Category Archives: Elections

Steve Benjamin’s announcement

FYI, here’s the official word I got from Steve Benjamin today:

Dear Friend,

I am running for mayor of Columbia, and I want you to be among the first to know.

In the city elections just eight months away, we will face a clear choice – change or more of the same in Columbia. As a business leader, a resident of Columbia for over twenty years, and a member of dozens of community boards, I have dedicated my life to bringing about real and dramatic change in my community. That’s what I intend to do as the next mayor of our state’s capital city. I’ll focus on bringing people together, and, when necessary, blowing past the bureaucracy and holding people accountable.

I hope you will join our campaign to change the way our city does business.

The single most important priority right is creating and attracting jobs. With all that Columbia has to offer, we should be doing better than the rest of the country when it comes to jobs – not trailing behind. And we can’t be content with just creating jobs in one part of the city. Every neighborhood is important and has a role to play, and each neighborhood deserves our attention.

My plan will turn Columbia around by focusing on the basics:

•    Making sure Columbia is open and friendly to business and to create new jobs for the future.
•    Bringing accountability, transparency and fiscal responsibility to City Hall.
•    Cutting wasteful spending and turning our city’s deficit into a balanced budget.
•    Getting our first responders the resources they need.
•    Teaming up with law enforcement to crack down on gang violence and keeping our families and businesses safe from crime.
•    Listening to the needs of every community in our city.

I will be a strong mayor, demanding results and accepting responsibility for what happens in our city.

I invite you to visit us online by clicking here. Be sure to sign up to receive campaign developments and strategy updates. Our full website is in the works and will be unveiled soon.

I look forward to sharing my ideas and vision with you over the coming months, and I welcome your input, your suggestions, your prayers, and your support.

Thank you, and let’s get to work.

Steve Benjamin

For more information, here’s what The State had on Steve’s candidacy today, and here’s the column I wrote on the subject shortly before I left the aforementioned newspaper. I made James Joyce allusions and everything…

No, I’m not running for governor — to the best of my knowledge

12 Replies

Y’all will enjoy this — so I’m driving home this afternoon, having run some family errands after Rotary, and my Blackberry buzzes. And it’s Corey Hutchins from the Free Times.

He says there are rumors flying that someone is about to announce a candidacy for governor. Then he mentions something about it being someone whom Dick Harpootlian and Jim Hodges are backing (which makes the next part really wild).

Then he asks whether I’m the one. I had to get him to repeat it. He was asking me whether I’m running for governor.

I got a good laugh out of that — not at Corey’s expense, though. On the contrary; I respect him for being so conscientious as to take the trouble to run down a wild rumor before dismissing it. And he knew it was wild. In his defense, he said, “You should hear some of the names being mentioned.” Presumably, some are even wilder than mine. I hesitated to use Corey’s name here (and if he asks me to, I’ll take it down) because I didn’t want to embarrass him. But I thought that detail lent credence to a post that you might otherwise think was a hoax.

What I’m laughing about was that for him even to have heard it means that there’s at least one person, and possibly two or more, who found it credible enough to pass on…

But anyway, just for the record:

I am not currently running for governor. Nor do I have actual plans to do so.
I’m not aware of anyone out there who is working in behalf of a Warthen candidacy. And I’d know about that. Wouldn’t I?
Jim Hodges would not be putting my name forward. I mean, he and I get along fine these days, but still. Nor would Dick, far as I know.
I am the founder of the UnParty, and my party has yet even to come up with a nominating process.

Of course, on the other hand, there are the following items arguing the other way:

I’m not gainfully employed at the moment. (When Corey called, I was thinking about my job search.)
I’ve certainly thought a lot about what it takes to be a good governor. For a platform, I could start with my last column at The State, and build from there.
I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that I could be a better governor than the current one (not a high standard, but it’s something).

But no, I’m neither a candidate nor plotting with anyone to become a candidate. What I am doing is hunting for a job.

It’s interesting how susceptible the rumor mill is, though. Remember my thinking out loud, very briefly, about running for Ted Pitts’ House seat, since he’s running for Gov Lite? Well, that had legs. A couple of weeks back, when I dropped by the Lexington County GOP event at Hudson’s BBQ place (I was there to talk to Jake Knotts for this post, when we were all still wondering where the governor was), several people in the crowd asked me about it. And I think some of them were serious.

So it doesn’t take much to get this kind of thing going.

Anyway, to iterate once again — right now, my goal is full-time, paying employment. If I found a job that met my family’s financial needs and allowed me to run for office, too, I might think about it. Someday. But that’s a really huge “if.” Most employers would probably frown on that sort of thing.

Bottom line: I got a good chuckle out of this, and I needed one. So, to whoever started this ball rolling — thanks…

Tonight’s header picture: Rusty and Rudy

7 Replies

Since I unveiled the New Look several people have complimented me on the photos. Of course, I’ve been changing them out so fast that you’ve probably missed some of them. For instance, I just took down one of Stephen Colbert and me, and put up the one you see now on my home page, which shows Rudy Giuliani in Columbia back in 2007, while he was still a contender in the GOP nomination race.

Like most of the pictures I’m using (except the ones other people shot of me with somebody), I shot it with my little digital Canon, which you see me using to shoot video of Obama in the picture you get when you call up individual posts. Here’s the video I was shooting, by the way.

The one now gracing my home page was taken on August 14, 2007, at the convention center in Columbia. Here’s video I shot at the same event. I chose this image because, even though the focus and resolution aren’t great, it worked with the extreme-horizontal format. So we’re talking form over content. But let’s examine the content: Local political trivia buffs will see some familiar faces sitting listening to Rudy, such as Gayle Averyt and Rusty DePass. Rusty, who plays piano at my Rotary, made some news of his own recently, until the governor was kind enough to draw attention away from him.

And just to get WAY deeper into the recent political past than you probably care to go, here’s a piece Rusty wrote back at about this time explaining why he was for Rudy.

One thing this blog’s got, folks, is depth. Layers upon layers of info, whether you want it or not…

I’ll explain another picture tomorrow. And yes, the photo below is from the same event.

Sanford’s endorsement of Nikki

Somehow I had missed this.

I got a tweet from Nikki Haley today, and it linked to her Web site, which I was finally able to call up (I could never get if before, for some reason). Anyway, I saw that she had posted something on May 15 quoting Mark Sanford as follows:

Nikki Haley is a true conservative and one of our state’s leading voices for fiscal responsibility and government reform. It’s too early to endorse anyone, but I would say Nikki Haley would make a terrific and inspiring choice as governor, and she’s a great addition to the field of candidates.

In other words, It’s too early to endorse anyone… but he just did.

Or did I miss it, and he’s made similar statements gushing about Gresham Barrett or Henry McMaster or whomever?

And there’s no mistaking the fact that Mark Sanford did indeed say that. It’s got his odd, signature “I would say…” verbal tick and everything. (About the fifth time he says that in a speech, I always want to say, Well then why don’t you go ahead and SAY it!?!?)

Anyway, as y’all know, I like Nikki. And as you also know, I think the last thing the state of South Carolina needs in 2010 is an official Mark Sanford wannabe candidate (what this election needs to be about, more than anything else, is moving beyond the dead loss of the Sanford years).

But it looks like we’ve got us one.

Henry’s ‘profile in courage’

This may sound odd, but I have to force myself to get into the habit of reading the editorial page of The State each morning.

See, I never did it when I was the editor, since I had read it closely the day before. So it’s just not part of my morning newspaper-reading ritual. I go front page (only reading the stories that jump out as important in terms of being an informed citizen, which is often just one or two items on the page), the jumps from that page, metro front and the jumps of the stories I read there, the business front and (during the legislative session), page B3. And, if I’m not also reading the Wall Street Journal or some other paper, I’ll look at A4 for a national-international overview.

I’ll “read the paper” in accord with my habits, and never even glance at the opinion pages. Which is not good. I don’t mean to avoid it; it simply does not occur to me that I hadn’t read it unless something comes up to make me consciously realize it. And that’s awful, because I know how hard Warren and Cindi (and Randle and Claudia, but you don’t know them as well) are working in my absence.

For instance, I “read the paper” this morning, but did not see Cindi’s nice piece about what a principled guy Henry McMaster is. Finally, after it was brought to my attention a couple of times today, I went and read it. Sorry I missed it earlier. You should go read it now, if you’ve been similarly remiss.

Henry’s one of those gubernatorial candidates I had not written a profile of before I left the paper, since he had not declared. Still hasn’t. But when he does, I’ll write more about him on the blog. In the meantime, Cindi’s piece is a nice conversation-starter.

Henry’s been the sort of attorney general who makes you say you’re sorry — for not endorsing him when he ran. He has been SO much better than his predecessor (and so much more reasoned and professional than you might have expected the ex-party chairman — who used to trade silly partisan shots with Dick Harpootlian when they were opposite numbers — to be), that he is one of my two favorite people about whom I like to say “we were wrong” for not endorsing. The other is Lindsey Graham.

Henry and Lindsey, along with Bobby Harrell, were the South Carolinians who stuck with John McCain in the darkest hours of his campaign for the GOP nomination. That has something to do with why I respect them as I do. It’s not that I respect them for backing the right guy per se; it’s just that the qualities that caused them to choose McCain among the Republicans and stick with him are related to the traits that cause me to respect them as public servants.

But I digress. Of course, digressing is a large part of what a blog’s for, isn’t it?

So how should I act now?

Sunday afternoon, I dropped by a fund-raising reception for Vincent Sheheen‘s gubernatorial campaign, just to check it out the way I always do.

It was at the Hunter-Gatherer. Kevin Varner from that establishment was my fellow guest on “Whad’Ya Know?” several weeks ago, and I told him then that I’d never been to the place but intended to do so sometime. This seemed like a good chance to follow through on that.

So I did what I usually do at such events — breeze by the sign-in table and start chatting with the guests, without signing in, and without making a contribution. Because I’m press. That is, I WAS press, for my whole adult life until very recently. Now, the closest thing I am to “press” is that I’m a blogger. But it feels natural to keep going to events such as this one for various candidates so I can keep up with what’s going on. After all, over the four years since I started blogging, I’ve gone to such events primarily as a blogger, not as an editorial page editor. So what’s different now?

I don’t know, but I recognize the potential for awkwardness. For instance, the next day I saw Boyd Summers at Rotary, and he mentioned seeing me at the Sheheen thing, and said isn’t it great that now that I’m not an editor, I can “do things like that.” Obviously, he thought I was there to be involved, that I was declaring my support for Vincent by being there. Which I wasn’t, so I set him straight on that. (Incidentally, I also saw Boyd at the “tea party” protest recently, and he didn’t assume I was supporting that, so what’s the diff? I was reminded of that yesterday when someone on Facebook called my attention to this picture of me and Boyd at that event. If you follow that link you’ll see that someone mistakenly identified Boyd as Mark Quinn from ETV.)

Anyway, I had a nice time for the half hour I was there (and yes, you CAN have a nice time even if you’re actually working). Had a pleasant chat with Vincent’s wife, Amy. We talked about the pope and other Catholic stuff for awhile. Then I excused myself, explaining that I was going to see “Star Trek” with my younger son, and she totally understood, because she and Vincent went to see “Star Trek” for their anniversary.

Anyway, others who were there included James Smith, Joel Lourie, Vincent’s dad Fred and others whom you would expect to find there. Maybe 30 people. I don’t know if there were speeches, because I left so soon.

But I had to wonder — did anyone else there make the mistake Boyd made? And how can I prevent that? Should I wear a sign that says, “I’m Just Blogging,” in letters big enough to be seen across the room? Or should I simply not go to political events? If so, how do I write about them? How do I have those critical casual conversations with people, the kind where you find out what’s really going on (as opposed to those stiff, “I’m calling you up to interview you” conversations)? Do I have to rely entirely on running into them by chance at Starbucks? I don’t mind, but as a strategy, that seem iffy.

Anyway, I’m still figuring out this “I used to be a newspaperman, but not any more” thing.

“Star Trek” was really good, by the way.

Well, Nikki did it (dang it)

I wish she hadn’t — she’s a good House member, but isn’t ready for this (and the last thing the campaign needs is someone dubbed the “Mark Sanford candidate,” since this election needs to be about moving beyond Mark Sanford) — but she did it:

Nikki Haley Announces Bid for Governor

May 14, 2009

LEXINGTON, SC – May 14, 2009 – Representative Nikki Haley (R-Lexington) today announced her intention to seek the Republican nomination for Governor of South Carolina.

“After months of encouragement from supporters all across the state and countless discussions with friends and family, I have decided to run for Governor of South Carolina,” Representative Haley said. “For more than five years I’ve sat in the statehouse and watched – sometimes in disbelief – as our state government has spent with abandon and in the process wasted taxpayer dollar after taxpayer dollar. I know what good government can look like. I’m running for Governor so the people of this state will know what it feels like.”

Haley, one of the strongest fiscal conservatives in state government, was first elected to represent the 87th District in Lexington County in 2004, when, as a virtual unknown she beat the longest serving state legislator in a Republican primary. In 2008 Representative Haley was sent back to the statehouse with 83 percent of the vote – the highest percentage earned by any lawmaker facing a contested South Carolina election that year.

Her time in Columbia has been marked by conservative leadership on behalf of her constituents and an unwavering commitment to the taxpayers’ bottom line. She has fought wasteful spending at every turn, pushed for smaller, more efficient government, and led the fight for the accountability and transparency that before her arrival was sorely lacking in the Legislature.

For her efforts to cut taxes and slow the growth of government spending, Nikki was named “Friend of the Taxpayer” (2009) by the S.C. Association of Taxpayers and a “Taxpayer Hero” (2005) by Gov. Mark Sanford. She has also received the Palmetto Leadership Award from the S.C. Policy Council for her expertise on policy matters and the Strom Thurmond Excellence in Public Service and Government Award from the S.C. Federation of Republican Women for the outstanding constituent service she provides to her district.

Born in Bamberg, S.C., the daughter of Indian immigrants, Nikki’s first job was keeping the books for her family’s clothing store – at the age of 13. She went on to graduate from Clemson University with a B.S. degree in accounting and following her graduation worked as Accounting Supervisor for the Charlotte, N.C. based corporation FCR, Inc. and five of its subsidiaries. Nikki then went back to the family business where she helped oversee its growth into a multi-million dollar operation. Since 2008 she has served as the Assistant Executive Director of the Lexington Medical Foundation.

“We’ve got great challenges facing us in South Carolina, but also a world of opportunity,” Haley said. “I have every confidence that with conservative leadership and a renewed commitment to the principles that have made America great – hard work, traditional values, promoting an atmosphere of opportunity over an environment of bailouts – South Carolina can be transformed into a state that’s not always at the bottom but sits proudly at the top.”

Nikki and her husband Michael, a full time federal technician with the South Carolina National Guard and an officer in the Army National Guard in Darlington, South Carolina, attend Mt. Horeb United Methodist Church in Lexington. She was previously a board member of both the Orangeburg and Lexington County Chambers of Commerce and a member of the National Association of Women Business Owners. Currently, Nikki sits on the board for Mt. Horeb United Methodist Church, Medmission, and is a proud member of the West Metro Republican Women, Lexington County Republican Party and the NRA.

Dang it.

Should I make my move now?

Did you see the news? Ted Pitts is going to run for Gov Lite.

Ted Pitts is my representative (and a pretty good one). I live in his district. Legal resident and everything.

So what do you think? Should I take advantage of this pending vacancy to make my move? Is it put up or shut up time for the Unparty?

I could never run for office before, as it’s strictly against the rules for newspapermen. But now? Who knows? When election year rolls around, I could be working at something else that would present a conflict — either in my mind, or that of my future employer.

But it is an intriguing thought, nonetheless. As much as I’ve written over the years about what legislators should do…

Transparency in Cayce

Remember that last year, my colleagues and I endorsed Elise Partin in her successful bid to become mayor of Cayce? Endorsing in that particular election was unusual for us — we seldom got involved in municipal races outside of Columbia proper — but interest was high on both sides of the river after Cayce suddenly annexed the old Green Diamond property.

Also, Ms. Partin simply impressed us as someone who would be a breath of fresh air in local government. And one of the reasons we citied for picking her was what we perceived as a dedication to transparency on her part:

Cayce needs a steady leader who will keep the public informed and pay attention to detail. Mrs. Partin is sharp, does her homework and would expose attempts to put something over on the public….

Well, as it turns out, now that she’s at the helm, Cayce is garnering praise for taking steps to make its spending far more open and available to the public. I learned that via this news item over at Mike Fitts’ new outfit:

CAYCE — The city of Cayce has begun disclosing its spending details on the Internet for its purchases — tools, equipment, office supplies, utilities and more — by posting its monthly check register to its municipal Web site. The city joins a growing list of local governments to open their books to the public, allowing people to see what they are spending.

One small flaw in that report, however, is that the only source quoted was Richard Eckstrom, who was hailing the Cayce move as a pioneering response to his own call to local governments to be transparent. Sounds like our state comptroller was the main source on the item. I mean good for him and all that, but that left open the natural question: Whom do we have to thank in Cayce for taking this step?

A city press release quotes Mayor Partin as giving credit to Councilman Steve Isom:

“There’s no downside to providing citizens information about what their government is doing,” says Mayor Elise Partin. “There are certainly many ways to do that. Councilman Steve Isom felt strongly about having the monthly check registers on-line and we’re excited about it. Monthly financial reports have been on-line already on the city’s website and now this offers an additional outlet.”

So good job there, Mr. Isom. And it looks like we can thank the mayor, too, for being supportive of the effort. At least, she certainly sounds supportive.

It’s nice when someone lives up to your faith in her.

Down with early voting

Walt McLeod’s nephew the gubernatorial candidate took aim at populist sentiment among Democrats with this release a few moments ago:

McLeod Pushes Election Reform:

Vows to Fight for Early Voting in SC

Today, Democratic candidate for Governor Mullins McLeod pushed to reform our election laws by making it easier for South Carolinians to exercise their fundamental right to vote. McLeod vowed to fight for early voting in South Carolina and pledged to veto any legislation that would reduce a voter’s access to early or absentee voting.

McLeod’s statement came after published reports revealed that the legislature’s attempts to pass early voting are not only failing, but that Republicans have passed legislation in the House that would prevent most in-person absentee voting.

“The current crop of career politicians in Columbia aren’t getting the job done,” McLeod said. “When I’m Governor we will have early voting in South Carolina just like so many states do now. And if the legislative Republicans keep trying to make it difficult for our citizens to vote, they’ll feel the full power of the Governor’s office come down on them. Just like people who live in North Carolina and Georgia, South Carolinians deserve the ability to vote and make their voice heard in an efficient and convenient way that fits in with their busy schedules,” McLeod added.

McLeod said that the entire debate on this issue demonstrates the culture of misplaced priorities that keep South Carolina near the bottom. “We should have early voting, that’s a no brainer. There shouldn’t even be a debate. Instead of fighting over this, we need to be working to create jobs and improve our schools. That’s what people expect from their elected officials. Once again career politicians in Columbia have failed us.”

###

Sorry, Mullins, but I still don’t hold with it. To avoid retyping what I said before, here’s an excerpt from one of my last columns at The State (the one in which I dismissed both sides on the photo ID debate):

While I’m at it, I might as well abuse a related idea: early voting.

We’ve had a number of debates about that here on the editorial board, and I’ve been told that my reasons for opposing early voting are vague and sentimental. Perhaps they are, but I cling to them nonetheless.

While Democrats and Republicans have their ideological reasons to fight over this idea, too, it’s a communitarian thing for me. I actually get all warm and fuzzy, a la Frank Capra, about the fact that on Election Day, my neighbors and I — sometimes folks I haven’t seen in years — take time out from our daily routine and get together and stand in line (actually allowing ourselves to be, gasp, inconvenienced) and act as citizens in a community to make important decisions.

I’ve written columns celebrating that very experience, such as one in 1998 that quoted a recent naturalized citizen proudly standing in line at my polling place, who said, “On my way here this morning, I felt the solemnity of the occasion.”

I believe in relating to my country, my state, my community as a citizen, not as a consumer. That calls for an entirely different sort of interaction. If you relate to public life as a consumer, well then by all means do it at your precious convenience. Mail or phone or text it in — what’s the difference? It’s all about you and your prerogatives, right? You as a consumer.

Something different is required of a citizen, and that requirement is best satisfied by everyone getting out and voting on Election Day.

With or without photo IDs.

Now I’m sure young Mr. McLeod is perfectly serious and sincere in advocating early voting. Set aside the canned, trite, generic populist language that seems to plague his releases (“The current crop of career politicians in Columbia;” yadda-yadda — all that’s missing is a reference to “good ol’ boys”). He means it, as do most Democrats.

I had a conversation about this with Capt. James Smith at a fund-raiser that Doug Jennings and Joel Lourie had for him at the erstwhile Townhouse last week, the same day that his op-ed on the subject ran in The State.

I explained my communitarian opposition to the idea, and he said what about older folks who have trouble waiting in line? I said they can vote early now; my parents always do. He said they won’t be able to do so in the future, with the Republicans now limiting the absentee voting that already occurs. And I said “Aw, the Republicans just did that because you provoked ’em.” And he laughed. Then he acknowledged I was probably right that what the GOP members had done probably would not stand — where would Republicans be with all the old white people mad at them? But in the meantime, he seemed resolved to take what advantage he could from their tactical error. (Finally, I told James that at least the remaining editors on the editorial board of The State saw things his way — I was the holdout on early voting.)

Anyway, I hear what James and Mullins and the rest are saying, but I am unpersuaded. They point to the long lines back in November, and I say so what? I celebrate the long lines as signs of a vigorous representative democracy. I ran across this chart the other day (let me know if you have better ones) that show that in the ’08 election, S.C. went from 50th to 41st in voter turnout, with a 9.8 percent increase over 2004. This is the Obama effect that Democrats celebrate, and they want to present it as a symptom of something that needs fixing? Sorry, that doesn’t add up for me. If participation were on a downward slide, they might have an argument. As things stand, they don’t.

Don’t do it, Nikki!

Someone just brought this to my attention:

In the latest bombshell to drop in the 2010 race for the GOP nomination for governor, Rep. Nikki Haley is running, according to multiple sources close to WR.

Haley, who would be the “Sanford candidate” that S.C. political observers have been waiting for, has allegedly been telling friends that she is running and is starting to build a campaign staff. Earlier, it was rumored that she might have been a possible candidate for state treasurer.

As of right now, it is unknown who she is going to, to run her campaign. She is also in a bit of a hole, with U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett and Atty. Gen. Henry McMaster both sporting about $1 million in their respective war chests. As of her last disclosure report, Haley has only a little over $36,000 in the bank.

Candidates are already lining up to run for her House seat, including 2008 Senate candidate Katrina Shealy.

… and something just fell into place for me. I ran into Nikki at Starbucks a couple of weeks ago, and she introduced me to “Caroline” from her campaign. (At least, I think it was “Caroline.” Very young, even standing next to Nikki. That MIGHT be her in the background of the photo at this link.)

To which I responded, “Campaign? Already?” To which Nikki laughed a sort of “you know how it is” laugh. And I went away accepting that even for S.C. House members, the race has become this perpetual.

But maybe that wasn’t it at all, huh? Maybe Nikki was planning a big move.

I hope not. I like her as a House member, even if she does vote with the governor. I like that she actually tried to reform payday lending, for instance.

But if she ran as the “Sanford candidate,” that would just be too awful. I don’t want a nice person like Nikki to run as the “Sanford candidate.” I don’t want ANYBODY to run as the “Sanford candidate.” The very idea of there being even the slightest possibility of a continuation of these eight wasted years is appalling.

The whole point of the 2010 election is that we finally have the opportunity to get a governor who believes in governing. It’s the whole point, people. It’s why I started writing columns about the candidates as soon as they started emerging, much earlier than I normally would. We’ve got to get this one right.

Just keep repeating, folks: “We won’t get fooled again.”

We need the right kind of politics to become usual

By the way, on the subject of Dems running for governor, I got this release today from Mullins McLeod, which says in part:

In order to clamp down on politics-as-usual in the governor’s office, Mullins McLeod has made the following pledge to the people of South Carolina.

(1) No PAC Money. Corporations and special interests use PAC money to buy influence. Mullins McLeod will ban PAC money from his campaign.

(2) No Future Run for Office. Our current governor spends all his energies focused on his own political advancement. Mullins McLeod will change that by swearing to return to the private sector once his time in office is done.

(3) A Ban on Lobbying by Administration Members. When citizens volunteer to serve in office, it shouldn’t be for the future hope of making money from influence-peddling. Mullins McLeod will require senior staff members to forswear any future employment as a lobbyist while he remains in the Governor’s office.

(4) Honesty and Transparency. Our governor spends too much valuable time bickering over whether economic development and jobless numbers are correct. Mullins McLeod will cut through this impasse by bringing in outside accountants and non-government experts to produce honest figures – which will allow all sides to come together and focus on creating jobs to tackle our record high unemployment rate.

You know what? Not to criticize Mullins, but hasn’t it sort of become “politics as usual” for politicians to promise no more “politics as usual?”

And is “politics as usual” our problem? Actually, I don’t think so. I think one of our problems is that since 2002 we’ve had extremely unusual politics in the form of Gov. Mark Sanford, and it hasn’t served SC very well. He practices a sort of anti-politics, a negation of the practice of working with other human beings to try to find solutions to common problems.

Today at my Rotary meeting, Joel Lourie spoke. He said a lot of things, but one of the last thing he said was this:

Unfortunately, “politics” can be a bad word.

I view politics through the eyes of my parents. They taught me that politics can be a way of bringing people together to find commonsense solutions to our problems.

And I pledge to you to continue to do that…

What we need is for the kind of politics that Joel Lourie believes in to become “politics as usual.”

Another hat in the ring: Mullins McLeod

Another Democrat has openly expressed interest in next year’s race for governor:

Calling for Change, Mullins McLeod Announces Run for Governor

“We Deserve a Governor Who Focuses on Creating Jobs — For a Change,” says McLeod

In a letter to delegates to this weekend’s South Carolina Democratic Convention, Charleston attorney and successful small businessman Mullins McLeod announced his candidacy for Governor today. McLeod is originally from Walterboro, SC and is a graduate of Wofford College and The University of South Carolina School of Law.

In the letter, McLeod says that the state’s current political leaders have “proven themselves powerless in the face of record unemployment” and says that it is “abundantly clear that South Carolina needs a new direction.”

“The current crop of career politicians in Columbia have given us the second highest unemployment rate in the country and done little to help our public schools. We need a governor who will fight for jobs, and stand up for the people of South Carolina. That’s not going to happen if we turn to the usual crowd of politicians,” said McLeod.

McLeod added that, unlike some South Carolina Democrats, he will not back down from his Democratic Party label. “They continue to lose elections because they don’t stand up for our progressive values and fight back against Republican smears.”

“I’ve spent my entire career fighting for working families in this state. I believe that it’s time South Carolinians had a Governor who will fight for them, and a Governor who focuses on creating jobs — for a change.”

McLeod also encouraged delegates to visit his campaign’s web page at www.mullinsmcleod.com.

So with Vincent Sheheen, that makes two.

I don’t know much about Mr. McLeod, beyond the fact that he could hardly come up with a name that shouts “South Carolina” any louder (Maybe “Beaufort Ravenel?” How about, “Charleston Shealy?”), and I read his recent online op-ed piece.

Meanwhile, over on the GOP side, I see that The Greenville News has done a story about Furman prof Brent Nelson, about whom I wrote previously. I was a little confused, though, because the G’ville paper said “Nelsen hasn’t formally announced a campaign,” whereas I thought he had. But then, even after more than three decades of closely observing politics, I get confused over the whole “official announcement” thing.

Barrett says he’d bring people together

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
GRESHAM Barrett was a very busy man Wednesday, what with hearings on the issue of the hour in Washington — AIG. The matter of what that “too-big-to-fail” insurer did with the billions we sent it occupied most of his day.
But I kept hammering on his staff — I’ve promised my readers, twice, to do a column on the Republican congressman’s candidacy for governor, and with Friday being my last day on the job, I’m about out of time — so he called me right after 5 p.m., and this column is the result. (So blame any inadequacies in this column on me and my hurry, not the congressman.)
While he’s been on the scene for a while — in the Legislature for six years, representing the 3rd District in Congress since his election in 2002 — I haven’t gotten to know him as well as some of the other candidates and potential candidates, such as fellow Republican Attorney General Henry McMaster and Democratic S.C. Sen. Vincent Sheheen.
I had already written what little I knew on my blog: He was critical (although not as harshly as Speaker Bobby Harrell was) four years ago about the job Gov. Mark Sanford had done on economic development; he was an early supporter of Fred Thompson for the GOP presidential nomination; he’s a big fan of nuclear power (the Savannah River Site is in his district); he voted against the TARP bailout, before he voted for it (which adds to his angst over AIG); he was dubbed one of the 10 “Most Beautiful People on Capitol Hill” by The Hill (which frankly I just can’t see, but that’s me).
Rep. Barrett helped me fill in some blanks Wednesday evening.
Some quick bio: He was born and raised in Westminster, S.C., and grew up working in his father’s hardware store, where local farmers would gather on Friday evenings to talk over the issues of the day. His first job was “coal bucket boy.” He would go on to command his company at The Citadel. He served four-and-a-half years in the Army, reaching the rank of captain. He has no combat experience, but learned a lot about leadership in field artillery at Fort Hood. He joined his father’s business after the Army, and ran it from 1993 to 2006. He and his wife, a first-grade schoolteacher, have three children of high school and college age.
Asked to name his biggest accomplishment in the Legislature or Congress, he cited “helping lead the fight” to ban partial-birth abortion in South Carolina. That’s his “crowning achievement” thus far, “absolutely, without a doubt.”
So what would he want to accomplish as governor? So far, he’s light on details — he plans to enlist experts from various fields in developing white papers on a wide range of issues — but he wants to focus on three areas:

The economy. He wants to create jobs and economic opportunity, so our children and grandchildren don’t have to leave the state to find those things. He says this involves not just recruiting new industry, but also helping existing businesses grow, and changing tax policy. “Too many in Washington, D.C., think government is the answer, and it’s not,” he said. “It’s creating an environment where people are the answer; where you empower people.”
Energy. Aside from nuclear (he cites Duke Power’s planned $10 billion investment in a new plant in Cherokee County as economic development that can’t be beat), he talks about opportunities in biofuels. He said switchgrass for fuel could be grown on dormant tobacco land in the impoverished I-95 corridor. He also pointed to tree waste from loblolly pines, “and the good Lord has blessed us with that.”
Education. He advocates, somewhat vaguely, “creating a 21st century environment that educates everybody” with “a holistic approach” from K-12 to higher education. What does that look like? He cited the forthcoming white papers.

After mentioning those as the three main planks of his platform, he added a fourth: government restructuring. That was pleasing to me as a longtime fierce advocate of that very thing, but he startled me when he added, “Governor Sanford has done a fantastic job on government restructuring.” When I asked just where the governor had done this fantastic job, he said “I think he has brought up a lot of issues.”
The congressman was studiously careful, here and elsewhere, to avoid criticizing the incumbent of his party — directly, that is. But he did draw a rather clear contrast when he said:
“One of my strengths is working with people, is having a personal relationship with people…. I think my leadership style is bringing people together .æ.æ. putting them in a room and saying hey, guys, now here’s our ideas and here’s what I want. I want to get to the 35-yard line, and I understand that you want to get to the 20. But let’s do this: Let’s figure out what we can do to move South Carolina … (to the) 25. Let’s open the door … and next time, let’s get to the 30.”
He was too polite to say so, but that would be a change at our State House.
The reason I was all in a sweat to write this column now — a follow-up to a piece I did on Sen. Sheheen after he announced — is that it is critical that we start thinking hard (harder, more wisely, than we have in the past) about who our next governor is going to be, and the more scrutiny on these candidates the better. I’ll continue to follow this race from my new blog, and my colleagues here at The State will be all over it as well, I’m sure.
So I urge you to start paying attention, and please don’t stop until we have elected a governor who will do what this one has not, and help lead South Carolina to be everything it can be. You, and your children, deserve that.

For a copy of the congressman’s statement at the AIG hearing, video from that hearing and more, go to my new blog, bradwarthen.com.

More on Gresham Barrett

Still trying to figure out this new blog. But as will be promised in my Thursday column, here are the congressman’s opening comments from the AIG hearing:

“Thank you Mr. Chairman. Last fall, President Bush asked for my help to avoid a total collapse of our economy – a collapse that would have pushed our country into even greater economic peril. Back home, small business owners and major corporations, called me to let me know that if we did not take extraordinary steps in those extraordinary times that many of the employers my constituents rely on would be forced to close their doors for good.

“Now, it disappoints me to see that some of the very companies who requested taxpayer assistance have failed to change their pattern of irresponsible decision-making which undoubtedly contributed to the current economic crisis. The Bush administration, and then Chairman of the New York Fed, Timothy Geithner, mismanaged the implementation of this program and the Obama administration, while assuring us that they knew exactly what was going on and how monies were being spent, have failed to bring about the necessary reforms and safeguards to protect the American taxpayers.

“Panel, we need to figure out our exit strategy, how taxpayers are going to be paid back, and when we can end this toxic relationship with AIG.”

And here’s a link to video from the hearing, in case the imbed above doesn’t work. (Not very exciting video, is it?)

What about Gresham Barrett?

9 Replies

Either today or tomorrow I'm going to call and talk to Gresham Barrett about his candidacy for governor, for the purposes of a column — like the one I did on Vincent Sheheen. As I've indicated, I plan to focus on candidates for this job early, and give you, the voter, as much information as I can about each of them, so that you can make a better choice than we, the people, have made in the last few gubernatorial elections.

Assuming, of course, that we're offered a better choice — and frankly, we haven't had a really good one since Joe Riley just barely lost the runoff in the Democratic primary in 1994. And maybe, if I shed enough light on the subject, it will encourage good candidates to run this time. Don't ask me how my shedding light will accomplish that — admittedly, it's a fuzzy concept — but I feel compelled to do all I can to help us get better leadership, and all I really know how to do is shed light. ("It's what I do, darlin'," as Captain Mal said to River Tam, about robbing payrolls.)

In that same vein, I recently posted what I had on dark horse candidate Brent Nelson.

I find myself at a slight disadvantage in the case of Rep. Barrett. I just haven't had very many dealings with him. This morning, off the top of my head, I compiled a list of what little I know about him:

Like Bobby Harrell, he was critical of the job that Mark Sanford's Commerce Department had done with regard to developing the state's economy. When he came to see us one day in 2005 (which may be the last time I sat and talked with him, although we've talked by phone more than once since then) that's one of the things we talked about, because there had been a story that morning in The Greenville News (sorry, the link is no longer available) in which he had said "more could be done" by the governor to help the state's economy. He wasn't OVERTLY picking a fight with the governor, but he WAS disagreeing with him about such things as the role of our research universities in boosting the economy.
He was an early supporter of Fred Thompson for president.
He's an enthusiastic backer of nuclear power, particularly of the idea of generating power from the Savannah River Site. As often as not when I've talked to him, that's what he's wanted to talk about.
He voted against the TARP bailout, before he voted for it.
He was dubbed one of the 10 "Most Beautiful People on Capitol Hill" by The Hill, which frankly caused me to lose whatever respect I had for that publication. The photo above is the one they offered to support their insupportable case. His staffer Brooke Latham, yeah. Absolutely. In fact, I wondered why she was rated only No. 2 on the list, going by the picture. But Gresham Barrett? Come on. And this is not just glandular bias, although I would argue that if you really listed the 50 most beautiful people on the Hill without any regard to gender, they would all be young women. Why? Because the system tend to attract, and choose for employment, attractive young women. Whereas there is NO mechanism in place to reward and promote physical attractiveness in males, at least not to the same degree. Yeah, there are a few gay members of congress hiring pages I suppose, and politicians as a class sometimes tend to look like TV newscasters, but the phenomenon whereby attractive, nubile women are drawn to halls of power would tend to overwhelm such other factors. Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but Mr. Barrett looks about as average as they come. Which is not to cast aspersions.

And that's pretty much it. Other than those things, he has struck me, to the extent that he has struck me at all, as a vanilla Southern Repubican in Congress, neither better nor worse than the average. He has not stood out. Of course, he has seemed somewhat more engaged — watching from afar — in the business of Congress than Mark Sanford was when he was there, but that's not saying much of anything at all.

So I look forward to learning more about him, and sharing that with you.

In the meantime, here's today's news story about his candidacy, here's his still-under-construction Web site, and here's the full text of his first campaign press release:

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, March 4, 2009

GRESHAM BARRETT ANNOUNCES BID FOR GOVERNOR

Third District Congressman Will Seek Republican Nomination

WESTMINSTER, S.C. – In a video posted on his website, www.greshambarrett.com, and in an email to the voters of South Carolina, U.S. Congressman Gresham Barrett announced his candidacy for Governor of the Palmetto State in 2010.
    In the video entitled “Opportunity,” Congressman Barrett said, “I learned my values from my family’s furniture store in Westminster and from the Citadel in Charleston: hard work, community, and commitment to causes greater than self.”
    Congressman Barrett also wrote the voters saying, “I believe South Carolina has tremendous potential, despite our serious challenges. I feel God has blessed me with strong experiences – in running a small business, raising a family, serving in our military, and leading in elected office– that give me a unique conservative perspective on the challenges we face and how to fix them. I believe I have certain strengths in these uncertain times. And I believe we have to hold on to our conservative values, and change the things that hold us back… I am excited about this campaign, and honored to have the opportunity to share my vision for a more prosperous South Carolina with the hard-working people of our great state.”
    Barrett named Travis Butler as his campaign Treasurer of Barrett for Governor. Mr. Butler is President of Butler Properties and Development.
    Currently, Gresham Barrett represents the people of South Carolina’s Third District in the United States House of Representatives. Barrett earned his undergraduate degree from The Citadel. He served four years in the United States Army before resigning his commission as a Captain in order to return to his hometown of Westminster, South Carolina where he would later run the family’s furniture store. Prior to his election to the U.S. Congress, Gresham Barrett served three terms in the South Carolina House of Representatives where he fought for numerous pro-family and pro-economic growth initiatives. Gresham and his wife of 24 years, Natalie, have three children Madison, Jeb, and Ross.

Note: To view Congressman Barrett’s announcement video entitled, “Opportunity,” please click here.

###

And here's the above-mentioned video:

Gresham Barrett For Governor from Gresham Barrett on Vimeo.

Much ado about photo ID (column version)

29 Replies

Yep, you already read this here, back on Friday. But I post it not for you blog regulars, but for folks who saw it first in the paper today, and decided to come here for the version with links.

And if you did that, welcome to the blog…

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR

The photo ID bill that caused such a flap in the House Thursday is one of those classic issues that political partisans make a huge deal over, and that seems to me entirely undeserving of the fuss.
It’s not so much an issue that generates conflict between Democrats and Republicans as it is an issue that is about conflict between the two parties, with little practical impact beyond that.
The way I see it is this:

It’s ridiculous for Democrats to act like this is some kind of insupportable burden on voting, even to the point of walking out to dramatize their profound concern. Why shouldn’t you have to make the kind of basic demonstration of your identity that you have to make for pretty much any other kind of transaction?
It’s ridiculous for Republicans to insist that we have to have this safeguard, absent any sort of widespread abuse here in South Carolina in recent elections. Where’s the problem necessitating this big confrontation with the Democrats? I don’t see it.

    Some of my friends and acquaintances defend parties by telling me that they legitimately reflect different philosophies and value systems. Well, when you scratch the surface and get at the values that inform these two overwrought, pointedly partisan reactions, it doesn’t make me feel any better either way. In fact, it reminds me why I can’t subscribe to either party’s world view.
    Democrats believe at their core that it should be easier to vote. I look around me at the kinds of decisions that are sometimes made by voters, and it seems to me sometimes that far too many people who are already voting take the responsibility too lightly. Look at exit polls — or just go up to a few people on the street and ask them a few pointed questions about public affairs. Look at what people actually know about candidates and their positions and the issues, and look at the reasons they say they vote certain ways, and it can be alarming. Hey, I love this American self-government thing, but it’s not perfect, and one of the biggest imperfections is that some folks don’t take their electoral responsibility seriously enough. Why would I want to see the people who are so apathetic that they don’t vote now coming out and voting? Yet that seems to be what many Democrats are advocating, and it disturbs me.
    And beneath all that sanctimony from Republicans about the integrity of the voting process is, I’m sorry to say, something that looks very much like what Democrats are describing, although Democrats do so in overly cartoonish terms. There’s a bit of bourgeois disdain, a tendency among Republicans to think of themselves as the solid, hard-working citizens who play by the rules, and to be disdainful of those who don’t have their advantages — which they don’t see as advantages at all, but merely their due as a result of being so righteous and hard-working. There’s a tendency to see the disadvantaged as being to blame for their plight, as being too lazy or immoral or whatever to participate fully. The idea is that they wouldn’t have these problems if they would just try. What I’m trying to describe here is the thing that is making sincere Republicans’ blood pressure rise even as they’re reading these words. It’s a tendency to attach moral weight to middle-class status. Republicans seem to believe as an article of faith that there are all these shiftless, marginal people out there — relatives of Cadillac-driving welfare queens of the Reagan era, no doubt — wanting to commit voter fraud, and they’ve got to stop it, and if you don’t want to stop it as much as they do, then you don’t believe in having integrity in the process.
    Basically, I’m unimpressed by the holier-than-thou posturing from either side. And I get very tired at all the fuss over something that neither side can demonstrate is all that big a deal. Democrats can’t demonstrate that this is a great injustice, and Republicans can’t demonstrate that it’s needed.
    And yet, all this drama.
    While I’m at it, I might as well abuse a related idea: early voting.
    We’ve had a number of debates about that here on the editorial board, and I’ve been told that my reasons for opposing early voting are vague and sentimental. Perhaps they are, but I cling to them nonetheless.
    While Democrats and Republicans have their ideological reasons to fight over this idea, too, it’s a communitarian thing for me. I actually get all warm and fuzzy, a la Frank Capra, about the fact that on Election Day, my neighbors and I — sometimes folks I haven’t seen in years — take time out from our daily routine and get together and stand in line (actually allowing ourselves to be, gasp, inconvenienced) and act as citizens in a community to make important decisions.
    I’ve written columns celebrating that very experience, such as one in 1998 that quoted a recent naturalized citizen proudly standing in line at my polling place, who said, “On my way here this morning, I felt the solemnity of the occasion.”
    I believe in relating to my country, my state, my community as a citizen, not as a consumer. That calls for an entirely different sort of interaction. If you relate to public life as a consumer, well then by all means do it at your precious convenience. Mail or phone or text it in — what’s the difference? It’s all about you and your prerogatives, right? You as a consumer.
    Something different is required of a citizen, and that requirement is best satisfied by everyone getting out and voting on Election Day.
    With or without photo IDs.

This column is adapted from a post on my blog, which includes a lot of other commentary that did not make it into the paper. For the full experience, please go to thestate.com/bradsblog/.

The blessing of a potential candidate

37 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
On a brilliant, warm February afternoon, I was holed up in a darkened booth in an Irish-themed pub talking local politics. Not exactly James Joyce’s “Ivy Day in the Committee Room,” but a reasonable Columbia facsimile.
    Jack Van Loan was holding court at his “office” in a booth at Delaney’s in Five Points — files and organizer on the table before him next to his coffee, his briefcase opened on a nearby bench. From such locations Jack makes and takes his multiple calls getting ready for the big St. Patrick’s Day event March 14, and talks Five Points politics.
    Last year, he was blessing Belinda Gergel for the 3rd district City Council contest that she eventually won. This time, he was pushing someone for mayor.
    It was Steve Benjamin, whom I’ve known for years; we endorsed him for state attorney general in 2002. But Jack wanted to “introduce” him as his candidate for mayor, and I wanted to hear what Jack — a force in the Five Points Association since 1991 — had to say about him.
    Jack says the necessary ingredient in leadership is courage — something he knows about, having been imprisoned at the “Hanoi Hilton” with John McCain. He says Steve Benjamin’s got it. “He’s not a Goldwater conservative,” which would be more to Jack’s liking. But “This is my guy.” If he runs.
    Mr. Benjamin says he’ll decide whether to take on Mayor Bob Coble “in the next couple of months.” No later, because he will need the full year running up to the April 2010 election. Jack agrees: “A year’s nothing.”
    What this would mean is that Bob Coble would face something other than the “usual suspects” opposition that has tended to characterize his re-elections. Last election, Kevin Fisher mounted the most serious race in a while, but that was weak compared to what Steve Benjamin would do. He wouldn’t just be a focal point for the discontented. He has the name, connections and credibility to challenge the mayor in the very heart of his political support.
    And now, confidence in Columbia’s leadership is at a low ebb. City finances are an inexcusable mess; the police department is reeling from a string of problems. The city manager has quit, after the council couldn’t get its act together to evaluate him. The seven elected political leaders seem incapable of summoning the will to cope with anything, from homelessness to closing a deal to provide more parking spaces in Five Points (a very sore point for Jack).
    “I have a great relationship with Bob Coble,” says Mr. Benjamin. “On my worst day, he’s been a great acquaintance.” Further, he says he doesn’t doubt the mayor’s dedication to the city.
    So, as he says the mayor himself asked him, why consider running against his friend Bob? While he still hasn’t made up his mind, “reasons become clearer every day — every morning after I read your paper.”
    If he runs, the campaign will be positive, and “aspirational.” He wants to grow old here. He wants his children to raise their children here.
    To hear his wife or law partners tell it, he’s already involved in “too many things:” Among them, he’s chairman-elect of the Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce, and vice chairman of the Columbia City Center Partnership. I don’t find it unusual to run into him twice in the same day, at unrelated community events.
    “I think we lack a clear and cohesive vision about where this city needs to go,” he says. More than that, he understands that the city lacks the means for translating any such vision into effective action.
    In other words, he advocates replacing Columbia’s unaccountable, failed council-manager government with a strong-mayor system. A full-time mayor with responsibility for, rather than politically diffused detachment from, the day-to-day executive functions of the government is necessary “for a city trying to make the next leap — from good to great,” he says. “Some say it’s a third rail,” but “it’s hard to look somebody in the eye and say I want to run the city, and then say you don’t really want to run the city.” Under the current setup, not a lot of people would want the job — at least, not a lot of people a reasonable person would want to want the job.
    He mentions several important issues the city has yet to cope with — transportation, clean air and water. But it is on homelessness that he draws a sharp contrast. He says the proposal of the Midlands Housing Alliance to establish a multi-purpose center to fight homelessness at the Salvation Army site “is sound, is 95 percent of the way towards being funded, looks like a certainty and certainly fills a void.” As a former resident of the Elmwood neighborhood, he understands concerns, but believes “some strong, good neighborhood agreements” could reassure folks such a center would not be a detriment.
    Mr. Benjamin is a veteran of the last failed effort to establish such a center, which was undermined by the City Council. That experience “put us on notice that if something’s going to happen, it may have to happen in spite of elected city leadership.” Various stakeholders, from business leaders to service providers, came together in the Housing Alliance to provide that missing direction, and now Mr. Benjamin says the city should step up and do its part, which would include providing operating funds.
    “I don’t get the impression that the city leadership thinks it’s a problem,” says Jack Van Loan. Referring to Cathy Novinger of the Housing Alliance, he adds, “That gal would have made a damned fine general officer in the Air Force. She can make a decision without stuttering.”
    It’s a quality that the former fighter pilot values, and one he suggests that he sees in Steve Benjamin.
And while it’s far too soon to say wh
o should win, if Mr. Benjamin gets into the race, Columbia will have its clearest chance in a long while to pick a new direction.

For links and more, please go to thestate.com/bradsblog/.

Sunday preview: Ivy Day in the Committee Room (5 Points version)

1 Reply

Old Jack raked the cinders together with a piece of cardboard and spread them judiciously over the whitening dome of coals. When the dome was thinly covered his face lapsed into darkness but, as he set himself to fan the fire again, his crouching shadow ascended the opposite wall and his face slowly re-emerged into light….

— from "Ivy Day in the Committee Room," by James Joyce

In the middle of a brilliant, unusually warm February afternoon (Thursday), I was holed up in an Irish-themed pub talking local politics. Jack Van Loan was holding court at his "office" in a booth at Delaney's pub in Five Points. And when I say office, I mean "office," with his files and organizers on the table before him next to his coffee, and his briefcase opened on a bench close at hand. From such locations Jack makes and takes his multiple calls getting ready for the big St. Paddy's Day event (March 14) and talks Five Points politics.

Last year, he was pushing Belinda Gergel for the 3rd district council contest that she eventually won. Today, he was conveying his blessing upon another (potential) candidate — this one for mayor.

The candidate, or potential candidate, sat in the dark with the bright light coming in the window behind him so that I was talking to a silhouette — a little like the effect when you talk to Joe Riley in his office down there at the Four Corners of the Law, with that huge cathedral-like array of windows behind him, and the fluid light of the Holy City radiating all about him. This was a little more prosaic than that, but then this wasn't the mayor yet, just a potential candidate.

Who was the candidate? Well, that's him in the very bad phone picture above, with Jack at his right. Shouldn't be hard to figure out. The thing about this candidate was, I needed no introduction. We've endorsed him for statewide office in the past. But my friend Jack wanted to introduce him as his candidate for mayor in next April's election, and I wanted to hear what Jack — a force in the influential Five Points Association since 1991 — had to say about him. It wasn't exactly Joyce's "Ivy Day in the Committee Room" and we didn't talk about Parnell, but by Columbia standards it would do.

Anyway, the rest of the story will be in my Sunday column, so tune in.

Much ado about photo ID

31 Replies

The photo ID bill that caused such a flap in the House yesterday is one of those classic issues that partisans make a HUGE deal over, and which seems to me entirely undeserving of the fuss.

The way I see it is this:

It's ridiculous for Democrats to act like this is some kind of insupportable burden on voting, even to the point of walking out to dramatize their profound concern. Why shouldn't you have to make the kind of basic demonstration of your identity that you have to make for pretty much any other kind of transaction?
It's ridiculous for Republicans to insist that we have to have this safeguard, absent any sort of widespread abuse here in South Carolina in recent elections. Where's the problem necessitating this big confrontation with the Democrats? I don't see it.

Some of you defend parties by telling me that they legitimately reflect different philosophies and value systems. Well, when you scratch the surface and get at the values that inform these two overwrought partisan reactions, it doesn't make me feel any better either way. In fact, it reminds me why I can't subscribe to either party's world view.

Democrats believe at their core that it should be EASIER to vote. I look around me at the kinds of decisions that are sometimes made by voters in this country, and it seems to me sometimes that far too many people who are ALREADY voting take the responsibility too lightly. Look at exit polls. (Or forget the exit polls, just try going up to people on the street and asking them a few pointed questions about public affairs.) Look at what people actually know about candidates and their positions and the issues, and look at the reasons why they say they vote certain ways, and it can sometimes be alarming. Hey, I love this self-government thing, but it's not perfect, and one of the imperfections is that some folks don't take their electoral responsibility seriously enough. So why would I want to see the people who are so apathetic that they don't vote NOW coming out and voting? Yet that seems to be what many Democrats are advocating, and it disturbs me.

And beneath all that sanctimony from Republicans about the integrity of the voting process is, I'm sorry to say, something that looks very much like what Democrats are describing, although Democrats do so imperfectly and in overly cartoonish terms. There's a bit of bourgeois disdain in the GOP position on these things. There is a tendency among Republicans to think of themselves as the solid, hard-working citizens who play by the rules, and to be disdainful of those who don't have their advantages — which Republicans don't SEE as advantages at all, but merely their due as a result of being so righteous and hard-working and all. There's a tendency to see the disadvantaged as being to blame for their plight, as being too lazy or immoral or whatever to participate fully. The idea is that they wouldn't have these problems if they would just TRY. What I'm trying to describe here is the thing that is making sincere Republicans' blood pressure rise even as they're reading these words. It's a tendency to attach moral weight to middle-class status. Republicans seem to believe as an article of faith that there are all these shiftless, marginal people out there — relatives of Cadillac-driving welfare queens of the Reagan era, no doubt — wanting to commit voter fraud, and they've got to stop it, and if you don't want to stop it too then you don't believe in having integrity in the process.

So basically, I'm unimpressed by the holier-than-thou posturing from either side. And I get very tired at all the drama over something that NEITHER side can demonstrate is all that big a deal. Democrats can't demonstrate that this is a great injustice, and Republicans can't demonstrate that it's needed. And yet we have to put up with all this drama.