1:30 p.m. Wednesday, May 3. This a tale of corruption in the editorial offices of The State. An unseemly tale, but not without redemption. This tale has its heroes. Your loyal correspondent, for instance, remained untainted. But oh, there were so precious few who did.

As you can see by this undeniable photographic evidence, William Bell, candidate for the Republican nomination for commissioner of agriculture, came into our sanctum sanctorum bearing gifts. He had carefully timed his appointment to the very moment when his strawberries had reached perfect ripeness.

Well, we tried to ignore the fruit, and conduct a professional interview. I learned quite a bit. For instance, did you know that strawberry growers in South Carolina pretty much sell all their product at roadside stands, and never trade with the supermarkets — which tend to get their produce out of state. Seems wasteful to me. I also learned that Mr. Bell, being a diversified and public-spirited farmer, is well versed in many aspects of agricultural practices and policy. In fact, we did not find it easy to choose between him and incumbent Hugh Weathers. (But we did, as you can see.)

When he had concluded his interview, the Tempter offered to fetch some more buckets of berries from his car. I politely declined. He said — the Tempter is clever this way — that he was driving straightaway to Greenville, and they would go bad on the way. My Mama taught me at an early age that it was a sin to waste. What a fine moral dilemma this presented. I reluctantly agreed to accept the additional berries.

I then assuaged my conscience by issuing a decree that the berries would be distributed to the newsroom. Those 140 or so omnivorous souls could enjoy the bounty of the fields without corruption, since they are not involved in editorial endorsements.

Sometime later, I returned to the editorial reception area to find that even the initial buckets were gone. Relieved that I would not be tested, I asked the two ladies who work in that part of the department whether they had all been distributed and consumed by the news folk so quickly. They said no, they had not been given to news. The ladies did not look at me, but continued with their work. I asked, Where then are the berries? Gone. In an undisclosed location, to keep me from giving them away.

They did not even seem to feel guilty about this. A third woman, whom you may know, laughed upon learning that the berries had been stashed. I should not have been shocked. For is it not written that woman is sorely challenged in the matter of fruit ethics?

Magnanimously, I let it drop. But I want it known that not a single luscious morsel touched my lips. I was never able to find them. And I am told they were quite sweet.

Monday, 11:00 a.m.: No. 4 of 55 interviews I’ll be doing before the June primary.

Note to loyal readers: I’m writing this retroactively nine days later. I’ve been too busy participating in interviews to stop and write about them. I’m 12 behind, and if I don’t get this one done before my next interview, I’ll be 15 behind by the end of the day. Therefore, I’m going to try to keep them shorter than I did the first three, which were more or less column length. This way, I’ll at least get to share the highlights with you. (Assuming you care. Do you? I mean, this is probably the most valuable stuff I’ve put on this blog yet, in terms of being information you won’t get anywhere else — information relating to decisions S.C. voters will have to make soon. Yet I’m seeing few or no comments. Maybe you’re reading them and not commenting. I hope so.)

Rep. Bill Cotty is, as you can tell from his title, the incumbent in this race. He’s the one Republican who has been most irrascibly defiant to the folks trying to force upon South Carolina the unpopular idea of using state tax money to send bonuses to people who send their kids to private schools. He also had an epiphany a while back and told Grover Norquist and the anti-tax pledge crowd to stuff it.

As a result, out of state extremists don’t think he should serve in the S.C. House. That’s why he’s the first Republican in this election cycle — after a year of threats to this effect — that we’ve seen who actually faces a primary opponent receiving a significant chunk of funding from such interests.

Anyway, if he gets past Sheri Few on June 13, he’ll face a Democrat — either Anton Gunn or Todd Wood — in the fall.

Mr. Cotty began the interview with a little ditty he got from his wife:

They’re coming from the left,
They’re coming from the right.
You’re in the middle,
so fight, fight, fight!

And he is indeed a practical, real-world everyday conservative who is likely to have opposition from both political extremes. That doesn’t mean I always agree with him; it means I respect his positions as being rationally based in experience.

He’s convinced that something needs to be done to lessen the burden on property taxpayers because we "need to wipe away the war between many citizens and the schools."

"A majority of homeowners do not believe the assessment system is fair," he said. For that reason, "it doesn’t matter whether or not it’s true." It’s a perception lawmakers most act upon.

"You can’t fight over everything if you’re going to be at the table and be effective," he said. "And I want to be at the table for public education." He’s not claiming the tax bill the House passed is perfect, but it put representatives at the table with the Senate, which was bound to disagree. "Take that as a divorce settlement offer, and that’s our opening offer."

How pragmatic is he. He said he believes it’s absolutely wrong to take all the taxes off houses. "But I could carry that bucket" if it accomplishes larger goals for South Carolina.

He kept saying, "Don’t do more harm than you do good."

He favors further restructuring of state government, which is good. "He may want me unelected, but I think Gov. Mark Sanford is an absolute  breath of fresh air, in some respects." He says lawmakers have made a big mistake by dismissing the governor’s efforts "to reorganize our state by the budget."

He said the budget should start with public education, but "you don’t just say (as lawmakers tend to do, and some education advocates would have them do), what did we do last year, and shove it on."

"You examine everything." And then, when you’ve funded what is needed for education, no more or less, you "fund everything else with what’s left."

He has a serious bone to pick with the state’s leading Democrat, Supt. of Education Inez Tenenbaum. He says he kept asking her over and over for three years, "Isn’t there something else we could do?" He says he "never got an answer."

"Why don’t you start some charter schools?" he says he asked Inez. "She looked at me like I was crazy."

But he’s no happier with the other state center of power on K-12: "Why wasn’t it the Education Oversight Committee that told us we need 4K? Why was it Judge Cooper?"

Further, "You sat on your butt during the debate on vouchers — out-and-out vouchers!"

Why is an outside movement that wants to dismantle government on all levels focusing on South Carolina in particular?

"They target us because we’re a small state and they think we’re stupid."

But at least they gave him a reason to keep fighting: "If they had not started that last year," I don’t think I would have run again."

Thursday, 10:00 a.m.: No. 3 of 55 interviews I’ll be doing before the June primary.

Joe McEachern is a member of Richland County Council, and the former chairman of that body. He is challenging Rep. John Scott for the Democratic nomination in District 77 of the S.C. House.

We have endorsed Mr. McEachern for council twice in the past, in 2000 and 2004. He has been a great improvement over councilwoman Gwen Kennedy, of Hawaii-junket fame, whom he replaced in 1997.

Although we disagree with him on many issues, we have endorsed Mr. Scott in all but his last election, because he has had such weak opponents.

Mr. McEachern is a straightforward sort of man who goes his own way, as his fellow council members can attest, either to their delight or chagrin.

For instance, when we asked how he would get things done in the House, as a black member of the minority party, he said, "I’m not one of those folks that carry the banner" of either party or race. "When it comes down to issues, I look at each one on the merit."

He has no qualms about explaining his actions to voters afterward: "When the public understands the issue, then all of a sudden, party politics goes out the window." Noting that black voters — who predominate in the district — are becoming more independent of the Democratic Party. "If you clearly articulate your position, people may disagree with you, but they will surely respect you."

He said that the best course for South Carolina is likely to be something that transcends party and race. As a result, at times he will disagree with the Legislative Black Caucus.

One area where he disagrees with many on the caucus, and certainly with the incumbent, is on government restructuring. "We need to be more efficient in state government," he said. He wants to complete the transition, begun under the late Gov. Carroll Campbell, from the anachronistic "Legislative State" to a modern form of government.

He sees no need for voters to elect the "long ballot" of statewide officials — or for that matter, the purely magisterial offices on the county level.

When he says that, "People say, ‘Oh, no… We’ll never get an African-American elected" to statewide office if they become appointive. "Have we ever gotten an African-American elected?" he answers.

"Elect a governor and hold him accountable" for having a diverse Cabinet, he said. "That is the best way."

More importantly, thanks to his experience in local government, he understands the crying need to get the state government — including county legislative delegations — out of local affairs. "We need to make a clean break," he said. "Either you’re going to have Home Rule or you’re not."

On the state’s tax system, "I need to educate myself some more," he said. But he showed he understands it better than many (if not most) current legislators when he said we’re "going to have to look at it from holistic perspective … have to include school spending."

And he recognizes that the proposal put forth by Sen. Larry Grooms is just such a "holistic" approach: "He addressed the issue. He put everything on the table. I’ve got to admire him. I admire what he tried to accomplish."

Of Rep. Scott, Mr. McEachern said, "He thinks it’s his seat," and "takes it very personal that I’m running against him. But it’s not personal." I think I know what he means. Mr. Scott also seemed to have his feelings hurt in 2004, when we endorsed his opponent, Swain Whitfield.

"I think it’s a tragedy when no one challenges for a seat."

He said folks in the district complain that Mr. Scott neglects them. Mr. McEachern said he defends him to a point: "He is a state representative," not a local official, "and I tell people that." But he still thinks they have a point about the incumbent, who concerns himself too much with such purely political things as the S.C. Democratic Leadership Council, which he chairs.

By contrast, he says, Bill Cotty — the Republican who represents a neighboring House district — is "more hands on." Mr. McEachern is indeed no typical banner-carrier.

Tuesday, 11:30 a.m.: No. 2 of 53 interviews I’ll be doing before the June primary.

We had particularly looked forward to interviewing Sheri Few of Kershaw County, who is challenging Bill Cotty for the Republican nomination in District 79 of the S.C. House. She was the first of a breed we’ve been hearing about ever since last year: Challengers armed with money from school-"choice" advocates, going up against the most vocal Republican opponents of Gov. Mark Sanford’s "Put Parents in Charge" proposal.

Indeed, she is clear about her priority: "I am a proponent of school choice… We need to start treating parents as consumers."

But she objects to being portrayed as some sort of tool of out-of-state ideologues. She said she had been thinking of running for the House for 10 years, and that an unsuccessful bid for school board two years ago was intended to position her for this very race.

She notes that she has raised $30,000 for her race, with only $8,000 of it coming from outside South Carolina. "Those donations came from people around the country who think like I do," she said. The other $22,000, she said, came from many small donations from South Carolinians.

She sees no problem from taking money from people with whom she agrees on an issue. After all, as one who upholds the sanctity of marriage, "I’m not going to take any money from homosexual activists." She should be safe there, as I doubt they’ll offer her any.

Why should voters choose her over her opponent? "A Republican should vote for me over Bill Cotty for a couple of reasons," she said. "I am a conservative. Republicans come in all flavors."

She was a bit taken aback when I noted that "conservatives" also come in many flavors, and asked which kind she was. But she recovered: "I am a fiscal and moral conservative."

That meant, she said, that she is "staunchly pro-life" and believes in "slowing the growth of government." She said government should provide basic services, but "I think we’ve become much more than that." When we asked which of the many state government services that have been cut in recent lean years (and are only in some cases being restored, and then partially) was "growing" too fast — mental health, state law enforcement, prisons and the like — she did not embrace statistics, but stuck to general principle: "I think you have to look at agencies, duplication, efficiencies."

I was with her on those principles, but still wondered where any substantial savings would come from. I suspect she would wonder herself if she got the chance to serve on the Ways and Means committee, and actually had to help draft a budget. She struck me as a very sincere and fair person, who approaches all questions in good faith. I think she would try to do the same if she got the chance to serve.

But for now, as a candidate, she clings firmly to ideology, even when it doesn’t seem to fit her own experience. The most dramatic example of that? She complained that while it was possible to get a good education from public schools, it took a lot of active involvement by parents to make sure the children were served well.

"I am a parent of public school children," she said, "and I have been frustrated." She said that before she learned the ins and outs of the system, "I was intimidated by it." She had to learn her way around and insist that her children got what they needed. And they did, thanks to her. "Most parents don’t understand that — I suppose they could be more
aggressive." Too many parents are "leaving it up to the system."

So, I had to wonder, if the problem is that too many parents fail to take an active part in the educations of their children now — and if they would, they could get what they need from the public schools — how is it going to help to provide more choices? Who would look into those choices and take the initiative to act upon them, other than the parents who are already actively engaged, and therefore getting what they need from the public system?

She said with school choice, private entities would set up various schools to address all sorts of special needs, such as learning disabilities. I said I could see how that might happen in Columbia, or Greenville, or Charleston, where there was enough demand. But what would be the motivation of private enterprise to set up such specialized choices in the areas where South Carolina’s greatest educational challenges lie — in the poor, sparsely populated counties?

"That’s an excellent question," she said. "I haven’t really thought about that."

She suggested that maybe people and industry would move away from the cities and into such depressed areas as Marlboro County (which, by the way, is a two-hour drive from any metropolitan area). After all, "they’re moving out of Columbia and into Kershaw County."

Mrs. Few has lived in Lugoff for 22 years, and is the daughter of an Air Force brigadier. I forgive her, even though I grew up in the Navy myself. She is rightly proud that one of her sons is currently at cadet at the U.S. Air Force Academy. She works with an organization that promotes "abstinence education" in the schools. To make sure, I asked whether she meant sexual abstinence, as opposed to drugs, alcohol and the like. She said yes.

Monday. No. 1 of 55 interviews I’ll be doing before the June primary.

When I entered the room and started to sit down opposite the young man who is challenging Kenny Bingham in the Republican primary for the District 89 seat in the S.C. House, Cindi Scoppe said:

"This is Artie White. Go ahead. Ask him your question."

She had this big grin. I looked at her. I looked at Artie.

"You know, the one you always ask."

I looked at Artie again. I didn’t want to start off by asking, "How old are you?," which I tend to ask anyone who looks nearly as young as he does. (I asked it of Daniel Rickenmann, for instance, and my colleagues had a terrible time convincing me in the end that he was, indeed, old enough to endorse for Columbia City Council.)

"’Who’s your Daddy?’" Cindi asked, a bit put out with me. It’s a running joke between long-serving editors in our rather dynastic state. It’s not uncommon for us to interview candidates whose fathers we know — James Smith, Rick Quinn, Joel Lourie, Barney Giese, Vincent Sheheen and so forth.

"Oh, I know who his daddy is," I said. Art White, who goes to my church. Man of many trades — lawyer, surveyor, Navy Reserve officer. I had recognized the name, although I hadn’t known for sure this was Art’s son until Cindi said that.

Thus distracted, I never did ask the younger Mr. White his age, but I know the approximate answer: Quite young. He’s two years out of college, and working with his dad. He kept calling me "sir," and — even more strangely — Cindi "ma’am." So you know he was raised right. But to those of us who have spent years interviewing the likes of Fritz Hollings and Strom Thurmond, such respect can still be jarring.

He has worked in the past for U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson. He says he liked working behind the scenes in politics, but he would rather be the guy out front. So he’s starting with running for the state House.

The nice thing about talking to a candidate so recently out of college is that he still remembers more than most politicians have forgotten (or in most cases, to be perfectly honest, ever knew) about representative democracy and how it’s supposed to work.

He knew to say that while he would represent his district, he knew that a House member is obliged to make laws with the entire state in mind as well. When we started probing his understanding of the role of a representative (we usually have to explain the question, saying something like, "Would you try to vote the way you think all of your constituents would vote if polled, or would you study the issues in order to reach your own conclusions, based in the values…" — he jumped in to explain it to us:

"The two terms are ‘delegate’ and ‘trustee,’" he said confidently. "You should be both… they voted for you based on what you stand for … when there’s a conflict, just be consistent. Do the right thing… and they can punish or reward you for it, either way you look at it."

Young Mr. White sets less store by party than his former boss, Joe Wilson (which is a good thing). When asked whether he would make a point of regularly voting with the GOP caucus, he said, "I don’t really think it’s important."

His opponent, the incumbent? "He’s an alright guy," but "You don’t seem to hear much about what’s going on," meaning he thought Mr. Bingham needed to communicate better with the constituents in his Lexington County district.

His main issue? Eminent domain. He’s very concerned that governmental power to condemn be confined to infrastructure and other works that promote the general benefit of the whole community. We asked him about the concept of "regulatory takings," but he wasn’t familiar with it. That was OK, we told him; it was a recent (and somewhat ridiculous, we could have added) invention.

"Property rights in this country … is the basis of a free country," he pronounced. Without them, we would be "no better than Britain." I wasn’t sure what that meant about Britain, but I never went back and followed up.

He wants to get rid of all property taxes, including those that pay for county and city government. He would replace the revenues with much higher sales taxes. Local governments could set their own. There would be no tax on groceries.

"I think public education is getting the job done better than many people realize," he said. Nevertheless, he could go for vouchers — income-based ones, however, as opposed to the sort of tax credit the governor pushed last year, which would of course go first to those who paid enough in state income taxes.

But he would be wary of letting such breaks undermine public education funding overall.

Artie White’s greatest strengths? Sincerely good intentions and good theoretical knowledge of how government is supposed to work. His greatest weaknesses? Youth and inexperience. Mr. Bingham’s last opponent had had good theoretical knowledge about government — he was a middle school political science teacher. But we thought he was awfully young, and he was older and more experienced than Artie White.