Oh boy. Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy.

Andre wants to come in. Cindi’s on the phone negotiating a time right now.

So much for being done. Sheesh.

Hold off on the music. Tell the dancing girls to wait.

Congratulate me! I’m about to go into an interview with our 50th and final candidate for the primaries — S.C. Rep. Joe Neal!

(At least, he’s the last unless Andre limps in.)

He’s waiting in the interrogation room as I type this.

I hereby declare an official Unparty holiday….

2 p.m. Wednesday. It’s fair to say that Michael Ray Ellisor and his primary opponent have a lot in common.

Both have been radio hosts. Both have been willing to at least think of themselves as Republicans. (In fact, Mr. Ellisor says he helped found the Republican Party in Lexington County. But he says his life experiences, particularly as a criminal defense lawyer, have changed him.)

Both oppose amending the constitution to prevent gay marriages.

Both are now Democrats.

But there are important differences. Mr. Ellisor, who describes himself as an "old-school," New Deal Democrat, seems to me more like a new-school, Howard Dean Democrat. He says he’s "more passionate" about certain issues than his opponent, particularly with regard to the war.

"I agree with John Murtha‘s position," he asserts more than once. There’s another thing he wants to leave no misunderstanding about: "my intense dislike for George Bush."

He does like one decision the president has made — his new treasury secretary, whom Mr. Ellisor hopes will stand up to the president and tell him how he’s fouled up the economy. But he feels compelled to preface even that faint praise by saying, "Now I don’t like President Bush; don’t get me wrong."

He believes the Iraq war was about oil, and has hardened his position since 2004 (when he was the unopposed nominee against Rep. Joe Wilson) from merely wanting our troops pulled back to a safe position in the desert to bring-the-troops-home.

He says his candidacy was fated to be. As a criminal defense attorney ("I represent poor crooks, quite frankly."), he is not accustomed to getting a lot of remuneration from his clients. So when one walked in and gave him $3,200 as a fee, "I considered that an omen, an Act of God."

So he took the money and went right down to file to run in the primary. The rest is history yet to be written.

11 a.m. Wednesday. In case you hadn’t noticed, there are two Democrats competing for the honor of facing U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson in the fall.

First we have David White, former Baptist minister and, until he declared his candidacy, a local radio talk show host.

To keep it simple, Mr. White is the moderate in the primary race. In fact, he says that if Mr. Wilson were a Democrat, "I’d be a Barry Goldwater Republican."

Actually, that’s stretching a point. A Rockefeller Republican maybe. But I would say he’s more of a pre-Vietnam Democrat.

His biggest difference with his opponent is over the Iraq war. He says that at this point, it doesn’t matter why we invaded so much as the fact that "we’ve got to find a way to finish what we’ve started," with not only our troops, but ordinary Iraqis laying their lives on the line.

He calls his opponent a "cheerleader for the party," which he would not be. But he insists that "I like Mickey a whole lot."

He saves his real criticism for the man one of them will face in the fall. "Joe Wilson," he says, "has violated his public trust" by being a slave to his party and polls.

"The one thing I admire about George Bush is that he says ‘the polls be damned.’" Mr. Wilson, he says, would never do that.

He is particularly angered by what the incumbent said when it was first confirmed that the late Strom Thurmond had an illegitimate, biracial child. (In 2003, the congressman said, "It’s a smear on the image that (Thurmond) has as a person of high integrity who has been so loyal to the people of South Carolina.")

"Mr. Wilson has never even bothered to apologize for that," Mr. White said. He says Mr. Wilson doesn’t provide the "dignity and integrity" that a representative to Congress should have.

Mr. White opposes a constitutional amendment that would limit the definition of marriage to one man and one woman. Instead, he would "encourage monogamy and safe sex for anyone who’s going to have it."

5 p.m. Alvin Portee is exhibiting a new ambition. He’s been running for Richland County Coroner for, by his own estimation, about a quarter century. He’s run as a Democrat, switched parties to run as a Republican (even attending the GOP National Convention in 2004), and now he’s a Democrat again. The coroner’s office is not up for election this year, so for variety, he’s running for county council. He’s got nothing against incumbent Paul Livingston. I think he’s just keeping his hand in on the campaigning thing.

Monday, May 22, 9 a.m. The first time he came in for an interview, in 2002, we
told Ken Clark he had half an hour, and he should fill the first part
with opening remarks, after which we’d ask questions. In a direct and
linear fashion, he explained who he was and why he was running, and
took exactly 30 minutes, without wasting a second. He had answered
every question we would have had, and answered it in the way we liked.
The interview was over. It was remarkable.
    A retired Navy captain and
computer engineer, Ken Clark is one of the most perceptive,
hard-working, honest people in the Legislature. He is a rare
combination of idealism and practicality, utterly devoid of partisan
nonsense.
    And he’s facing a candidate who knows virtually nothing about
even his own top issues, but is backed by out-of-state money that wants
to destroy public education in South Carolina.
     Rep. Clark, an advocate
for such sensible “school choice” options as charter schools, is under
attack for opposing the Put Parents in Charge bill. As he said, the
only parents that bill would have empowered are those who have “already
proven their ability to put their children in private school or
home-schooling.
     If the people of House District 96 care at all about
their state, Ken Clark should win re-election in a walk. If he doesn’t,
we should all worry: “(I)f they succeed in knocking over three or four
or five of us, think of the power they will have over the Legislature.”
By the way, “us” refers to Republicans who care at all about education.

12:30 p.m. Since becoming secretary of state four years ago, Mark
Hammond has been working hard to modernize and streamline the office.
But he doesn’t want to abandon the 1895 model for selecting the
officeholder. He thinks voters should still have to pick the secretary
of state, even though 95 percent of them probably couldn’t begin to
tell you what he does. “This is just a gimmick of my opponent,” he says
of the proposal to let the governor appoint instead. Never mind that
this newspaper has advocated it for at least 15 years.

Thursday, 10 a.m. Republican Ken Clark, one of the most articulate advocates of public education in the S.C. House, was threatened with strong primary opposition when he fought the governor’s tax credits. What he got was Kit Spires, who gives confusing answers on the issue himself. He says his main concern is lowering property taxes because “that’s what the most of the people are interested in.” But he can’t say which of the various tax plans before the Legislature he favors, because he says he hasn’t had time to find out about them.

11 a.m. Challenger Mike Campbell, son of the late Gov. Carroll Campbell, avoids mentioning incumbent Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer. He will acknowledge this big difference, though: “He is pleased with the office in its current form. I want to see it restructured” so that the lieutenant is on the same team with the governor. “It’s not the lieutenant governor’s job to go up there and fight the governor. That’s crazy.”

Makes sense to me. But it seems to me that in the race for Gov Lite, a part-time job, the conduct of the incumbent is a legitimate issue. Seems to me Mr. Campbell is being too much the gentleman. Or maybe I’ve spent too much time on blogs.

11:30 a.m. Perpetual coroner candidate Alvin Portee is making changes. He’s a Democrat again, and he’s seeking Paul Livingston’s seat on Richland County Council. Mr. Livingston is running on his record — he’s proudest of his advocacy of neighborhood improvement, and his role in bringing civility back to the council.

(Mr. Livingston’s a nice guy, but our interview with Mr. Portee was more interesting. Anyway, here is our endorsement in this race.)

1:30-ish. “I’m serious about it,” Republican Sen. Greg Ryberg says. He really is. He’s put $2 million of his own money into his bid to be state treasurer. He says the job requires a business background such as his, which is why it is another office that would be better filled by gubernatorial appointment. “I think getting the most votes doesn’t get you the qualifications,” which is why the state missed out on millions* in investment opportunities in the 1990s. “That being said, I certainly want the most votes.” He smiled at that, but believe him; he’s serious.

For more on this race, check my coverage on the treasurer’s debate, co-moderated by your favorite blogger.

Even more relevantly, check out our endorsement of Mr. Ryberg.

* (Note that just before the debate, Mr. Ryberg objected to my use of "millions" here, and he was probably right.)

3:30 p.m. This one’s easy. Bill Banning, who was a prime advocate for regional cooperation when he served on Lexington County Council, came in and gave us reasons why he should get the seat back from Joe Owens, who refused to do so.

An interesting postscript occurred after our endorsement ran. Our publisher got a phone call, which he passed on to me. It was interesting because it illustrated an attitude that we ran into a good deal on the Lexington Medical Center controversy — the terrible political divide that the river constitutes.

Here’s a portion of what the caller had to say about Mr. Banning (which frankly, reinforced our impression that Mr. Banning is a bridge-builder):

"The whole time he was on county council he did nothing but marry up with the major of Columbia and said the heck with West Columbia. And how dare you let a neighbor of Bill Banning’s put an editorial in here attacking Joe Owens? So you can take your State newspaper and stick it somewhere."

That neighbor would be me. Turns out Mr. Banning lives somewhere in the same subdivision where I do — although I don’t know where exactly. As for what that’s worth, the caller could ask Bill Riser, who lives across the street from me.

And "attacking Joe Owens?" Read the endorsement. If Mr. Owens had wanted to tell us some reasons we should endorse him, he had the opportunity.