Category Archives: Leadership

Chamber chief has really crossed the line now

The WSJ had an interesting piece about how Thomas Donohue, the president and chief executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has been trying to climb to the top of the Obama “enemies list” (move over, FoxNews) lately with his adamant opposition to the administration’s positions on global warming, health care and bank oversight.

Some of his comments have been immoderate enough to alienate some prominent Chamber members, such as Apple, Nike and Duke Energy. And when you’re not progressive enough on climate change for Duke (Donohue’s Chamber has said of global warming that warmer temperatures could help by reducing deaths related to cold weather), you may have a problem.

But what really struck me was this:

Through a spokesman, Mr. Donohue declined to be interviewed for this article.

Whoa. I can see the POTUS wanting to cold-shoulder Fox, but the head of the Chamber of Commerce not wanting to talk to The Wall Street Journal? It may be time for the Chamber board to consider whether this is the right guy to be heading up their effort. When a business leader won’t talk to the Journal, something is amiss.

Oh, and about the “enemies list” thing — I was just using that as a way of bringing up my old friend Lamar Alexander, whom I covered in the 70s when he was a pup. I broke bread with him numerous times while traveling with his gubernatorial campaign. I even went out with him and some campaign staffers to a disco in a black neighborhood in Nashville, and witnessed the improbable spectacle of this Pat Boone near-clone taking the dance floor, which is one of the odder things I’ve seen in my career of covering politics. (Back in those days, we COVERED campaigns.)

Where did that come from? Oh… Kathryn gave me a hard time for name-dropping back on this thread, and I didn’t want to disappoint her.

Wimping out in Honduras?

21 Replies

Remember when I expressed my regret that my only sources of information on what’s happening in Honduras (or anywhere else in Latin America, for that matter) were columnists with axes to grind?

Well, there was a fairly complete update on the situation on the WSJ’s news pages today, which I appreciated. For instance, I learned for the first time that the military had forced ex-President (or is he really “ex-“?; that’s sort of what the argument’s about) Manuel Zelaya was forced to leave the country “in his pajamas.” Not that that’s important; I just enjoyed learning it.

More to the point, I thought I got a better appreciation of the Obama administration’s position on the situation, in this paragraph:

Resolving the crisis would be welcome not only in Central America but in Washington, too. The U.S. has put pressure on the interim government to allow the democratically elected Mr. Zelaya to return, even though the leftist is a fierce critic of Washington and a close ally of Venezuela’s populist Hugo Chávez.

That fact, of course, is what Jim DeMint and other conservative critics can’t get over — the fact that the administration is siding with this rather obnoxious ally of someone who is so inimical and destructive toward our national interests. But in that paragraph, I could sort of appreciate that we were trying to be fair and impartial, backing the guy even though he hangs with folks who aren’t our friends.

You know, sort of the way I’ve bent over backward to accommodate and be “fair” and nonjudgmental toward some of the bullies who have run off nice people on my blog. And I wrung my hands and fretted over the implications of cracking down. I hesitated to just ban someone because of past behavior — after all, in this country, doesn’t a person always have the opportunity, nay, the right, to redeem himself?

Oddly, it was one of our more “liberal” Democrats on the blog who, in sidebars, would whisper to me of how I needed to toughen up, stopping being squishy and tolerant, be the king, and cry “off with their heads.” I’m not going to name this person, in the interests of protecting the guilty, but the advice took the form of such admonitions as: “Stop trying to look like a good guy. You are a good guy.”

Which, it occurs to me, may be where Obama’s got it wrong, and DeMint’s got it right, on Honduras. Aside from the fact that the best assessment we have in hand does not support (clearly, anyway) that Zelaya was ousted in an extralegal manner, what principles are we standing up for here? At the very best, it’s a tossup whether Zelaya has a legitimate claim. So in such a situation, why would we not stand up for our nation’s legitimate interests, and more importantly, ideals (which the Chavezistas in the hemisphere scorn), without hesitation or apology?

In short, are we wimping out in the interests of being fair to all concerned, and in the process so blinding ourselves to reality that we don’t even see that it’s NOT fair to all concerned, that this guy actually doesn’t even (necessarily) have any of the rules on his side?

Obama should seize historic opportunity, say “No, thanks” to Nobel

50 Replies

Barack Obama has a tremendous opportunity now to recapture lost political capital, unify this country behind his leadership and increase (if that’s possible, in light of today’s development) his international prestige — all of which would be an enormous boost to the things he’s trying to achieve:

He should say, “Thanks, but no thanks” to the Nobel Peace prize.

If he does that, everyone will think more of him. That is to say, everyone who is susceptible to being influenced. The Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks who make a good living from criticizing him will still do so, but no one but the nuttiest fringe types would still be listening. Everyone with a scintilla of fairmindedness would be impressed if he declined this honor.

If he doesn’t do it, this award will simply be another occasion for the Right to hoot and holler and deride, and the Left to dig in its heels and defend Their Guy, and the crazy polarizing spin cycle will spin on, while health care and everything else gets lost amid the shouting.

I got a foretaste of this this morning. I was about to get out of my truck to go in and have breakfast when I heard the news that had stunned the White House and everyone else: Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In the next few moments, I quickly filed the following three tweets:

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize? The White House is stunned, and so am I. Isn’t it a tad premature or something?

What did Obama win the Nobel FOR? Good intentions? I mean, seriously, the man just GOT here…

Hey, I LIKE Obama; I have hopes he’ll EARN a Nobel one day soon. But he hasn’t had the chance to do so yet…

Then, when I walked in to get my breakfast, I ran into Steve Benjamin and Samuel Tenenbaum, and asked them if they’d heard the news. They had. I expected them to share my shock. I mean, I saw one report (which I haven’t been able to confirm yet) that Obama was only sworn into office TWO WEEKS before the nominations for the Nobel had to be in. The president himself knows better than to claim he’d earned it. Here’s what he said this morning:

Mr. Obama said he doesn’t view the award “as a recognition of my own accomplishments,” but rather as a recognition of goals he has set for the U.S. and the world. Mr. Obama said, “I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize.”

But Steve and Samuel — especially Samuel — felt like they had to defend the president’s receiving the prize. And here’s why: While I had just heard the news and was naturally flabbergasted, with no other stimuli acting on me, Samuel gets up at 4:30 every morning, and has usually had several full cycles of spin by the time I leave my house. He had already heard right-wingers attacking the award on the airwaves, so he was in defensive mode.

This is what the whole Left vs. Right thing gets us: We can’t even agree when something wild and crazy happens. And the president of the United States getting the Nobel Peace Prize for what he MIGHT do, for what he INTENDS to do, for his POTENTIAL, is wild and crazy.

Face it, folks: The Nobel committee gave him this prize for Not Being George W. Bush. This is a measure of how much they hated that guy. I didn’t like him much either, but come on… (While I haven’t talked to my friend Robert Ariail today, I can picture the cartoon already: Obama clutching the prize to his cheek saying, “They LIKE me! The really, really LIKE me!…”

Here’s where the opportunity comes in. The president was on the right track with the humble talk, but he should go a big step further: He should decline the prize, insisting that he hasn’t earned it yet.

This would transform perception of Barack Obama both domestically and internationally. If he simply takes the award, no matter how eloquent his words, he’ll be seen as an ordinary guy who can’t resist being honored, whether he deserves it or not. The Right will go ape over it and keep on going ape over it, and the Left will ferociously defend him, making all sorts of improbable claims to support his receiving it, and those of us in the middle will see the Right as having the stronger point at the same time that we’re put off by their meanspiritedness, and nothing will be accomplished.

But turning it down, saying, “Not yet; wait until I’ve earned it” would catapult Obama to such a state of greatness that he would overarch all ordinary partisan argument. No one could say he was wrong, and most people would be blown away by such selflessness. It would give him tremendous amounts of juice to get REAL health care reform instead of some watered-down nothing, which is probably what we’re going to get.

Internationally… well, if they love the guy now, they’d be ecstatic over him if he turned it down. I mean it. Think about it: What do they love about this guy? His perceived nobility and humility. They hated Bush for what they perceived as his arrogance, and they love Obama for what they perceive as his humility before the rest of the world. If he just took the prize, the world would just shake his hand and that would be that. But if he turned it down, suddenly Iran would be negotiating with a guy with more respect than anyone in the whole wide world has had in a long time. And maybe we’d get somewhere — with Iran, with Russia, with China, in Afghanistan, in Palestine, take your pick.

As I said, I like Obama, and I want him to succeed. But I know he hasn’t earned this honor yet. And I’m firmly convinced that turning it down would afford him the greatest opportunity to succeed with his agenda that he’ll ever have.

Henry McMaster’s video on the Water War with N.C.

4 Replies

You know, it occurs to me: How am I going to get people, especially political types, to buy ads on my blog (once I start offering ads on my blog) when I go ahead and put there promotional material on the blog for free? The video above being a case in point.

Well, I don’t know. But I’ll keep sharing stuff like this whenever I have something to say about it.

And what I have to say about this is: It’s a huge improvement over his initial campaign video, but still leaves much to be desired.

It’s an improvement because it isn’t a naked play on partisan resentment. In the earlier video, he blamed unemployment in South Carolina, absurdly, on Barack Obama. In this one, by contrast, his villain is those greedy North Carolinians upstream, which is more credible.

And the tone is laudable because it’s calmly and dispassionately explanatory. That’s nice for a change.

But one thing it fails to do is explain to voters why this has a bearing upon their choice for governor. It doesn’t clearly say that I, Henry McMaster, have taken a particular stand on this issue and my opponents have not, or in any other way related the Water War to the subject at hand, which is nominating a gubernatorial candidate.

You may say I can’t have both calm explanation and overt appeal for votes, but I think I can. If you’re going to take a minute to ‘splain something, ‘splain what I can do about it. It doesn’t seem like it would be that hard.

Your thoughts?

It already failed, yet we’re just starting to track it?

12 Replies

Thought it was really conscientious of Richard Eckstrom to promise to keep us posted on how the stimulus money is spent:

More than a half-billion dollars in stimulus money from an estimated $3 billion have come through state government so far, according to a news release from Eckstrom’s office.

“The debt from this spending extends far into the future of our children and grandchildren, so we owe it to those future generations to ensure the funds are spent without impropriety and with accountability and transparency,” Eckstrom said in the statement.

“People deserve easy access to how this money is spent. Not only that, but when spending is done in the open, public officials are usually more accountable,” he said. “They know their spending decisions will be examined by the public. If transparency is important under ordinary circumstances, it’s even more critical with massive infusions of cash like this, which can invite opportunities for waste, mismanagement and even fraud.”

The stimulus-spending details will be updated monthly, Eckstrom said.

OK, let me get this straight — one sixth of this has been spent. You are going to keep us posted as it is spent, which also indicates that this is something that is ongoing, and most of it has not yet occurred. Am I reading that right?

And yet, you already declared the stimulus a failure back on July 13 — the 13th day of the budget year. More than two months ago.

What am I missing here?

An early interview with Rob Miller

17 Replies

The first time I met Rob Miller, he was still a captain in the United States Marine Corps. He was having breakfast at the Capital City Club with Samuel Tenenbaum and Bud Ferillo. They were talking with him about his plan to leave the Corps and run for Congress in the 2nd District. He was in civvies — a blue blazer and conservative tie, as I recall — but he was marked as a Marine by two things: His head was shaved, and he compulsively called every man he addressed “sir” in a way that made you feel like he was just barely containing himself from saluting. (Marines always do this, and I find it disconcerting. I’m a lousy civilian; I should be calling them “sir,” not the other way around.)

When next I met him, a few months later, his hair had just started to grow out, and he was both a civilian and a candidate for the 2nd Congressional District. About all I knew about him was that he had been a Marine, he was a combat veteran, having served two tours in Iraq, and he was Bobby Hitt’s nephew (I had worked for Bobby when he was managing editor of The State in the late 80s) — and that some prominent Democrats had taken an interest in his campaign, at least to some extent.

Other than that, he was a blank slate for me, so this interview did a lot to form my impression of him as a candidate. It was not a strong impression. I did not feel like he was ready to run for this office. He seemed uncertain in talking about why he was running, and had to grope for answers to questions that simply asked him to elaborate on what he had said in his opening remarks. He had this trouble in spite of having a little notebook with him, to which he repeatedly referred.

Now, in complete fairness to Capt. Miller: This was very early in his transition to civilian life. I thought he seemed more poised and confident later in the campaign, such as in the October debate with Joe Wilson that I helped moderate. (The header photo above is from that event.) Unfortunately, the link to that video no longer seems to work, and I lost everything that I had put on my laptop in September and October of that year when my laptop was stolen (although I don’t think I had anything on him from that period anyway). So the one thing I have to refer back to is this video from May of that year.

We did not endorse Capt. Miller in the primary, which is what this interview was about. We endorsed Blaine Lotz, who had had a somewhat more extensive military career than the captain (he had retired from the Air Force as a colonel), and a far greater grasp of national security issues — after the Air Force, he had a distinguished civilian career at the Pentagon specializing in intelligence, and in 1998 he was appointed by Secretary of Defense Cohen to be Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight. Of course, he was still in that position under Donald Rumsfeld, for which S.C. Democrats were apparently unwilling to forgive him. Or maybe they didn’t even know that; he didn’t seem to get as much exposure in the campaign as did Capt. Miller. In any case, Miller won.

Even though he made a better impression in the fall, we still did what many of you will no doubt consider unforgivable — we endorsed Joe Wilson. It was a tepid endorsement, but an endorsement all the same. In that same editorial, we also endorsed Jim Clyburn (also unenthusiastically) and John Spratt (wholeheartedly). An excerpt:

Newcomer Rob Miller seems poised to give incumbent Joe Wilson a real contest this year. The Democrat is an ex-Marine, an Iraq combat veteran and a member of a prominent South Carolina family (his uncle used to be managing editor of this newspaper). He seemed uncertain about issues in the primary campaign, but still managed to beat a former Air Force general [I don’t know where that came from, since his bio online says he retired as a colonel] with an impressive resume. He has gained confidence in the intervening months with an aggressive, populist, anti-establishment message. Combine that with the Obama Effect, and you have a candidate with a chance.

But we endorse Republican Wilson, who demonstrates a greater command of the issues, and is much more attuned to the wishes of voters in the district’s gravitational center, Lexington County. Yes, he’s a hyper-Republican, and we’d like to see a less partisan candidate with competitive credentials. But Rep. Wilson is a hard-working, earnest representative who is truly devoted to serving his district and his country, and voters will be better served to re-elect him.

In the 6th District, we see both strong similarities and a stark difference. The similarity is that the incumbent, Jim Clyburn, is just as partisan as Mr. Wilson, and much more successful at it — he’s the third-ranking Democrat in the U.S. House, the majority whip. It’s his job to line up votes for Speaker Nancy Pelosi; he takes the job seriously and does it well.

Where this district, which runs from Richland County through the Pee Dee and down the I-95 corridor, differs from the 2nd is in the fact that Mr. Clyburn is strongly supported in every part of it. He is closely attuned to his district’s wants and needs, and passionately devoted to serving its people. Consequently, he faces weak opposition in Republican Nancy Harrelson, who is running on a populist platform in some ways similar to Mr. Miller’s.

We endorse Mr. Clyburn, a highly experienced and savvy public servant who is clearly better qualified.

By the way, about that reference to “a populist platform in some ways similar to Mr. Miller’s” — while he seemed more confident and polished by the fall, the persona he had adopted was that of the somewhat ticked-off champion of the common man, which was sufficiently at odds with his previously self-effacing junior-officer demeanor that it seemed contrived. At least, that’s the way I remember it. I wish I could find that video to check my memory.

Anyway, my point in sharing all this is to answer the question that a couple of folks have asked, which is, what do I mean when I say Rob Miller was unimpressive, and that I’m distressed that Joe Wilson’s outburst has now put so much money in his campaign coffers that it seems no other, stronger challenger is likely to emerge?

Again, I offer the caveat that this video is from very early, but this is how I initially formed my impression of Rob Miller. After that my impression was modified, but not entirely. Bottom line, I think it’s a lousy situation that here we are in the market for a replacement for Joe Wilson — a moment in which a challenger might have a chance — and the flood of money to Rob Miller (because he happened to be the guy standing there at the time) has probably precluded the possibility of a stronger candidate emerging.

See what you think.

Lindsey Graham’s delicate position

50 Replies

I found Lindsey Graham’s townhall meeting very interesting. While I disagree with him substantively about the subject at hand — health care reform — it’s always interesting to listen to him because he’s a smart guy who has a lot to offer to any policy question. In other words, while he clings loyally to support of Joe Wilson as a fellow Republican, he’s not a guy who’ll ever reduce his objections to a shouted “You Lie!”

Let’s dispense with the disagreement first — Sen. Graham fails to persuade when he says his crowd-pleasing things (Republican voters got calls at home asking them to come) about how we don’t want the gummint taking over any more of our lives. The argument that we can’t have a public option because the private sector can’t compete only condemns the private sector in my mind. The senator’s replies to the student who objected that private companies compete quite successfully with the Postal Service were weak. He got the crowd to cheer by mentioning the huge public subsidy the Postal Service needs to keep going, which to ME argues that its private competitors do just fine. He then argued that competition doesn’t work the same way in health care, which is true, which is why we can’t expect the market to solve our problems. (Lindsey agrees at least with that. He’s for regulation, not a new government entitlement program.)

But the senator repeatedly stressed how we should find things on which we agree and work from there — he talked about areas of agreement between him and Russ Feingold (who agrees with me that the way to go is single-payer) — and I know he means it, so I listen all the harder to what he has to say.

And I was fascinated with his central argument. It was this: It would cost too much. And he doesn’t trust the American people, including all the anti-gummint types in that room, to prevent the program’s costs from going out of control. He kept doing an interesting thing… he kept getting the crowd to cheer with assertions about how inept the gummint is, and how we don’t want it intruding any more into our lives, and then he’d ask how many people there were on Medicare (quite a few) and how many would voluntarily give it up (no one).

So basically, he repeatedly demonstrated that this crowd that was so willing to moan at the awful gummint and laugh ironically when Lindsey referred to Obama’s promises to control costs LOVES its gummint-provided health care — at least, those who have it do. He even said it fairly direction once: “Everybody clapping (at one of his shots against government), half of them are in a government plan.”

And the costs of that government plan, Medicare, are so out of control that he doesn’t want to create another program that would be JUST as popular, even among people who THINK they don’t like government programs, and that therefore would be just as costly, if not more so.

That’s what I heard, and it was interesting.

As he alluded more than once, Lindsey Graham walks a fine line, trying to be a moderate as a Republican from a beet-red state. Another time he said many who were applauding had tried to rip him a new one over immigration reform. He referred to having voted to confirm Justice Sotomayor. So it was fascinating to see him use populist techniques to get a crowd to support him on something where his position is that essentially, he doesn’t trust them, the people, not to support a program that would bankrupt us.

This, by the way, is why I won’t jump to run for office. I’m not sure I could maintain that balance between stroking people and leveling with them that you’re taking a position they may not love. I think I’d get fed up with it pretty fast.

Lindsey Graham doesn’t. And while I can see the contradictions inherent in what he’s doing, I can also respect him for being willing to wrestle with those contradictions — even when I believe that, substantively, he’s wrong on the issue.

Graham hits the wrong note

8 Replies

I was surprised, and disappointed, by this release this morning:

Statement from Senator Lindsey Graham on President Obama’s Health Care Address to the Nation

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made this statement tonight after the presidential address.

“I was incredibly disappointed in the tone of his speech. At times I found his tone to be overly combative and believe he behaved in a manner beneath the dignity of the office. I fear his speech tonight has made it more difficult — not less — to find common ground.

“He appeared to be angry at his critics and disappointed the American people were not buying the proposals he has been selling. The president’s confrontational demeanor increased the emotional and political divide. I hope the President will learn that true bipartisanship begins with mutual respect. Criticism of a public official is to be expected and not all criticism is demagoguery.

“When it comes to the public option, the President is either being disingenuous or misinformed. The public option, contrary to the president’s claims, will eventually lead to a government takeover of our health care system.

“One could easily be led to believe tonight’s speech is the beginning of a ‘go it alone’ strategy. If the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats go down this path and push a bill on the American people they do not want, it could be the beginning of the end of the Obama presidency.”

On a Member of Congress Accusing the President of Telling a ‘Lie’:

“The president’s combative tone did not justify a Member of Congress shouting out ’you lie.’ Our nation’s president deserves to be treated with respect It was inappropriate remark and I am glad an apology has been made.”

#####

I’m proud of Sen. Graham, and of John McCain, for so clearly and unequivocally calling Joe Wilson down for his insupportable behavior. But given that Joe DID what he did, and any commentary on the president’s speech is unfortunately bound to be considered within that context, Lindsey’s release this morning just seems way off-base.

You’re “incredibly disappointed” by the president’s tone? The president was “overly combative?” He behaved in “a manner beneath the dignity of the office?” The president’s demeanor “increased the emotional and political divide?” He’s the one who needs to learn a lesson about “mutual respect?”

Say what?

This was definitely not the morning to release a statement like that.

Such is my respect for Sen. Graham that whenever I find myself disagreeing with him (or Joe Lieberman, or John McCain, or Joe Riley), I stop and think again: Could I be wrong on this? So I analyze my own reaction. I think, Maybe the president was too combative. Maybe I didn’t notice it because I’m so completely fed up with the lies and obstructionism that are threatening to kill our hopes for a decent health care system in this country yet again. Maybe that’s what makes me think the president was, if anything, overly deferential to those who don’t give a damn about our health care, but want to see this issue be Obama’s “Waterloo,” because partisan advantage is more important to them than the good of the nation…

So I run those thoughts through my head, and then I think, Nah, this time Lindsey’s just wrong. That can happen, you know…

So should I run for Congress now?

16 Replies

The answer to the above question is an emphatic “No!” I mean, I need a job, but let’s not get carried away — I don’t need one badly enough to dive into all that partisan foolishness in Washington.

But I offer the question, upon which I elaborate in the above video, as an illustration of the kinds of crazy thoughts that can occur to one when faced with such displays as the one Joe Wilson put on last night.

I hear that in response to Joe’s acting out, his opponent in the last election, Rob Miller, pulled in buckets of campaign contributions since last night. Rob Miller is a nice young man, and I’m truly grateful for his service to his country in combat as a United States Marine, but he was a decidedly unimpressive congressional candidate in ’08.

Surely there’s somebody out there, someone better than Rob Miller and far better than me, who can offer us a real choice in 2010. Surely…

Is Columbia’s impasse over the homeless at (or at least near) an end?

3 Replies

Does this mean what I think it means — that after Columbia city council has resisted and undermined every effort by other community leaders to meaningfully address the city’s homelessness problem, we may finally be on our way to a comprehensive solution?

Columbia is getting out of the homeless services business, laying off two employees and outsourcing its winter shelter operations to the University of South Carolina for $500,000 a year.

The three-year agreement means the shelter, which city officials promised in 2007 would only be used for two years, will remain open until at least 2012.

USC will not operate the shelter past 2012, opting instead to partner with the Midlands Housing Alliance, a group of business leaders and service providers that plans to build an $11.6 million homeless shelter on Main Street….

Perhaps by surrendering control, the city has accomplished what Congress did with BRAC — given up on something it was politically incapable of handling, and letting someone else make the right decision. This BRACish approach was tried before, and then the council grabbed the issue back with dire results. Maybe it will work this time…

Or am I reading this wrong?

Don’t give up on Afghanistan, Mr. President

7 Replies

So when did we start speaking of Afghanistan as though it were Iraq?

I seem to recall that the people who wanted us out of Iraq, until very recently were saying:

Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is the must-win war.
Afghanistan is the place that harbored Osama bin Laden and others responsible for 9/11.
It’s horrible the way we have neglected our commitments there (to spend resources on Iraq).

I mean, Barack Obama, who during the campaign would tell anyone who would listen how HE was the guy who had been against our involvement in Iraq from the beginning, was also one of the most aggressively belligerent U.S. politicians when it came to Afghanistan, and to the al Qaeda hideouts across the border in Pakistan.

And when he came into office, it looked like he was going to follow through. Not only that, it appeared that he was going to be sensible about our Iraq commitments, which was very reassuring.

Now, I read with horror this piece today in The State:

On Monday, McChrystal sent his assessment of the situation in Afghanistan to the Pentagon, the U.S. Central Command, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and NATO. Although the assessment didn’t include any request for more troops, senior military officials said they expect McChrystal later in September to seek between 21,000 and 45,000 more troops. There currently are 62,000 American troops in Afghanistan.

However, administration officials said that amid rising violence and casualties, polls that show a majority of Americans now think the war in Afghanistan isn’t worth fighting. With tough battles ahead on health care, the budget and other issues, Vice President Joe Biden and other officials are increasingly anxious about how the American public would respond to sending additional troops…

Say what? We’ve got our finger in the wind on Afghanistan now? We’re checking the polls to see if we’re going to fight the freaking Taliban, the guys who coddled Osama while he was dreaming up the Big One?

What is wrong with this country? And does a country that would let things come to this pass deserve to survive, in evolutionary terms? Apart from standing up and fighting for what is right and against what is demonstrably not only wrong but horrifically so, are we truly not willing to fight against those who would like to see us dead? What sort of organism, or social structure, gives up to that extent?

Notes from the Benjamin campaign

6 Replies

Quite literally…

This morning when I met with Steve Benjamin and Jack Van Loan at The Gourmet Shop, Steve started doodling on his legal pad to illustrate benjamin-notes2 the problem with Columbia’s current system of government. As you may be able to better see at right in the low-res action photo from my Blackberry, he drew two boxes. The one on top showed how in the current system, forces push from every direction, and the result is you go nowhere. He was suggesting that with a strong mayor system (the box below), you can focus political energy to move forward.

Then later, he stared illustrating all sorts of other concepts. The list to the right center shows what he thinks a leader needs to do in Columbia. At the bottom is a series of questions elaborating on the building and articulating a vision things.

Anyway, always come to bradwarthen.com for the best stolen documents from political campaigns…

OK, the truth: I asked Steve for the page, and he gave it to me. I like to try all sorts of content on the blog…

Video from Bauer press conference

5 Replies

Andre Bauer’s press conference today was pretty much as advertised. I dropped by to check it out on my way to the job fair today at the State Museum.

Above is some sketchy video from my Blackberry. (And just to show how good I am to y’all, here is much higher-quality video at thestate.com.) You can see me shooting it, my arm obscuring my face, in the photo below by Tim Dominick of The State. You may be able to tell that the turnout on the part of media types was somewhat sparser than for the now-infamous Sanford press conference that started all this rolling.

No, excuse me: What started it rolling was Gina Smith catching the gov at the Atlanta airport getting off the plane from Argentina. Had that not happened, there would have been no confession, and we’d probably still be in the dark. Gina was at today’s press confab, and I was able to congratulate her for the S.C. Scoop of the Century. I’ve had some pretty good stories in my lengthy career, and put one over on the competition a few times in my reporting days. But rare is the reporter who can say that something this broke purely because she was on the spot in the right place at the right time. Sure, the credit goes to teamwork — someone else got the tip that the governor had been seen in Argentina, and the folks at The State determined that there was a chance he’d be on this flight — but the glory goes to Gina.

Anyway, the Andre thing told us pretty much what we knew. In essence:

He called on the governor to resign, becoming the first statewide elected official to do so.
He promised that if the governor quits and makes Andre governor before Andre announces his own candidacy for governor in October, Andre will not run in 2010.
He made it pretty clear that if it takes longer than that — such as if we have to wait for the Legislature to be in session to impeach Sanford — the deal is off.

So, if ANYBODY has any influence over Mark Sanford (something which I doubt, unless his “soulmate” chooses to weigh in; this guy is singularly immune to what other people think), now would be a really good time to try to get him to quit.

Welcome to the 2010 race, Henry

23 Replies

Let’s all welcome Henry McMaster to the 2010 gubernatorial contest. Or, if you won’t, I will.

I like Henry. For a guy who was our fourth choice for attorney general back in 2002 (we endorsed Jon Ozmint in the primary, Larry Richter in the runoff and Steve Benjamin in the general), I think he has turned out very well. This is partly by comparison with his predecessor, but on the whole I think Henry’s done well.

Then there was the fact that Henry backed John McCain through thick and thin. In the darkest days of his quest for the GOP nomination, when everybody was saying he should quit, Henry was proud to stand up and support the senator from Arizona. And since McCain was to me the only guy in the GOP contest worth considering, that counts for a lot with me.

For me, those two considerations — the job he’s done as AG, and his sticking with McCain when almost no one else would — more than cancel the qualms I had about Henry back when he was best known as a party chairman who regularly traded partisan silliness with his counterpart Dick Harpootlian.

At this point, Henry seems clearly the strongest candidate on the GOP side — especially after my interview with Gresham Barrett early on gave me the strong impression that he hasn’t even thought about what he would do as governor, and nothing I’ve heard since has disspelled that.

Not that Henry is chock full o’ specifics yet, either. And this seems to be an occupational hazard for Republicans. They know they have to live down the disaster that Sanford has been, but they are fearful of alienating the support that the governor continues to enjoy, bizarrely, among the GOP rank-and-file (which is to say, among Republicans who don’t actually have to deal with the guy, which is always where his greatest support has lain).

So they tiptoe. So we have Henry, in the video above, speaking vaguely, and awkwardly, about how “there’s been too much dishonesty and too many scandals…,” implying he’d get us away from all that. But what dishonesty? Which scandals? What is it that YOU, Henry McMaster disapprove of? Let us know where you stand. We all disapprove of “scandals” and “dishonesty,” but tell us where you see those bad things, so we can decide whether we approve of YOU.

The State seems to believe the “scandals” Henry refers to have to do with Sanford. But I don’t know that — not until Henry SAYS that’s what he means. And if so, he needs to go further: Which aspects of the governor’s behavior does he find scandalous? His affair? His use of the state plane as a personal taxi when he’s telling state employees to double up in hotel rooms? How about the fact that as governor he does not govern, in the sense of taking responsibility for the course of our state? Is that scandalous? And if so, why?

Beyond that, his initial platform seems remarkably like that of uber-Democrat Dwight Drake: Jobs. Again, not exactly a controversial position, not a defining trait, not a chisel that will help sculpt a clear image in the voter’s mind.

So I go into this inclined to like Henry, but wanting to hear more.

And Tameika would make three

11 Replies

Am intrigued by the prospect of Tameika Isaac Devine running for mayor:

… and I find myself wondering, what would be the effect?

We were already looking at probably the most closely contested race since Mayor Bob beat Patton Adams two decades ago, with Steve Benjamin bringing a gun to what is usually a knife fight (or maybe a slap fight, at most).

Several times in the story, Ms. Devine suggests that she still likes her ally Mayor Bob. Which causes me to wonder whether a Devine candidacy might actually have the effect of helping Coble, as it would split the anti-incumbent vote — as well as the presumed “black” vote. And could that even be the strategic intent.

There are other considerations as well. Tameika origninally won citywide office at the head of a coalition of unusual suspects, such as Rusty DePass and other conservative business types. So what dynamics would her candidacy introduce?

Whatever happens, Columbia voters are going to have some interesting choices for once. Who knows? Maybe even some of them will turn out for a change.

Vincent comes out swinging against Dwight on Day One

11 Replies

Vincent Sheheen hasn’t wasted any time pointing out new contestant Dwight Drake’s vulnerabilities. Dwight did a conference call with journalists at 1 p.m., and at 3:24 Vincent sent out this:

Sheheen’s Statement on Democratic Primary

Camden, SC – State Senator and Democratic candidate for governor Vincent Sheheen today issued the following statement regarding the Democratic primary for governor:Which candidate can return trust to the governor’s office? That is the ultimate question that South Carolina voters must decide.

“In the South Carolina Senate, I have focused on fighting the special interests and insider politics that too often control our government in Columbia at the expense of the people. Whether it be predatory lenders, big tobacco companies, or environmental polluters, I have been willing to stand up to them — and stand up FOR hard-working South Carolinians and our families.

Next year, we have the opportunity to end business as usual and elect a new governor who will put the people of this state first. South Carolinians deserve a state government that will reward their faith and hard work with good jobs and strong public schools.

Democrats in South Carolina must make a statement about the values of our party and of our state. The future of the Democratic Party and the quality of our state government in South Carolina is at stake.

In this election, Democrats must carefully choose a candidate who represents our values and the values of South Carolina. We must make a new start, with a new direction and vision to rebuild our state. This is our chance and we cannot afford to miss it.”

###

I told you this was going to be interesting, and it already is.

Dwight Drake’s running! What an election this is shaping up to be…

21 Replies

What an election year 2010 is turning out to be!

You know the wild rumors that led to me being asked whether I was running for governor, at the behest of Jim Hodges and Dick Harpootlian? Apparently, the candidate that rumor was really about was Dwight Drake. (UPDATE: Jim Hodges just told me he’s not backing Dwight or any other gubernatorial candidate — yet.) This is not as shocking an idea as it being ME, but it’s still pretty wild and surprising. Dwight’s done well — very well — working the corridors of power without being the front man, so this is quite a step for him.

Dwight dealt with the Legislature for Dick Riley, and has been doing the same for clients, ranging from Big Tobacco to the high school girl who sued over the stimulus (in that latter case, the aforementioned Dick H. was his co-counsel), ever since.

In fact, if you drew a spectrum of political figures in terms of their effectiveness with lawmakers and put Mark Sanford on one end, Dwight would be on the other. He’s the anti-Mark Sanford, whether you see that as good or bad.

FYI, here’s his bio from the official Nelson Mullins Web site:

Dwight F. Drake is a partner of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP in Columbia where his practice focuses on government relations, legislative issues, and disputes involving government contracts. Maintaining an active litigation practice, Mr. Drake regularly argues before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Since joining the firm in 1983, Mr. Drake has been at the forefront of every significant issue considered by the South Carolina General Assembly — from tort reform to the Economic Development Bond Act. Additionally, he has held numerous positions in firm leadership and management.

In 1981, Mr. Drake was named Lawyer of the Year in Government by American Lawyer, and he is widely recognized for his prominent role in governmental and political arenas. Mr. Drake has twice received The Order of the Palmetto, the highest honor bestowed by a Governor of South Carolina. Mr. Drake’s successful litigation practice led to his selection as a permanent member of the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference, and his advocacy skills are valued by legislative and litigation clients alike.

Mr. Drake served as a member of the Hodges for Governor Transition Committee. Prior to joining the firm, he served as Executive Assistant for Legislative and Political Affairs for South Carolina Governor Richard W. Riley. Mr. Drake served as legal counsel to South Carolina Governor John C. West.

In 1972, Mr. Drake earned a Juris Doctor from the University of South Carolina School of Law where he was president of the Student Bar Association and held membership in Phi Delta Phi and the National Moot Court Team. Mr. Drake earned a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Georgia in 1967.

Later today, I’m going to a fund-raiser for Jim Rex, and see what’s going on there. But it’s clear that this election is shaping up as the opposite of 2006 for Democrats. Then, no viable candidate stepped forward, and that party ended up with Tommy Moore. This year, you have have a statewide name in Rex, an idealistic young reformer in Sheheen, and the ultimate get-it-done guy Drake. Meanwhile, the party is keeping up a steady pounding on the likely GOP candidates, hitting them with Sanford like battleships softening up the beach with artillery before an amphibious landing.

2010 is going to be very different for South Carolina.

Oh, and just so you have all the details, here’s Dwight’s announcement:

Dwight Drake Announces Run for Governor to Get South Carolina Working Again

Drake Led Efforts to Bring BMW to State and Protect Public School Funding,
Will Keep Working for Jobs and Education as Governor

COLUMBIA – Dwight Drake, an attorney and experienced public servant with a long record of fighting for job creation and improved public education, announced today that he will run for Governor of South Carolina as a Democrat in the 2010 election. Drake announced his candidacy in a video emailed to voters across the state and posted at http://www.DwightDrake.com. [NOTE FOR TV PRODUCERS: Broadcast-quality versions of the video are available for digital download at http://www.box.net/DrakeAnnouncement .]

“We need to get South Carolina working again,” said Drake. “The past eight years have been wasted, and South Carolina is now first in unemployment in the South. Mark Sanford made a lot of news when he disappeared this year, but he’s been AWOL on jobs since the day he took office.

“I know from my experience working with two Governors who made education and jobs their priorities – John West and Dick Riley – and working to bring BMW to South Carolina, what it takes to create good-paying jobs in our state.”

Drake has been a tireless advocate on behalf of education and job creation in South Carolina. He headed up the successful, bipartisan effort to attract BMW to locate in South Carolina and later to expand their operations in the state, resulting in more than 15,000 new jobs for South Carolinians.

Drake also helped lead Choose Children First, a coalition of business leaders, lawmakers, and supporters of public education who came together to defeat Governor Mark Sanford’s attempt to drain money away from public schools with a voucher program.

Most recently, Drake represented South Carolina students Casey Edwards and Justin Williams in their legal fight to force Governor Sanford to accept federal funds for economic recovery and to put that funding to work for South Carolina’s public schools. Both students appear in Drake’s announcement video and speak about the work he did to make their victory possible.

Drake’s years in public service include serving as legal counsel to former Governor John West and as former Governor Dick Riley’s top legislative aide, where he helped pass landmark legislation, including the Education Improvement Act, as well as efforts supporting early childhood development and state government reform.

Drake’s first priority as Governor will be bringing jobs to the state, after years of neglect by Governor Sanford.

“The first thing a Governor should do when he wakes up in the morning is think, ‘What can I do today to bring good jobs to South Carolina?'” said Drake. “And the last thing he should do at night is ask himself, ‘Did I do enough today on jobs?’

“My mother and father taught me always to tell the truth and do my best. Well, the truth is we’re not doing our best in South Carolina. That’s why I’ve decided to run for Governor.”

Dwight Drake is a native of Spartanburg County, where his father worked in the mills and Drake joined him to help pay for his college education. He is a U.S. Army veteran who served in Vietnam, and he earned his law degree from the University of South Carolina. Drake lives in Columbia with his wife Beth, a federal prosecutor, and their two daughters, Marshall, 12, and Eliza, 9.

Drake will hold a press conference call at 1:00pm TODAY to discuss the announcement of his candidacy for Governor.

As usual, Kulturkampf gets us nowhere

38 Replies

The Henry Louis Gates contretemps last week was a classic case of the kind of thing I studiously ignore — the kind of thing that ideological partisans love to shout at each other about, and which make it all that much harder to constructively discuss subjects that really matter.

But I will pass on this column on the subject in the WSJ, which I thought was good. Of course, I thought it was good; its point is the same one I just made — that this was a destructive distraction. Headlined, “The Gates of Political Distraction: Obama’s mistake was falling for a culture war diversion,” it is written by the Journal‘s iconoclastic house liberal, Thomas Frank. An excerpt:

Liberals, by and large, immediately plugged the event into their unfair-racial-profiling template, and proceeded to call for blacks and whites to “listen to each other’s narratives” and other such anodyne niceties even after it started to seem that police racism was probably not what caused the incident.

Conservatives, meanwhile, were following their own “narrative,” the one in which racism is often exaggerated and the real victim is the unassuming common man scorned by the deference-demanding “liberal elite.” Commentators on the right zeroed in on the fact that Mr. Gates is an “Ivy League big shot,” a “limousine liberal,” and a star professor at Harvard, an institution they regard with special loathing. They pointed out that Mr. Gates allegedly addressed the cop with that deathless snob phrase, “you don’t know who you’re messing with”; they reminded us that Cambridge, Mass., is home to a particularly obnoxious combination of left-wing orthodoxy and upper-class entitlement; and they boiled over Mr. Gates’s demand that the officer “beg my forgiveness.”

“Don’t you just love a rich guy who summers on the Vineyard asking a working-class cop to ‘beg’? How perfectly Cambridge,” wrote the right-wing radio talker Michael Graham in the Boston Herald.

Conservatives won this round in the culture wars, not merely because most of the facts broke their way, but because their grievance is one that a certain species of liberal never seems to grasp. Whether the issue is abortion, evolution or recycling, these liberal patricians are forever astonished to discover that the professions and institutions and attitudes that they revere are seen by others as arrogance and affectation.

Frank got that right.

Indeed, the very idea that the president would waste political capital on this at a time when the country needs him to be strong on health care reform is obscene, and a tragic waste.

DeMint vs. Obama: Health care debate takes downward turn

78 Replies

Until today, the titanic battle over the future of health care in America was at least based in good grammar. Then I received this deeply troubling communication:

Thursday July 23, 2009

Dear Friends –

By now you’ve probably heard about the ongoing debate Senator DeMint has been having with President Obama on health care. Up until last night this debate, while spirited, was based on the issues.

Unfortunately, President Obama decided to turn the debate away from the issues by having the Democrat National Committee produce a patently false television ad accusing Senator DeMint of having “no plan” for health care.

We hope you will take a minute to watch our factual response in this short web video. Afterward please click here and give us your thoughts on health care reform. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Team DeMint

PS. Please click here to watch the response!

Being a trained observer who gets right to the heart of the matter without delay, I immediately responded to the e-mail thusly:

Actually, it’s the DemocratIC National Committee. You can look it up; you’ll see I’m right.

You see, “Democrat” is a noun, while “Democratic” is the adjective form. Since it’s being used to modify “committee” here, you want the adjective form.

I expect to get a note of thanks momentarily…

Seriously, folks, I feel really bad because I haven’t kept up with the back and forth on this issue. About all I know is that it must be going badly, because it seems Jim DeMint is getting a lot of ink, and from what little I can tell, the senator’s goal is to make sure the president is unsuccessful in reforming our insane health care system. Correct me if I’m wrong on that, but that seems to be the main point — to make sure the president suffers a defeat (“Waterloo” was mentioned, I believe) on this issue of critical importance to the nation.

Y’all know that I’m not a detail man on this stuff, which drives detail-oriented folks like bud and Doug (from their differing perspectives) nuts. But this doesn’t seem to be turning on the details. More and more, it seems to be about “my side up, your side down.” If you’ll recall, Obama ran against that sort of garbage. And if he can’t overcome it on this issue, then you can pretty much say goodbye to his accomplishing much of anything. His adversaries know this. And they care far more about him failing than they do about details.

So it is that in the few moments I’ve had to think about the issue, I find myself rooting for Obama. Back during the election, I was critical that he didn’t want to do enough on health care. But he at least wants to do something, other that rely on the DeMint/Sanford formula of praying to the almighty market.

But set that issue aside. Folks, I supported John McCain in the recent election. But I know our country desperately needs an effective president. It needs leadership. So even if I were neutral on the health care issue, which I’m not (I may not have kept up with the details, but I can see which parties are at least trying to do some good), I’d be rooting for the president on this. The country needs for him to succeed.

If Sanford wants to change the subject, here’s an idea: Do some actual work

28 Replies

So we learned the following about our governor in this morning’s paper:

The governor made his first actual public appearance since he started putting out his weekly schedule. It was a staged event to dramatize a political point he wanted to make, but hey, at least people got to see him being governor.

The governor used his first public appearance, in part, to ask to change the subject. Yes, this from the guy who did the two-parter with AP to talk unnecessarily about his “soulmate.”

As of this morning, the governor had worked only 14 of the last 24 “workdays.”

And then this afternoon, we learned that the governor is leaving tomorrow on a two week European vacation with the fam. Yes, I hear you that it was planned in advance and the kids had saved up for it, but still. This is, like, his third vacation since all the craziness started — or since we learned about it. (Or is it fourth? I lose count.)

So, when he gets back from this one, that will be like what — 15 out of 34 working days on the job? I need more details to get the count right.

“Obviously, critics will criticize,” says the gov. Yes, they will. As previously noted, every day that this guy technically holds onto his office is like Christmas to the state’s Democrats.

The governor also said that one nice thing about this vacation is that it will get the kids away from reading about the scandal.

You know what? I have some advice: Governor, if you want to change the subject, then change the subject. You’re the governor. Do something. Make some news. Do your freaking job for a change, instead of all this constant wallowing.

Instead, the governor is as usual absent when other public officials are trying to move our state forward. The State, in noting that the governor had extended his most recent vacation by a day, mentioned his absence from a huge announcement earlier this week:

Sanford was notably absent Monday from a press conference the University of South Carolina held to announce an agreement to lease space in its Moore School of Business to the U.S. Department of Justice.

The agreement will provide resources for USC to build a $90 million new business school building, something university and local officials have been working on for years.

Monday’s news conference included much of Columbia’s powerful — USC President Harris Pastides, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham and state Sen. John Courson.

But no Sanford.

But what would have been shocking is if the governor had been there. He doesn’t have the time of day for the university and its doings. Had he been there, he probably would have grumbled, seeing as how he doesn’t think government should be promoting the economy. He just believes in “soil conditions,” which does not, as you might think, mean creating an educated workforce or having the kinds of amenities that make people want to do business in your state. He just means “tax cuts.”

It would never occur to the governor to change the subject by positively engaging issues that are important to our state. He doesn’t believe in that stuff.