from a national perspective, it would look like the deciding factor was Sarah Palin. But there’s a lot more going on than that. Some reasons why I’m not a bit surprised at these poll numbers:

Yes, the Sarah Palin endorsement, which creates excitement among certain strains of the Republican Party. Mrs. Palin had never been to SC, and her coming her to endorse Nikki was bound to create a sensation.
The support of ReformSC, the organization that exists to promote the Mark Sanford agenda. These folks have money, and they are determined to continue to hold onto the governor’s office, as evidenced by their expenditure of $400,000 on an ad portraying Nikki as a sort of Joan of Arc of transparent government. A very effective ad, far better than the one TV ad that Nikki actually lays claim to, which is terribly off-putting. And note that this poll was in the field May 17, two days before a judge ordered that ad to be pulled.
The Jenny Sanford endorsement (or rather, since Jenny endorsed her sometime back, her active participation of recent days). No, that’s not a positive to me, because I know that Jenny was always the brains behind Mark Sanford and his extreme views. The last thing South Carolina needs is another governor brought to you by Jenny Sanford. But the bizarre thing is that thanks to their family psychodrama, Jenny Sanford’s stock has risen in the public marketplace even as Mark’s has fallen. So having Jenny out there stumping for her is a big plus.
All the coverage in recent days of debate in the Legislature about Nikki’s signature issue, roll-call voting. It’s almost like the state Senate were working in cahoots with ReformSC (which I assure you it is not) to keep Nikki in the news in a way that reflects well upon her.
Just sheer buzz — based on all of the above, feeding upon itself. This has always been a race in which any one of four candidates could win, and no one was breaking away from the pack. So anyone having this much buzz, generated by all of the above factors, this late in the game, is likely to surge. And I suppose I’ve been adding to it in my own small way — I’ve written more about Nikki the last few days than all the other candidates put together. And the reason why was because I thought she was surging, and scrutiny was warranted.
Finally, a change in the candidate herself. Her poise, her confidence, her energy at that Palin rally was something to behold. It was kind of like a scene in “A Star is Born,” or maybe “All About Eve,” in which the shy, demure ingenue suddenly becomes the big star with all the mannerisms of power. This may not have been apparent to most people, but there are two things that made it stand out for me — I knew Nikki when she (VERY recently) emerged onto the scene, and I have a lot of experience watching candidates in person. You get so you can tell when one is on the way up. The aura of confidence, of momentum, is both an effect of rising, and a cause of rising further. Like buzz, confidence feeds on itself.

So now, Nikki Haley is the candidate to beat in the GOP race for governor. And I’m not surprised.

Court rules those pro-Haley ads must go

6 Replies

This just in:

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – A South Carolina judge has ordered a political group spending heavily to promote Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley to pull its television ads supporting her campaign.

Spartanburg County Judge James M. Hayes issued the order Wednesday at the request of Haley primary opponent U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett and three donors to ReformSC….

Did you see that coming? I didn’t. I sort of thought the Mark Sanford allies at ReformSC were going to keep getting away with pumping $400,000 into Nikki’s campaign.

As for the legal issues involved, here’s an excerpt from an earlier story by The State‘s John O’Connor:

A rival of Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley said television ads featuring the state representative and purchased by an outside group might violate state election laws.

Terry Sullivan, campaign adviser to gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett, said the campaign is studying whether the ads, featuring Haley and her signature issue of roll-call voting in the Legislature, violate state election laws. The chairman of the group running the ads, ReformSC, said he was “very comfortable” with their content….

Third-party advertising, such as that by ReformSC, a 501(c)(4) educational nonprofit, is a gray area in politics. Such groups are limited in what they can say about candidates, with a distinction drawn around ads using so-called “magic words” such as “vote for” or “vote against.” Those rules have been clouded by recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including a 2007 decision involving a Wisconsin right-to-life group. That decision requires issue ads “take no position on a candidate’s character, qualifications, or fitness for office,” among other requirements.

Such third-party groups are also forbidden from coordinating with campaigns.

ReformSC chairman Pat McKinney said the group has followed its attorney’s advice, and that the Haley campaign was not aware the group was filming or airing the ads. Haley spokesman Tim Pearson said the campaign did not know of the ads, or that the tea party rally was being filmed. Haley’s appearance at the rally had been advertised for several weeks.

About those races that are none of our business…

14 Replies

As y’all know, I don’t hold with getting involved in other people’s elections. We’ve got enough to say grace over here in SC without worrying about whom other folks are electing in other states.

Besides, I think it’s beyond ridiculous to try to draw conclusions from afar, finding artificial intellectual constructs to impose upon those elections to draw conclusions about unrelated matters — such as the national mood, or what is likely to happen in races that are our business. Such as, a Republican wins a race in state X, and therefore the national electorate likes Republicans and woe unto Democrats everywhere. I happen to believe that people make up their minds for a host of complex reasons that can’t be fully divined even if you’re standing next to the voter at the time, much less from afar. And to draw a conclusion based on how 51 percent of the voters in some far-off place reacted to the very specific choice they had between two very specific candidates, when that result involved separate, independent decisions made by thousands of people you don’t even know, which means it involves millions of unknowable variables, is laughable. Or would be, if the oh-so-serious pronouncements that result weren’t so harmful to public understanding.

And yes, I DO struggle to analyze elections I AM following, and share my feeble reflections so that y’all can shoot at them and maybe, just maybe, that ferment will lead to some greater understanding for all of us going forward. But I am loathe to do it with races about which I know little that would not fit on a bumper sticker.

But since folks seem to love to discuss these things, rather than have y’all go off and discuss it at some unsavory blog where you might pick up some nasty social disease or something, I provide you with this safe environment to have your discussion.

Here’s a quick summary of what happened by a guy over at NPR, but I also provide these links to related stories in the NYT and the WSJ and The Washington Post:

The big news came in the Democratic contest for the Senate in Pennsylvania, where five-term incumbent Arlen Specter — who quit the GOP last year because he was not going to survive the primary — wound up losing anyway, despite the backing of President Obama, Gov. Ed Rendell and assorted party luminaries. Specter, 80, was never able to convince his new party that he was one of them. Much of the credit for that goes to a savvy media effort by his opponent, two-term Rep. Joe Sestak, who ran ads reminding Democrats that six years ago Specter was warmly endorsed by another president, George W. Bush, and that he spent years voting for Republican Supreme Court justices. Those Democrats with longer memories still harbored anger over the way Specter questioned Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas court confirmation hearings back in 1991.

Sestak received 54 percent of the vote to Specter’s 46 percent, ending Specter’s long career in politics. Specter, in conceding defeat, pledged to support Sestak in the general election….

If the Democratic Party establishment took it on the chin in the Keystone State, Republicans got the same message in Kentucky. There, local powerhouse Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, muscled out two-term Sen. Jim Bunning (R) from a re-election bid and helped install Secretary of State Trey Grayson as his would-be successor. But GOP voters weren’t buying, and instead gave first-time candidate and ophthamologist Rand Paul a smashing victory, telling McConnell and party leaders that the old way of doing things was no longer acceptable. Even though Grayson was not the incumbent, he bore the brunt of the anti-establishment anger. Paul, the son of Texas congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul, utilized his father’s sizable presence on the Web to make him financially competitive with Grayson….

The results were less definitive in Arkansas, but what happened there can’t be comforting to Sen. Blanche Lincoln, a two-term Democrat whose avowed centrism — in a state that gave Obama just 39 percent — didn’t go over well in the primary. She managed 45 percent of the vote, to 43 percent for Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. And because neither candidate received a majority — a third candidate, conservative businessman D.C. Morrison, pulled in about 13 percent — Lincoln and Halter continue their battle for three more weeks, in a June 8 primary runoff.

Have at it.