Category Archives: Endorsement interviews

Why I see John Edwards as a big phony: Director’s Cut

216 Replies

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
SEVERAL MONTHS ago, I observed on my blog that I think John
Edwards is a phony — a make-believe Man of The People.
    It’s not so much that he’s lying
when he says he wants to help One America -– the Deserving Poor, whom he wants
to vote for him -– get what it has coming to it from the Other America (that of
the Really Rich, to which he disarmingly admits he belongs).
    He’s a pro at this, and at some point, pros can’t be liars. On
some level, they have to believe in themselves, whether it’s stepping to the
plate to beat the home run record or striding to the podium to drip pure,
sincere concern upon the people. Mr. Edwards has a sufficiently plausible
background story to convince himself that he is, deep-down, that dirt-poor,
mill-town child he invokes in his personal anecdotes. So he is persuaded, even if I am not.
    Why am I not? Well, I
hadn’t ever planned to get into that; I’ve just devoted more attention to other
candidates of both parties. I kept hoping that maybe Mr. Edwards would just
drop out. But he’s still in it, or trying to be. As The State’s Aaron Sheinin wrote in a piece headlined “Edwards
staying positive,” the former senator is “betting he can come from behind again
in 2008, as he did in 2004.”
    Sigh. So I guess I’d
better “put up” and explain why I called him, on Feb. 8 on my blog, “one of the
phoniest faux populists ever to get his name in the papers.” The
impression is mainly the result of three encounters:

Strike One: Sept. 16, 2003.
The candidate was supposed to appear on a makeshift stage on Greene Street in
front of the Russell House. The stage was on the south side, with seating
before it in the street, and bleachers to both left and right. I stood on
higher ground on the north side with, as it would turn out, an unflattering
angle of view.
    He was supposed to arrive at 4 p.m. but it was at least 5 before
he showed; I can no longer cite the exact time. When his appearance was
imminent, his wife appeared on the stage and built expectation in a manner I
found appealing and sincere. As either she or another introducer was speaking,
I saw Mr. Edwards step to an offstage position just behind the bleachers to my
left (toward the east). None of the folks in the “good” seats could see him.
    His face was impassive, slack, bored: Another crowd, another
show. Nothing wrong with that, thought I -– just a professional at work.
    But then, I saw the thing that stuck with me: In the last seconds
as his introduction reached its climax, he straightened, and turned on a
thousand-watt smile as easily and artificially as flipping a switch. He assumed
the look of a man who had just, quite unexpectedly, run into a long-lost best
friend. Then he stepped into view of the crowd at large, and worked his way, Bill Clinton-like, from the back of the
crowd toward the stage -– a man of the
people, coming out from among the
people -– shaking hands with the humble,
grateful enthusiasm of a poor soul who had just won the Irish Sweepstakes.
    It was so well done, but so obviously a thing of art, that I was
taken aback despite three decades of seeing politicians at work, both on-stage
and off. Not enough for you? OK.

Strike Two: Jan. 23, 2004.
Seeking our support in the primary contest he would win 11 days later, he came to an interview with The
State’s editorial board.
    He was all ersatz-cracker bonhomie, beginning the session by swinging
his salt-encrusted left snowboot onto the polished boardroom table, booming,
“How do y’all like my boots?” He had
not, it seemed, had time to change footwear since leaving New Hampshire.
    The interview proceeded according to script, a lot of
aw-shucking, much smiling, consistent shows of genuine concern, and warm
expressions of determination to close the gap between the Two Americas. Then he
left, and I didn’t think much more about it, until a week later.
    On the 30th, Howard Dean came in to see us for the second time.
Once again, I was struck by how personable he was, so unlike the screamer of
Web fame. I happened to ride down on the elevator with him afterward, along
with my administrative assistant and another staffer who was a real Dean fan
(but, worse luck for Gov. Dean, not a member of our board). After he took his
leave, I paused to watch him take his time to greet everyone in our foyer -–
treating each person who wanted to shake his hand as every bit as important as
any editorial board member, if not more so. I remarked upon it.
    “Isn’t he a nice man?” said our copy editor (the fan). I agreed.
Then came the revelation: “Unlike John Edwards,” observed the administrative
assistant. What’s that, I asked? It seems that when she alone had met then-Sen.
Edwards at the reception desk, she had been struck by the way he utterly
ignored the folks in our customer service department and others who had hoped
for a handshake or a word from the Great Man. He had saved all his amiability,
all his professionally entertaining energy and talent, for the folks upstairs
who would have a say in the paper’s endorsement. He had no time for anyone
else.
    At that moment, my impression acquired stony bulwarks of Gothic
dimensions.

Strike Three: Sept. 22,
2004. I decided to drop by a reception held for then-vice-presidential
nominee Edwards at the Capital City Club that afternoon. I had stuffed my press
credentials into my pocket after arrival so as to mix freely with the
high-rollers and hear what they had to say. (They knew who I was, but the
stuffy types who want writers to stand like cattle behind barriers did not.)
Good thing, too, because there was plenty of time to kill, and there’s no more
informative way to kill it than with the sort of folks whom candidates want to
meet at such receptions.
    It was well past the candidate’s alleged time of arrival, but no
one seemed to mind. Then a prominent Democrat who lives in a fashionable
downtown neighborhood confided we’d be waiting even longer. We all knew the
candidate had a more public appearance at Martin Luther King Park before this
one, and no one begrudged him such face time with real voters. But this
particular insider knew something else: He had bided his own time because he
had seen Sen. Edwards go jogging in front of his house, along with his security
detail, after the time that the MLK
event was to have started.
    As reported in The State the next day, “Edwards was running late, and the throng waiting to rally with
him at Martin Luther King Jr. Park took notice. They sat for two hours in the
sweltering heat inside the community center, a block off Five Points.”
    We were cool at the Cap City Club, drinking, schmoozing,
snacking, hardly taking notice. So he’s late? What are these folks going to do –- write checks for the Republicans?
    But my impression had been reinforced with steel girders: John
Edwards, Man of The People, is a phony. And until I see an awful lot of
stunning evidence to the contrary, that impression is not likely to change.

If you’re here because of that box on the op-ed page…

2 Replies

… that promised "other opinions, the chance to register your thoughts, plus video from Tommy Moore’s endorsement interview with The State’s editorial board," then you’re at the right place.

  • First, in case you haven’t read Tommy Moore’s op-ed piece that the box went with, "Why I left the Senate for the payday lending industry," please go do so.
  • Then, check out Warren Bolton’s column on Mr. Moore’s decision, which takes a decidedly different view.
  • Here’s a video clip from our editorial board’s endorsement interview with Mr. Moore, back when he was running for governor last year.
  • Here’s our endorsement of then-Sen. Moore. (Hey, you should have seen the other guy. Some choice.)
  • Here’s a release about, and a link to, an ETV interview with Mr. Moore after his announcement this week.
  • Check out the press release from Mr. Moore’s new employer, CFSA, announcing his new job.
  • Finally, here’s my own initial, rather visceral reaction to that news. Something you might find more interesting is the way some of my readers responded.

If you have thoughts of your own to share, or requests for further information or resources, this is the place.

Archive video: Tommy Moore on Tommy Moore

2 Replies

Recent developments with regard to Thomas Ravenel showed me that people can take an interest in some of my old video of a former candidate when that candidate pops up in the news again.

With that in mind, in case you have any interest, here’s a video clip (from back before I learned how to properly edit the things) of Tommy Moore describing himself back during the general election:

Yeah, you’d BETTER quit…

17 Replies

Mooretommy

In case you wonder why we can’t get anything through the Legislature to ban payday lending, here’s the rest of the story about Tommy Moore:

Moore leaving Senate for payday lending job

Former
S.C. Sen. Tommy Moore, the Democratic candidate for governor in 2006,
is going to work for national payday lending trade association.

Moore, of Aiken, resigned his Senate seat on Saturday. He will
become executive vice president of the Community Financial Services
Association of America and will move to the Washington, D.C., area, the
association said Monday.

“At this point in my career, I saw an exciting opportunity to take
on a new challenge that builds on my long history of supporting and
protecting consumers,” Moore said in a release from the association.
“CFSA shares those goals and I’ve been impressed with the great strides
they have taken to educate consumers about responsible use of the
service.”

Another one I’m thrilled to have endorsed last fall. Of course, the alternative was to endorse the incumbent. As "Mr. Bad Choices" implied in a recent comment, it would be nice to have some better ones for a change.

 

One thing Lindsey Graham does NOT have to worry about

21 Replies

Lindsey Graham may have ticked off a lot of the Republican base lately — some correspondents on this very blog swear they’ll never support him again — but there’s one thing I don’t think he has to worry about: A Democratic run by Robert Barber. Anyway, this blogger thinks otherwise:

Most recently, Robert Barber Jr. was the top vote-getting Democrat in South Carolina’s 2006 elections.
His 540,306 votes (or 49.79%) fell just 3,108 votes shy of defeating
incumbent Republican Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer. Barber even
outpaced the Democratic gubernatorial candidate by about 5%. It’s
possible that Barber might even be South Carolina’s Lieutenant Governor
today if his campaign wasn’t distracted about two weeks before Election
Day by a tragically unexpected kitchen fire in the restaurant run by Barber and his family, and originally opened by his grandparents in 1946.

Robert Barber is a really nice fella, if a little colorless. But hey — he couldn’t beat Andre Bauer, and he’s going to take on Lindsey "Meet the Press" Graham? I don’t think so.

By the way, I don’t know what Mr. Barber’s position on immigration is, if he has one.

John Spratt can cut the fat

18 Replies

Or at least that’s what David Broder said Sunday: That the House Budget Committee chairman from Rock Hill is doing a good job of holding fellow Democrats on a leash on spending.

That reminded me of our interview with him before the last election, when he promised to be a force for injecting some discipline into the budgeting process if his party got the power.

I caught some of those comments on video, and here I present two versions of it. Let me know which one you like. As I learn the best way to use multimedia on the blog, I’m always torn between two approaches. On the one hand, I figure that a main purpose of the blog is to give you as much additional information as I can, which is what this four-minute, 20-second video does:

Then I think, but that’s just going to bore people to the point that they’ll stay away from the blog, or just  not watch my videos, which would be a shame given the time that they take.

So sometimes I cut them way down, as in this two-minute, 13-second version:

And of course, I could have cut it all the way down to a mere sound bite, but that would take it to an extreme that I find distasteful.

Anyway, if you can stand to watch them both, give me some feedback to help me with this dilemma.

‘Just dreadful’

13 Replies

Since I started shooting video clips of candidates early this year, the one who protested the most vociferously to being on camera was Karen Floyd, who is arguably the most telegenic candidate running for major office this year. I thought that sort of ironic. She finds being photographed at all — video or still — "just dreadful."

She has a point. The camera is intrusive, although I try to minimize that by using a very small camera sitting next to my notepad on the table. Some candidates don’t even notice it; others have trouble putting it out of their minds.

This makes me worry about polluting the process by making candidates too uncomfortable. But in some cases, I think the video clips can help readers understand a little better why we form some of the impressions we do in these interviews.

I remain torn about this, and my colleagues on the board remain leery of it. They sometimes find it distracting, too. At times in the past, I’ve talked about video-recording entire interviews — say, with gubernatorial and presidential candidates. But I’ve been talked out of it because those chats can be tense and difficult enough without people playing to a camera — we want the candidates’ undivided attention, and we want to give them ours.

It also makes going off the record — a far more useful tool to editorial writers than to reporters, since we don’t want quotes as much as we want to know what is really on people’s minds — rather awkward. When they are on camera, candidates are unlikely even to suggest going off the record, and we might never even know there was something else we could have learned.

Anyway, this is an experiment — sort of dipping our toe in the video waters — and we’re still evaluating its pros and cons. I’d be interested in your thoughts on that.

Grady Patterson, Treasurer

7 Replies

Patterson1

Thursday, Oct. 5, 9:15 a.m. — "I’ve always had a centerpiece of what I do is fairness, and factual. We don’t believe in tellin’ tales, and we believe in being fair to everybody that comes before the board, or any other encounter; and I think that’s the key to what I do, is fairness, is the main thing. And a lot of people don’t feel that way about government, or about anything else…"

Speaking of fair, that’s a pretty fair slice of what our initial endorsement interview with Grady Patterson was like. I say initial, because a few days later he called to request "another bite at the apple." The second interview was much like the first, only much shorter. One other difference — the second time he did come without ever-present aide Trav Robertson, shown looking anxiously over his boss’ shoulder in the photo at the end of this post.

There is a great contrast between Mr. Patterson and opponent Thomas Ravenel that is visible, audible and palpable in the very atmosphere of the room. I’ve put up a couple of short video clips that I believe convey this to a great extent.

The Republican challenger is young, cocky, brash, and fashionably ideological, exhibiting a rich man’s contempt for the usefulness of government. The observer finds it hard to trust his motives for running. The incumbent is elderly, uncertain, unassuming, and harks back to a time when gentlemen conducted their affairs on a basis of personal relationships and mutual trust.

And yet we endorsed the former over the latter, because the first one seems more capable of keeping up with the demands of the job.

Mr. Patterson was generally incapable of expressing why he should be re-elected. He said he had come to tell us about "some new projects" his office was undertaking, but he could only cite the fact that he and his employees check the markets "every day." (See the video.) I asked if that was what was new, and he said that previously they had checked almost every day, but now they checked every day. That was it.

"He doesn’t speak the truth," Mr. Patterson said of his opponent. "He makes up stuff." We asked for specifics, and he said, "Well, … a bunch of it, but I don’t have a list of it or anything." A moment later he made a vague reference to the spat between Mr. Ravenel and John Rainey, chairman of the Board of Economic Advisors. "That’s pretty good proof of what I’m saying, right there," he said.

At one point, he did a pretty fair job of making the perfectly valid point that Mr. Ravenel is an impractical ideologue rather than a pragmatist, but it took me a moment to realize that was what he was saying: "You know, when you operate a government, you’ve got to be factual. You can’t have these theories about it, you’ve gotta be factual. And uh, so, that’s the way I feel about it."

Inevitably, I had to ask him about his age. "I’m in awe of your generation," the ones who beat Hitler and Tojo, I told him. That’s true; I always have been. The time in which such men — Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and the first George Bush — ran the country was a far better time than what we live in today.

But that time is past. I put it delicately. I eased into it. In fact, this was the point, if you hear the audio recording of the interview, when my own questions became halting, and his answers became firmer. I can play hardball with most people in politics — just ask some of them — but I was brought up to show deference to the elderly. Fortunately, I’ve reached an age at which most people running for office are younger than I am. So an 82-year-old aspirant throws me off my stride a bit.

Still, I slogged on. I asked him about his combat service, noting that my own father was too young for WWII (he went to Vietnam instead). And I’m now a grandfather. So we agreed that 1945 had been awhile back. I asked why he didn’t want to just take the rest he’s earned, and leave the rat race to the younger folks. That started the following exchange:

Mr. Patterson: "I enjoy it, and I think I make a contribution, and I enjoy coming to work every morning and uh, it’s a challenge to us. (Long pause.) And just because the calendar runs, you know, I’m not willin’ to say, ‘Well, I’m gonna quit.’"
Me: "Do you every feel like there’s gonna be a time when uhhhh…"
Mr. Patterson: "Well, there’ll be a time, some day.
Me: "Well, do you think Strom went on too long?"
Mr. Patterson: "I don’t think so."

Let’s just leave it there. No, I’ll end with this: "I’ve served nine different terms," he said. "And I’m proud of my service."

So he should be. But he should have retired before now. He’s earned it.

Patterson2

Others’ endorsements

4 Replies

Here are the endorsements thus far from the second- and third- largest papers in South Carolina (as for the largest, you know where to find those).

Please excuse the messed-up bullets. I was unable to either fix them or get rid of them:

The Post and Courier

  • Keep
    Eckstrom as comptroller

    • Ravenel
    for state treasurer

  • DeFelice
    should head Agriculture
  • Re-elect
    Hammond sec. of state
  • Re-elect
    1st District’s Brown
  • Send
    Clyburn back to Congress
  • Make
    Lindman adjutant general
    • The Greenville News

    Catching up, or trying to

    11 Replies

    As you can see from the post under this one — from an interview Sept. 28 — I’m trying to catch up with all the interviews we’ve done over the last month or so. I’m about eight or ten candidates behind. My goal is to catch up before the week is over. We’ll see if that’s possible.

    One of the great ironies of blogging is that if you spend a lot of time having experiences and gathering information worth sharing, you don’t have time to blog. The days that I go from one interesting meeting to another, and have dozens of blogging ideas, are the very ones when I can’t even pause to sit at the computer, even to glance at the blog, during that 24 hours. And I seldom get back to the missed material, because other stuff that has come up is more timely. It’s frustrating. I envy those people who blog for a living.

    The last few weeks have been intense, and writing just one of these notebook-dump types of posts is pretty time-consuming. If they get briefer and briefer as I go, forgive me. But I’d rather give you something rather than nothing on each of the candidates we’ve talked to.

    Thomas Ravenel, state treasurer

    24 Replies

    Ravenel1

    Thursday, Sept. 28, 1 p.m. — Our latest interview with the breezy Thomas Ravenel provided another portrait of the classic confidence — some would say arrogance — of the self-made young man.

    It shapes his political philosophy — he made it on his own, so all we really need for everyone to be prosperous is to remove obstacles (such as taxes), and everybody else can do the same. "Everybody talks about ‘education, education,’" he says, in a way the indicates that he believes its value is overrated. Look at Cuba, he says — it’s loaded with highly educated people, and the economy is pathetic because of the lack of opportunity. Same with Russia.

    It influences his approach to politics as well. I don’t know if he cares as little about people’s opinion of him as he projects, but he sure does try to project it. About using the office as a stepping stone, he says, "What’s wrong with that?" But then, he says "I have no intention of challenging" Sen. Lindsey Graham in two years — with a tone that implies, "if that’s what’s bothering you." He notes that there’s a picture of him and the senator together on his Website (I couldn’t find it. If you do, point it out to me and I’ll link to it). So what does he think of the job Mr. Graham is doing in Washington? "I’d say fair to middling."

    Asked about being advised by the controversial Rod Shealy, he says, "I have a lot of consultants." And then he brings up the fact that he’s got Will Folks, admitted girlfriend-pusher, helping him out, too. "I believe in giving Folks a second chance," he says, punching the pun to make sure it’s not missed. He says he thinks people understand "that in politics, you have to deal with some unsavory characters."

    I’m sure he meant no offense there, Will. I don’t think he cares enough one way or the other whether you are offended, though.

    The bottom line is that even though we have philosophical differences, it is most likely that Mr. Ravenel will be able to do a better job as treasurer than the incumbent, who should have retired before now. And yes, it may seem awfully superficial to refer you to three-minute video clips to back up such an assertion, but this is one of those rare cases in which the impression you get from these short glimpses pretty much matches what you see when you dig a lot deeper.

    Would we rather support someone else? Absolutely. Greg Ryberg would have done a far better job, and we would have known that he was there to provide the best possible service as treasurer, rather than to position himself for higher office. But these are the choices we have, and so we just have to take his word that this isn’t simply about attacking the finest member of our congressional delegation from the libertarian fringe — which is the way this looked right up until the time he said he had no immediate plans to oppose Mr. Graham.

    This is the alternative to Mr. Patterson, the only one we have now. So that’s why we endorsed him.

    Ravenel2

    Jake beats up Mickey, etc.

    33 Replies

    Sorry to have fallen so far behind with my notes from endorsement interviews. I hope to get caught up in the next week.

    In the meantime, I’m still honing my video editing skills. I’ve now learned how to cut clips so I don’t have to give you the whole file, just the best bits. My cutting is rough, but I continue to learn.

    Here are two short clips from interviews with the candidates for the 2nd Congressional District — incumbent Republican Joe Wilson, and Democrat Michael Ray Ellisor. These meetings were more fun than usual because these guys are actually good, longtime friends, so we were able to skip the acrimony on both sides.

    In the first clip — and it you only watch one, watch this one — shows Mickey Ellisor telling about how he became friends with Jake Knotts. It happened when they were both in the 4th grade in Cayce, and it all started with Mickey making some wisecrack to Jake, and Jake whuppin’ the tar out of him for it. The story had already begun when I cut on the camera, but he repeats enough of the main points that you get the gist. It’s a fun piece.

    The second clip is less fun, but I thought it was interesting. Joe Wilson is explaining that you can’t do away with earmarks, and that the money’s going to go somewhere, so a conscientious congressman needs to get what he can for his district.

    Stan greets Johnny as he marches home

    20 Replies
    Journalists being a cynical lot, a colleague passed this on to me with this comment: "hmmm … there must be an election coming up …
    and Spears’ opponent must be complaining about how he snubs the troops …"
    {BC-SC—Guard Return,0248}
    {Sanford, Spears, and
    sheriff’s deputies to welcome SC Guard unit} home
       LEXINGTON, S.C. (AP) —
    Gov. Mark Sanford, Adjutant General Stan Spears and sheriff’s deputies from
    Lexington and Saluda counties plan to gather Friday to celebrate the return of
    120 members of a South Carolina National Guard unit from Iraq.
       The combat
    support engineers of the 122nd Engineer Company based in Saluda are scheduled to
    return after spending several days demobilizing at Fort Stewart, Ga., said Col.
    Pete Brooks, spokesman for the South Carolina National Guard.
       Sanford is
    greeting the unit because he met with Guard members during a visit to Iraq in
    June, his spokesman Joel Sawyer said.
       The last time Sanford came out to
    greet a unit was in May 2003, when he took part in the South Carolina Air
    National Guard’s 169th Fighter Wing return to McEntire Joint National Guard
    Base, Sawyer said.
       The Saluda-based soldiers worked to clear improvised
    explosive devices — one of the most dangerous jobs in the Iraqi
    deployments.
       Lexington County Sheriff James Metts said his deputies and
    deputies from Saluda County will provide an escort at 10 a.m. Friday for the
    buses of returning soldiers.
       "We all owe a debt of gratitude to the brave
    men and women who are serving our nation and defending America’s interests in
    the Middle East," Metts said in a statement.
       Metts said he hoped people
    will line up along U.S. 1 through downtown Lexington and U.S. 378 to the Saluda
    County line to show their support for the soldiers.

    Is what Eckstrom did legal?

    23 Replies

    I see that even after the last time I weighed in on this string, Chris W was still exercised about Cindi Scoppe saying in a column that Rich Eckstrom’s foolishness with the state van was actually illegal.

    A sample of Chris W’s commentary:

    You say something is illegal. The officials say it is not. You stand
    behind your statements as if there were no burden of proof. You offer
    no proof, just a claim.

    Well, I made the mistake of asking Cindi if she’d mind sending me a note walking me through the basis of her opinion that Mr. Eckstrom appeared to have committed a misdemeanor, so I could post it for Chris W and anybody else who was curious. She said OK. I expected a paragraph. Cindi being Cindi, this is what I got:

    Here’s the statute Mr. Eckstrom points to to argue that his use of the state van was legal:

    SECTION 1-11-270. Division of Motor Vehicle Management; establishment of criteria for individual assignment of motor vehicles.

    (A) The board shall establish criteria for individual assignment of motor vehicles based on the functional requirements of the job, which shall reduce the assignment to situations clearly beneficial to the State. Only the Governor, statewide elected officials, and agency heads are provided a state-owned vehicle based on their position.

    (B) Law enforcement officers, as defined by the agency head, may be permanently assigned state-owned vehicles by their respective agency head. Agency heads may assign a state-owned vehicle to an employee when the vehicle carries or is equipped with special equipment needed to perform duties directly related to the employee’s job, and the employee is either in an emergency response capacity after normal working hours or for logistical reasons it is determined to be in the agency’s interest for the vehicle to remain with the employee. No other employee may be permanently assigned to a state-owned vehicle, unless the assignment is cost advantageous to the State under guidelines developed by the State Fleet Manager. Statewide elected officials, law enforcement officers, and those employees who have been assigned vehicles because they are in an emergency response capacity after normal working hours are exempt from reimbursing the State for commuting miles. Other employees operating a permanently assigned vehicle must reimburse the State for commuting between home and work.

    (C) All persons, except the Governor and statewide elected officials, permanently assigned with automobiles shall log all trips on a log form approved by the board, specifying beginning and ending mileage and job function performed. However, trip logs must not be maintained for vehicles whose gross vehicle weight is greater than ten thousand pounds nor for vehicles assigned to full-time line law enforcement officers. Agency directors and commissioners permanently assigned state vehicles may utilize exceptions on a report denoting only official and commuting mileage in lieu of the aforementioned trip logs.

         Note that this law does NOT say vehicle use is unlimited. It merely says that 1) constitutional officers can have a vehicle permanently assigned to them without first meeting the test of demonstrating that the state saves money by assigning them a vehicle and 2) constitutional officers are allowed to COMMUTE to and from work without reimbursing the state for that expense.
        Additionally, as one prosecutor put it, the language allowing constitutional officers to use the vehicle for commuting IMPLIES that any other personal use is outlawed.
        Beyond that, though, two other laws, below, make it even clearer that personal use of state vehicles that is not specifically authorized is prohibited.

        Here’s the provision contained in this year’s budget (and in every year’s budget going back at least to 1993) that says state employees don’t get extra perks except for those specifically spelled out in the proviso; note that the proviso does NOT include unlimited use of a state vehicle as an excepted perk. (A budget proviso has the force of law.)  A 1993 attorney general’s ruling on the question of constitutional officers’ use of state vehicles cited this provision as an additional basis for saying that the use of the vehicles was restricted:

    72.19. (GP: Allowance for Residences & Compensation Restrictions) That salaries paid to officers and employees of the State, including its several boards, commissions, and institutions shall be in full for all services rendered, and no perquisites of office or of employment shall be allowed in addition thereto, but such perquisites, commodities, services or other benefits shall be charged for at the prevailing local value and without the purpose or effect of increasing the compensation of said officer or employee. The charge for these items may be payroll deducted at the discretion of the Comptroller General or the chief financial officer at each agency maintaining its own payroll system. This shall not apply to the Governor’s Mansion, nor for department-owned housing used for recruitment and training of Mental Health Professionals, nor to guards at any of the state’s penal institutions and nurses and attendants at the Department of Mental Health, and the Department of Disabilities & Special Needs, and registered nurses providing clinical care at the MUSC Medical Center, nor to the Superintendent and staff of John de la Howe School, nor to the cottage parents and staff of Wil Lou Gray Opportunity School, nor to full-time or part-time staff who work after regular working hours in the SLED Communications Center or Maintenance Area, nor to adult staff at the Governor’s School for Science and Mathematics who are required to stay on campus by the institution because of job requirements or program participation. The presidents of those state institutions of higher learning authorized to provide on-campus residential facilities for students may be permitted to occupy residences on the grounds of such institutions without charge

    Here’s the provision in the Ethics Act that applies here, followed by the definition in that same act of the operative term, "economic interest":

    SECTION 8-13-700. Use of official position or office for financial gain; disclosure of potential conflict of interest.

    (A) No public official, public member, or public employee may knowingly use his official office, membership, or employment to obtain an economic interest for himself, a member of his immediate family, an individual with whom he is associated, or a business with which he is associated. This prohibition does not extend to the incidental use of public materials, personnel, or equipment, subject to or available for a public official’s, public member’s, or public employee’s use which does not result in additional public expense.

    SECTION 8-13-100. Definitions.
    (11)(a) "Economic interest" means an interest distinct from that of the general public in a purchase, sale, lease, contract, option, or other transaction or arrangement involving property or services in which a public official, public member, or public employee may gain an economic benefit of fifty dollars or more.

    Additionally, the state constitution has this provision on the private use of public funds, which the courts have held to be a prohibition on the private use of public funds or resources:

    ARTICLE VI., SECTION 8. Suspension and prosecution of officers accused of crime.

    Whenever it appears to the satisfaction of the Governor that probable cause exists to charge any officer of the State or its political subdivisions who has the custody of public or trust funds with embezzlement or the appropriation of public or trust funds to private use, then the Governor shall direct his immediate prosecution by the proper officer, and upon indictment by a grand jury or, upon the waiver of such indictment if permitted by law, the Governor shall suspend such officer and appoint one in his stead, until he shall have been acquitted. In case of conviction, the position shall be declared vacant and the vacancy filled as may be provided by law.

    Finally, I don’t have the cite for this, but I know that … either state law or the constitution or both says that all public employees have a fiduciary duty to avoid even the appearance of improper conduct, and to use public resources for private or personal purposes would certainly apply. As one prosecutor put it, "That’d be like using the wildlife boats to go out and take your family on a fishing expedition."

    Cindi Ross Scoppe
    Associate Editor
    The State newspaper
    (803) 771 8571

     
     

    Anyway, that either satisfies you or not. She has her opinion; you have yours. Hers is based upon the above.

    Hey, I LIKE Mark Sanford…

    83 Replies

    A couple of replies to the comment by Chris on the last post. Chris, when you say this…

    The problem with editorial endorsements is that it alerts readers to
    thought processes and reasoning of those making them…

    …you point to the precise reason that my colleagues and I on the board write columns — to elaborate on the reasons we endorse, to give readers additional insight into our thinking so that they have more information upon which to base a judgment of our decision, whatever they choose to make of it. The point of my doing the blog is to go even a little deeper into all that, to give you the chance (if you’re at all interested) to know even more about how the editorial page editor ticks, so that you might have even more insight into the editorials. It’s so you don’t have to guess.

    The whole point of an endorsement editorial, as I’ve said a thousand times, is not the WHO, but the WHY — the "thought processes and reasoning" behind the decision. It’s really hard to get that message across, because it’s counterintuitive for a lot of folks. It’s not personal, as a Corleone would say. The fact is that — in this case — one of these two men is going to be governor. The purpose of an endorsement is to say, knowing what we know (and in part, what we know is based on dealing with these men repeatedly over the course of years), which way we would go if we just have to vote for one of them.

    Our reasons, and the reasons behind our reasons, are all we have to offer you. That’s what it’s about. It’s not about whose side we’re on, or who we "like." If we went on the basis of who we like, I’d probably have gone with Sanford. I know him, and I personally like him. I really have to force myself to look at what he’s doing (and not doing) as governor and shove aside the fact that I like the guy.

    I can’t say the same for Tommy Moore, which is not to run him down. I just don’t know him as well. I’ve known him at a distance for almost two decades — much longer than Sanford. But I knew him as an editor dealing with the information that reporters (usually Cindi Scoppe, back in her reporting days) brought to me about him. Mark Sanford I’ve dealt with directly, ever since he was in Congress, because his political career began about the same time I joined the editorial board.

    I’ve also dealt with him more because he’s a wonk like us. He’s more into talking about issues than he is about doing anything. I’ve had the impression that he’d rather pick up the phone to chat with me for 45 minutes about some political theory than sit down and wheedle lawmakers to turn ideas into laws. (At least, he was inclined to do that until a few months ago. I don’t think I’ve heard from him at all since my column about his veto of the budget.)

    Sen. Moore has never spent much time talking to editorial types — at least, not to me. He was over in the State House, getting stuff done. Since he wasn’t trying to accomplish abstract goals, he had nothing to chat about with perpetual talkers. So I don’t know him that well. I don’t think he’s figured us out, either. To him, I’m that guy who wrote that he didn’t have the "fire in the belly," and he knows he didn’t like that.

    So why did we not endorse Mark Sanford? Read the endorsement. Then read my column. Then read other columns. Then read everything you can get your hands on, and talk to everyone you know who might know more about these guys and the issues than you do. Then go out and vote any way you think is best.

    If you do that, having made our endorsement even a small part of your own process — even if it’s only to tick you off and make you want to do the opposite, and to work harder to find reasons why we’re wrong — then I will have done my job.

    Oops. There I go. Revealing thought processes and reasoning again. Sorry. (Not.)

    (One other thing, though, Chris — your comment sort of loses me when you jump from editorial to news coverage, as though there were a connection. If you’re suggesting that what we do has anything to do with what the news department does, you are confused. Reporters, and their editors, would likely laugh their heads off at the idea that they agree with our conclusions. That is, they would if so many people, including sometimes candidates, didn’t make the same assumption you do, which is a major professional pain for them. I think most news people would just as soon the editorial page go away, as it causes them little but grief. Good thing there’s a high wall between our separate divisions to protect us — there are a lot more of them than there are of us.)

    Sanford’s not ‘our boy’

    75 Replies

    Notourboy1

    Sanford’s not ‘our boy.’ He’s theirs

    By Brad Warthen
    Editorial Page Editor
    AFTER TODAY, maybe people will stop asking what we think of “our boy” now. That gets tiresome. There are various reasons why Mark Sanford isn’t “our boy,” and never was.
        As I regularly say in speeches about why we endorse, what endorsements are and what they aren’t, an endorsement does not mean that we are henceforth on that person’s “side.” It reflects the real-life choice before the voters at the time. When we endorsed Mr. Sanford in 2002, he was so obviously preferable to the alternatives — both in the crowded primary, and in the fall — that we supported him enthusiastically, and without reservation.
        So what if he didn’t have the kind of inspiring vision for South Carolina’s future that, say, a Joe Riley would have? There was no Joe Riley running. And Mark Sanford had adopted our government restructuring agenda as his own, almost word for word. If he got that done, then when we did get a governor with vision, he or she would have the tools to really make good things happen.
        Trouble is, he did have a vision: He didn’t want government to be more effective as much as he wanted it to be cheaper. It was about tax cuts and privatizing everything he could, including public education. He had proposed moderate versions of these concepts as a candidate: phasing out the income tax while raising the gasoline tax; providing vouchers for a very few of the most disadvantaged kids. We opposed those things, and said so, but they were no big deal.
        After he got into office, his tax position morphed over time into just cut a tax, any tax (and preferably income). Eventually, his anti-government rhetoric became far from moderate.
        He had run as a conservative, but he wasn’t that. He was as close to an ideologically pure libertarian as you can get. You can’t be a conservative and a radical at the same time. And folks, it doesn’t get more radical than his veto of the entire state budget.
        Meanwhile, all the rich anti-tax extremists in the country started sending their money this way in a clear effort to undermine the very concept of public schools. And the governor — whose presence was the reason they saw our state as fertile ground — supported their proposals to give the affluent tax breaks as an incentive to abandon public education. And that was not an incidental part of the proposal. As the House sponsor said during this year’s session, the plan had no political traction without those tax cuts.
        Why attack the public schools? Because that’s where state government spends the most tax money, and that makes public education a deeply offensive institution to the extremists. Why did the governor not even condemn their most extreme attacks on our public schools as a “failed monopoly”? Because he agreed with them. In fact, he was right out in front, characterizing increased spending on public schools as having been a waste, even as the accountability reforms begun by a previous Republican governor were starting to pay dividends.
        This alone would be enough cause not to back him: It is dangerous for him to remain as governor — not for what he does, but for what comes with him. As long as he is governor, the flood of anti-school money will keep coming to South Carolina. That may not sound so bad, until you consider what the money is used for — to trash the schools that our children depend upon, and to kick out of office some of the very finest of our representatives.
        I haven’t seen this much of a threat to the integrity of our Legislature since video poker was trying to buy it. Nor have I seen such contempt for the will of the people of South Carolina. Their proposals aren’t that popular, so the outsiders tiptoe around details in those slick, cookie-cutter brochures they use to try to stack the Legislature with their puppets.
        Those are Republicans they’re going after, by the way. If you’re supporting the governor under the impression that that’s what loyal Republicans do, you should talk to some GOP leaders who have to deal with him every day. They’ll set you straight. Those out-of-state, anti-government radicals are his true party.
        He’s not our boy, or yours either. He’s theirs.

    Notourboy2

    ‘Grady Patterson: The Prequel’

    20 Replies


    S    ince Treasurer Grady Patterson
    declined to face his challenger in tonight’s "debate," here’s the next
    best thing to his being there. I really had intended this to be sort of
    a "Director’s Cut," dumping in all the video I shot during the
    interview. But that was too much for YouTube to handle.

    So I just gave you another short clip. The one you saw before was
    from near the end of the interview. This is from the beginning.

    To set the scene: In this clip, I happened to turn on the camera
    right in the middle of Mr. Patterson saying he wanted to tell us about
    all the "new" things they were doing in the treasurer’s office. You can
    follow it from there.

    Note that my little camera only shoots three minutes at a time, so
    if a clip stops in the middle of something interesting, I can’t help
    it. I can turn it back on a few seconds later, but crucial material can
    still be lost.

    Note also how my technological prowess grows. I’m now putting music on
    my intros. Impressive, huh? Even if it is just stuff that’s in the
    public domain.

    ‘Gut t sin y- gr’ to you, too

    16 Replies

    Note

    A    s long as I’m giving credit to Ms. Jones for her nice note, I should acknowledge that the governor sent us a nice, handwritten note — the proper kind — after his interview last week.

    At least, I think it was nice. I also think that Mr. Sanford may have learned one thing from his primary opponent Oscar Lovelace — how to write like a doctor.

    What do you think it says? My best guess is, "Great to see your group." That’s a stretch, but that’s my guess. Maybe you can do better.

    A classy note

    15 Replies

    After our endorsement of her opponent ran earlier this week, Denise Jones sent this note out toJonesmug2 supporters (and was kind enough to share it with us):

    Dear Supporters,
     
        As I have gotten up early once again this morning to work on my campaign, I
    am greeted by the sight that The State Newspaper has endorsed John Scott.
        I do appreciate the newspaper interviewing me.  However, with only an hour
    interview, they really did not get to see the real Denise Jones.  You
    know me best!!  You know that my very best qualities are that I am a big
    picture person, see things to the end and passionately care about making a
    difference in this district and state.
        Today, as a breast cancer survivor, I will take the walk and hold my head
    up high.  I am still very fortunate that I found my cancer early and want to
    help others do the same.  In July, I completed my 5 years and hopefully, will
    not have a reoccurance.  But, who is guaranteed tomorrow?  This episode in my
    life really made me understand what   is important. 
        So, not receiving this endorsement is only a bump in the road and drives me
    harder.  So, please hold your head up and lets take this to the finish line.. I
    still plan on winning!!!! 
        I can not say this enough.. Thank you so much for everything that you have
    done.
     
    Sincerely,
    Denise Jones
     
    P.S.  Your support will never be forgotten!!

    Denise
    Jones
    Republican Candidate For State House District 77
    803-414-4951 (Campaign HQ)

    Hometown Values.
    Conservative Ideals.

    Anybody who can get up that early, read an endorsement of her opponent and then write a classy note such as this, without a trace of malice, is a real lady. Those of you who still struggle to meet this blog’s standards (and you know who you are), could learn a few things from her.

    May God continue to send his healing grace upon her.

    Mark Sanford vs. Tommy Moore

    48 Replies

    Why must we choose
    between vision and effectiveness?
    By BRAD WARTHEN
    EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
    THIS IS THE election year for complementary pairs. For treasurer we have the Brash Rich Kid vs. Everybody’s Granddaddy. For lieutenant governor, Mr. Mature is challenging Wild Thing.
        But the most marked dichotomy is at the top of the ticket.  On one side, we have incumbent Gov. Mark Sanford, a policy wonk who has all sorts of ideas, but who can’t get anything done. The fact that he can’t get anything done is both a bad thing and a good thing, because some of his ideas (restructuring state government) are excellent, while others (paying people to abandon public schools) are very, very bad.
        Opposing him is veteran state Sen. Tommy Moore, a “git ’er done” kind of guy. He prides himself on bringing together lawmakers from across the spectrum who may be miles apart on a given issue, and getting them to sit down and work something out. He can flat get a bill passed, sometimes in the face of considerable odds.
        While he can do what the governor can’t, Sen. Moore is lacking in the very department where the governor is blessed with an overabundance. When I suggested as much to him last week, noting that he seemed to lack as strict and specific an agenda as the governor’s, he said rather grumpily that “I’m glad you didn’t say I didn’t have ideas.”
        Well, I didn’t. But by the time the interview was over, he had provided little in the way of specific proposals. If I put all the ideas he set forth in that meeting in my pants pocket, I could turn it inside-out without making much of a mess on the floor.
        This is not good. I’ve lived all over the country, and I’ve never seen a state that needed principled, effective leadership as much as my dear native South Carolina.
        Some would say I’m asking too much. But people who would fit that bill do exist in our state. Charleston Mayor Joe Riley for one. U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham for another. They have vision, they see how things are connected, they see what needs to be done, and they have the skills to work with political friend and foe alike to bring about results that represent significant progress.
        But they aren’t running for governor. Instead, we get an ideologue who is so into libertarian think-tank theories that he has no idea how to persuade real people — even in his own party — to work with him. That’s been our governor for four years. And our alternative is a very grounded, realistic veteran deal-maker who can work with whatever you bring to the table, but who doesn’t throw much on it himself.
        This is not to say Tommy Moore lacks principles. In fact, I’d say his principles — grounded as they are in real-life experiences — are probably closer to those of the average South Carolinian than the hothouse hypotheses of the incumbent. He’s certainly a lot closer to me when it comes to understanding the role that government must play in improving life for all South Carolinians.
        “I agree with those folks who are saying, ‘More money isn’t the answer’: More money isn’t necessarily the answer,” Sen. Moore said. “But I can guarantee you that less money over the last three and a half years hasn’t gotten us anywhere.”
        He said he would want his legacy to be that he made government more efficient in performing its legitimate functions.
        “The government can be a partner to people,” he said. “Government isn’t evil. You don’t need to starve government to where it’s small enough to drown in a bathtub.” That’s a reference to the governor’s ideological ally Grover Norquist, who has said that’s his ultimate goal as leader of a national anti-tax group.
        “The easiest thing is to come to Columbia and be against something,” said the senator. “The hard thing is to be for something.”
        Trouble is, it’s hard to find much that Sen. Moore is for, specifically, when it comes to education. He’s definitely against being against the public schools. But that doesn’t quite add up to being for a substantive agenda for moving the schools forward.
        He wants to improve prenatal health care and early childhood education. He wants comprehensive tax reform. He would pursue economic development for rural areas. But when you dig for specifics, they are scarce. He keeps saying he wants to hear other people’s ideas. He’s confident he can then sell the good ones to the Legislature.
        The general impression is that he would be a reactive governor who would deal with things as they were brought to him, but would not initiate particular proposals.
        By contrast, the current governor is all about throwing out his ideas to see what will happen — which, generally, is nothing, except for a lot of hard feelings.
        He claims that his pushing of extreme ideas such as the “Put Parents in Charge” bill has led to accelerating public school choice and the development of charter schools. So should we interpret his advocacy of paying people to abandon public schools as a mere strategy to achieve some more moderate goal?
        No, he admits, “because I actually take those extreme positions.” He laughed, and said “I would love to get there if I could.”
        Ultimately, he said South Carolina needs someone who believes in fundamental change, not someone who knows how to work the system.
        “We come from different vantage points,” the governor said of himself and Sen. Moore. “I come from outside the system; he comes from within.”
        “He’s basically said the system ain’t broke…. We say the system is broke.” So if he gets four more years, will we be able to look back and say the system is fixed to any degree? “Nah,” he said. “The political system is such that we all know that you never get the whole bite of any apple.” Nevertheless, he hopes he’d have “a material impact” on government restructuring.
        The governor misses the point. It’s not an either/or. South Carolina needs a governor who is not only committed to positive change, but who also has the ability to work with others to make that change come about.
        Once again, when we go to the polls Nov. 7, we won’t be offered a candidate who fits that description. We need and deserve better.