Category Archives: Leadership

Why can’t we be smart like our sister?

17 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
THINK OF South Carolina as a restless schoolboy. He doesn’t test well, but he’s got loads of potential; everybody says so. He’s a well-meaning kid, but has an attention-deficit problem. There he sits, as far to the back of the class as he can get away with. As the teacher drones on about science and stuff, he wonders whether he can get away with spending his lunch money on candy again. Then, just as he’s turned to calculating the number of days left until school is out and he can go to the beach (he’s very good at this sort of math), his reverie is rudely interrupted.
    The teacher stands over him, her eyes just boring into him over the glasses on the end of her nose. She speaks directly to him, demanding to know, “Why can’t you be smart like your sister?”
    The poor kid hears that a lot.
    My own rather feckless, aimless mind (I was born here, you know) has been running along these lines all week, as I’ve been repeatedly reminded of how well our smart sister has applied herself. Not my sister, personally, but South Carolina’s. Her name is Queensland, and she’s our sister state in Australia.
    Her former premier, Peter Beattie, spoke at my Rotary meeting Monday, although I didn’t realize it at the time because I slipped out of the meeting early (I’m telling you, I am that boy). Mr. Beattie is the one who suggested the whole “sister-state” economic development relationship when he was in office back in the ’90s. He got the idea after a visit here in 1996. He had come to study how our state had taken advantage of the Atlanta Olympics, serving as a training site and hosting the women’s marathon trials. He hoped his state could do the same with the Sydney games.
    As things turned out, though, our “sister” would go on to do some things we should emulate. As premier, he pushed a strategy that would lead to Australia’s “Sunshine State” getting a new alias: “The Smart State.”
    During a week when the S.C. Senate Finance Committee was reacting to tough fiscal times by cutting back on the endowed chairs program and letting K-12 funding slide backward, I kept getting my nose rubbed in the smartness of our sister despite my best efforts to miss the point. On Wednesday, someone sent me a copy of remarks Mr. Beattie — who has been lecturing at USC’s Walker
Institute of International & Area Studies recently — had prepared for a speech this coming Tuesday to the Global Business Forum in Columbia. I skimmed over what he had written…

    Twenty years ago, Queensland was a traditional rocks-and-crops economy where education was not regarded as a priority. But with increasing globalisation, my government knew this was not enough to compete with the new emerging markets of China and India…. We publicly said innovate or stagnate were our choices.
    As a result we developed a strategy called Smart State. This involved a major overhaul of our education and training systems… the cutting edge of developments in biotechnology, energy, information and communications…
    The result has been… Queensland’s lowest unemployment rate in three decades… budget surpluses and a AAA credit rating. Our economic growth has outperformed the nation’s growth for 10 consecutive years and was done on the back of competitive state taxes. Our focus has been long-term and education reform was central.
    Since 1998, the Queensland Government has invested almost $3 billion to boost innovation and R&D infrastructure…

    … but I didn’t have time to read it all just then. Being that unfocused boy, I did find time to write a pointless post on my blog about how “For some reason, Queensland keeps coming up a lot this week for me….” That night, I was attending a lecture by Salman Rushdie, who had been brought here by Janette Turner Hospital, the novelist and USC professor, who as it happens grew up in Queensland.
    So guess who I ran into at the reception that night for Mr. Rushdie? Yep — Peter Beattie. (The coincidences were starting to get as weird and mystical as something out of a novel by, well, Salman Rushdie.)
    Cooperating with the inevitable, I introduced myself, and he told me eagerly about the exciting high-tech opportunities he saw here in South Carolina, what with the endowed chairs and Innovista, and our state’s advantages in the fields of hydrogen power, clean coal technology and biotech.
    Biotech, by the way, has been a big one for Queensland, employing 3,200 people, generating $4 billion a year in revenues, and leading to such concrete advances as Ian Fraser’s new human papillomavirus vaccine, which is now protecting 13 million women worldwide from cervical cancer — just so you know it’s not all pie in the sky.
    When I asked him about some of the less-than-visionary (in my view, not his) decisions being made by S.C. political leaders as we spoke, he insisted that was not his place: “I’m a guest here,” he said in that wonderful Down Under accent. “Queensland is like South Carolina. Manners are important.”
    He spoke instead about the opportunities we had in common, and about the fact that places such as Queensland and South Carolina “have to innovate or be left behind.”
    South Carolina, so used to lagging behind the other kids, truly does possess the potential to be a “smart state” like our sister. But too many easily distracted boys over at the State House keep staring out the classroom window…

The mysterious Queensland connection

4 Replies

For some reason, Queensland keeps coming up a lot this week for me.

  • First, some visitors from there were introduced at my Rotary meeting Monday afternoon (at which I had to do the Health and Happiness presentation). Queensland is South Carolina’s official Australian sister state for economic development purposes, a fact that comes up frequently at Rotary, it seems.
  • Monday night, I sat in on Janette Turner Hospital‘s lecture on Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children, then I was the moderator of a panel discussion that followed about religion and culture and politics and how they come together in the whole Rushdie fatwa thing. Why Janette and Gordon Smith asked me, I’m still not clear. Anyway, Janette grew up in Queensland, and went to university there.
  • Then today, Samuel Tenenbaum, in keeping with his never-ending battle to save the endowed chairs program (a battle that gets tougher every day), sent me an article by Peter Beattie, the former premier of Queensland, who is now teaching at USC Moore School of Business.

Somehow, this series of coincidences seem almost like the sort of mystical stuff you’d find in a Rushdie novel (either that, or like something from "I ♥ Huckabees," depending on how high- or lowbrow your cultural associations may be). Which reminds me… tonight I’m going to Mr. Rushdie’s lecture at USC, and might meet him afterward at a reception. If so, I’ll tell you about it.

Anyway, the article Samuel sent me was about how "Queensland took the view that brain power and the encouragement of innovation are our future," and the resulting "Smart State" program took Queensland from a "traditional rocks and crops economy" to the point that it attracted some of the most sophisticated research facilities in the world, and now has about 90 knowledge-economy firms employing over 1,900 people. The whole "Smart State" thing has really caught on there, leading observers around the world to ask South Carolinians, "Why can’t you be smart like your sister?" OK, I made that last part up, but it’s not an unfair representation of how we are received, which is why folks like Samuel (and I) believe we need to maintain our commitment to endowed chairs.

Samuel wants me to consider the piece for op-ed, and perhaps I shall. If not, I’ll post it here.

South Carolina just got a little smarter

25 Replies

Morad

This morning I had the honor of meeting Martin Morad, who plans "to develop the world’s first pacemaker made from living tissue," and to do it right here in South Carolina. He’s the latest extraordinary individual that the endowed chairs program has brought here. (That’s him with Larry Wilson and Harris Pastides above. I think those are Ray Greenberg’s arms folded at left; I don’t know the lady in the background.)

There are a lot of things I could say about this guy, and I hope to come back here and say them later (right now, I’m stealing time from other things that need doing today in order to write this — as usual). For now, read the story that was on today’s front page.

I’ll just mention one thing that may seem small to you, but which marks a huge step in my mind…

If there is one thing that holds South Carolina back economically, politically, socially and in every other way more than anything else, it’s fragmentation. Our government is completely dysfunctional thanks to the fragmentation of authority and accountability in the executive branch. On the local level, you see fractals reflecting the same pattern — Columbia as an economic entity can’t get its act together because it’s split into about a dozen municipalities, two counties, seven school districts, various special purpose districts, etc. Even when you distill it down to the tiny political entity that is technically Columbia, political power is fragmented across a seven-member council with no one, elected individual in a position to be responsible for the big picture.

In the realm of higher education, fragmentation has taken us into some amazingly stupid realms in our recent history. First, there is the fact that each of our colleges and semi-colleges is a political entity unto itself, answerable to no one but each institution’s respective board of trustees, each member of which is elected by the 170 members of the General Assembly. This has led to such things as the battle over supercomputers in the late 80s, right after I came back to SC to work at this newspaper — if USC was going to get a supercomputer, then the political "logic" of this state was what Clemson had to have one, too.

We have the charade of a coordinating body — the Commission on Higher Education — which is, by legislative decree, toothless. (Coincidentally, the new head of the CHE is coming to meet the editorial board this afternoon, which puts this even more immediately in mind.) But there is nothing like, say, a board of regents with real power to assign missions, coordinate and focus resources and avoid duplication.

In the last few years, we have been fortunate in that the three presidents of our research institutions — Andrew Sorensen, Ray Greenberg and James Barker — have formed an alliance to work together on a variety of fronts to accomplish some of the things that a unified, rational system of public higher education was accomplished. One of the greatest factors encouraging this relationship to flourish — giving it an undeniable economic impetus — is the endowed chairs program.

Anyway, here’s the thing about Dr. Morad that is in its way as remarkable for South Carolina as, say, developing a living pacemaker: He is the first faculty member in the history of the state to be simultaneously hired by all three research universities at once. (Why? Because it took all three institutions to come up with the talent he needs to make his project happen — which suggests that maybe we should start referring to the three, and governing them, as one institution; put them together, and you’ve got something impressive.) Therefore he embodies the combination of our resources to achieve great things that our petty divisions have kept us from accomplishing in the past. He is the New South Carolinian, the Adam in our new-tech Garden of Eden.

I’ll stop with the metaphors now. Suffice it to say, his arrival in this, his new home, is a big deal for South Carolina.

The op-ed that came too soon

8 Replies

Speaking of Mayor Bob, as we were earlier… A few days ago, he sent us an op-ed submission. Then he resent it with an additional byline on it — that of Councilwoman Tameika Isaac Devine. It was about the recent city council retreat.

Trouble is, we had run a piece from him just days earlier — last Friday, as a matter of fact. And that piece wasn’t long after another one from him. We can’t just turn over the space we have for local guest columns to the mayor every time there’s something he wants to respond to — he’s a very responsive guy. We have space most days for one local, nonstaff column. There’s a lot of competition for that slot, most days. So we have a guideline — no more than one piece for the same person within 30 days. And we had already stretched that rule once for the mayor, since his earlier piece had been on Feb. 20. We couldn’t give him yet another pass and still face all the other folks we’ve said "no" to. We’d made the first exception because he was responding to an editorial that had been critical of the city. We could have made another for the same reason, but chose not to.

Instead, I offered to put it on the blog. Here’s the cover note that came with the most recent version of his latest submission:

In light of today’s editorial I wanted to submit again the op ed from myself and Tameika Isaac Devine. The editorial was based on Adam Beam’s story about our retreat. While the editorial and Adam’s story certainly describe legitimate issues, I believe the op ed addresses one issue that has been corrected. The City Council partly as a result of the study cited in the editorial has set specific goals and a specific strategic action plan to implement those goals. Both the goals and the plan will be on our website after the plan is updated from the comments at the retreat. 

The editorial specifically addresses the report and lack of goals when the writer says: "The report, based on interviews with dozens of managers in city government, said the City Council set no vision or goals…" The editorial goes on to say: "Council members told the study commission that the 2001 report was accurate. But they declared things had changed under Mr. Austin. Mayor Bob Coble said he thought members followed state law in terms of how they interact with city employees. But the events at the recent retreat say things have gotten no better. The council remains a major culprit in ensuring the city’s government struggles."

Clearly the main thrust of the editorial is the "interferance" (the writer’s term in the opening paragraph) of City Council and the form of government and not the lack of planning. While City Manager Austin would be the one to say what improvements have been made in how City Council interacts with him, I would note that the lack of formal goal setting and planning has been addressed, I believe in fairness the op ed adds an important perspective on whether the City Council took steps to formally address that criticism (instead of using the State of the City for the last six years as the primary vehicle for setting goals as would be the common practice under a strong mayor form of government). Of course the op ed discusses the major issues that were addressed at the retreat in addition to the one that Adam addressed in his story. As always I appreciate your consideration.

And here is the text of the submission itself:

City Council Retreat Friday March 7, 2008
    I wanted to give a report on the Columbia City Council Retreat that was held Friday March 7th at the Convention Center. The bulk of the day was spent reviewing the four broad goals that City Council adopted last year. Those goals were:
1. To enhance the quality of life in the City of Columbia for all citizens, customers and visitors.
    2. To enhance and protect our natural and built infrastructure.
3. To enhance Columbia’s future role as the flagship municipality in South Carolina through the use of best practices for local government operations.
4. To grow the City’s tax base by facilitating opportunities for citizens and future generations to reach their full economic, social, and cultural potential.   
Those broad goals are being implemented through Columbia’s Strategic Operational Plan that staff has developed, and that City Council reviewed at the retreat. Both the goals and strategic plan will be on our website www.columbiasc.net.
    While a number of specific issues were discussed at the retreat, I think four were particularly important. First, City Council affirmed our plan for safety and security in Columbia. We established as our top funding priority, the police and fire retention plan to increase salaries by $2.5 million over a three year period. We reaffirmed our commitment to fund a security camera system and the goal of 375 police officers (an increase of 19 officers). Additionally, we are committed to fighting gang and youth violence with the implementation of the recommendations of our gang assessment. 
    Secondly, we reviewed the progress we are making in correcting the deficiencies in our Finance Department that were outlined in the September 2007 Management Letter. We have retained the Municipal Association of South Carolina to help us establish best practices and online financial reporting.
    Thirdly, the City has made a real commitment to climate protection. Implementation of our energy audit, which will be released this month, will be a top priority for the coming year. Columbia must do our part to reduce global warming and protect our environment.
    Fourth, we reviewed the implementation of the disparity study that was adopted by Council in August of 2006. City Council reaffirmed our strong commitment to the study’s implementation and the need for accountability in reaching our goal of economic fairness and inclusion for our diverse community.   
Columbia City Council established last year our broad goals and the strategic operational plan to implement those goals. This year’s retreat was an important opportunity to review progress and take corrective steps where needed. Columbia is going through the greatest renaissance in our history. Innovista will transform our economy and create high wage jobs. The Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center and Hilton Hotel are bringing in tourists and conventions. We are creating new attractions such as EdVenture, the Three Rivers Greenway, and the historic Bethel AME Church Museum. The heart of Columbia, from the Riverfront, Downtown, Five Points, North Columbia, Two Notch Road to Read Street, has been revitalized. Private investment, both residential and commercial, has exploded. We have stronger neighborhoods with more residents, more homeowners, and greater home values in Columbia. We have achieved this growth with a commitment to diversity and inclusion. We have launched a new effort “Together We Can” to improve our public schools through greater community partnerships. This coming year will be an exciting though challenging time. Clear goals and our strategic plan will help us achieve success. 

Thank you,

Mayor Bob Coble
3333 Heyward Street
Columbia, South Carolina

Councilwoman Tameika Isaac Devine

McCain’s apology for his jerk supporter

27 Replies


Several things strike me as interesting about the incident yesterday in which John McCain ended up apologizing for and condemning a supporter who spoke before him at a campaign rally — some loudmouthed right-wing radio guy who kept using Barack Obama’s middle name and excoriating him and Democrats in general:

  • First, the headlines — in The Washington Post, it was "McCain Supporter Ridicules Obama. In The Wall Street Journal, it was "McCain Apologizes for a Supporter’s Attack on Obama." Not important; the difference in emphasis just struck me as interesting.
  • Second, this is going to keep happening. As "conservatives" (a word that jerks like this one don’t deserve) get over their snit and climb on board with the McCain campaign between now and November, they’re going to bring this kind of garbage with them. Ditto with the more angry, partisan Democrats who will start supporting Obama once it is clear that Hillary Clinton (such Democrats’ preferred candidate) is truly out of it.
  • Both McCain and Obama owe much of their appeal to a desire on the part of voters to put this kind of thing behind us as a country. As they try to consolidate their bases, bringing in the fulminators, independents will be watching both of them closely to see how they handle it. It will be quite a highwire act — two highwire acts, actually.
  • This one was handled fairly well, on both sides. McCain said what he said, and Obama’s spokesman said, "We appreciate Senator McCain’s remarks. It is a sign that if there is a McCain-Obama general election, it can be intensely competitive but the candidates will attempt to keep it respectful and focused on issues."

That’s what I’m hoping for, at least.

Contact report: Hugh Leatherman

15 Replies

One thing I need to do is catch up on some recent meetings I haven’t let y’all know about, before I get too far behind. I’ll mention this chance encounter from this morning now:

I ran into Sen. Hugh Leatherman this morning at breakfast and sat with him for awhile to kick over a number of topics — national and state politics, what’s happening in Florence, etc.

Two things stand out in my mind:

  1. We talked about endowed chairs. Sen. Leatherman is high on the program, but isn’t convinced that the cap has to be raised. Mind you, he’s certainly not persuaded by any of the governor’s objections, which seem to him off-base. The governor chops at trees, but has never bought into the forest (although he IS into preservation of wilderness, so maybe that’s a bad metaphor). But the Senate Finance Chairman sees a way to make sure future chairs are funded without lifting the cap. He briefly explained it, but I confess I didn’t fully understand it, and didn’t want to detain him all morning trying to. It’s a good topic for further inquiry.
  2. I was reminded at various points in the conversation, as I am so often in speaking with the General Assembly’s Republican leadership, about how frustrated they are trying to deal with the governor day-to-day. Conversations such as this one flesh out the substance of such stories as this one in The Post and Courier today, about the governor’s efforts to stack the Legislature in his image. To serious, responsible lawmakers, having one Mark Sanford is enough of a burden; they don’t need any clones. Note this quote from the Charleston story: "If someone ran against Senator Leatherman, I’d probably support them." Who said that? Mark Sanford. So we’re not just talking paranoia here.

Another county heard from on endowed chairs

12 Replies

Tenenbaumsamuel

Samuel Tenenbaum (pictured above, back when he was running Columbia’s Katrina relief effort) hipped me to this editorial from over in Anderson this morning. An excerpt:

    We’re puzzled by Gov. Mark Sanford’s estimation of the effectiveness of endowed chairs for research, especially considering his usually forward-thinking positions on technology and economic development.
    Last week, Mr. Sanford encouraged House lawmakers to reconsider a proposal that removes the cap on lottery proceeds for the Centers of Economic Excellence program…..
    Before the lottery became official in South Carolina, we questioned whether endowed chairs were the best use of funds. But it’s clear that transforming our state into one that is in the forefront of research into health care, automotives and other economic development opportunities could not have gotten this far without the financial boost from lottery proceeds.
    For once, South Carolina is thinking not just about what next year might bring but what could develop in five years or 10 years or even 20 years in the future as a result of research efforts right here at home.

Frankly, I’m puzzled as to  why the Anderson paper is puzzled. Maybe it’s because it labors under the mistaken impression that Mr. Sanford "usually" manifests "forward-thinking positions on technology and economic development." Where they got that, I don’t know. If he’s done that, I must have been looking somewhere else at the time. His pattern ranges from neutral to hostile when it comes to ecodevo investments. If you’ll recall, his first big move in that arena came in his first month in office, when he put the brakes on Clemson’s I-CAR program. Soon after being hit by a tsunami of outrage from Upstate leaders, he let the project go ahead. Here’s what the chair of our endowed chairs board had to say Sunday about what that project has produced:

For instance, the endowed chairs program is a central component of the Clemson International Center for Automotive Research. The recruiting of three world-renowned experts in automotive engineering has already attracted major investment from companies such as BMW, Timken, Sun Microsystems and Michelin, and — all told more than $220 million in private investment and 500 jobs in the Upstate with an average salary of $75,000.

Also, here’s what BMW had to say recently about that partnership.

Again, as I said in my column Sunday, our governor doesn’t believe, deep down, in public investment in building our economy, whether we’re talking K-12 public schools or endowed chairs. He believes all that is needed for a robust economy is the right "soil conditions," which to him largely means reduced income taxes.

Finally, why did Samuel,  the head of the Energy Party’s think tank, bring this to my attention? Because Samuel is the father of endowed chairs. He came up with the idea of spending lottery funds this way, he fought to convince Gov. Jim Hodges to go along with it, and has fought ever since against short-sighted efforts in the Legislature to kill or curtail the program and spend the money on something more immediately politically appealing. Samuel also served on the endowed chairs board from its inception until Mark Sanford replaced him last year.

But while he may be a cheerleader without portfolio, he cheers just as loudly as ever, and for good reason. The endowed chairs program, his baby, offers a lot to cheer about — and will continue to do so, if it survives the likes of Mark Sanford.

Why would Sanford be a disastrous choice for McCain? Don’t get me started

31 Replies

Alternative headline I rejected: "Why I think Mark Sanford is a big phony." I considered that for one reason: It got a lot of attention the last time I applied that thought to a politician, and that’s what this situation calls for. The nonsense we’re hearing about Mark Sanford being considered as a running mate for John McCain is nothing but buzz — buzz that Mr. Sanford himself has carefully laid the groundwork for over the years, stroking media types inside the Beltway while neglecting South Carolina. It’s a thing without substance, amplified by Sunday talk shows. But in politics, buzz begets buzz, and before the volume on this particular noise rises too high, allow me to point out a few things.

Earlier today, I called someone I know who was close to the McCain campaign in South Carolina and said, "Consider this to be a crisis line call. I need you to reassure me of something very quickly…" The person I called laughed, and said, "I know exactly why you’re calling." This person had heard the buzz too, and thought it just as ridiculous as I did. He went on to say there was no way such a thing would happen. Good to hear. And it’s what I would expect to hear — there’s no way the John McCain I’ve described and praised in The State and in this forum could make such a mistake. But this is a matter of such import that I don’t believe in leaving anything to chance.

On the offhand slight risk that something like this could happen, let me offer just a few of the reasons why it shouldn’t. I’m not offering these in any order, so take them any way you like. Nor is this list all-inclusive. I’m just trying to get some of these things on the record:

  • Before putting Sanford on a long list, much less a short one, McCain should ask some of the true-blue conservative Republicans who helped him win the S.C. primary what they think. Start with House Speaker Bobby Harrell and Attorney General Henry McMaster. And demand that they be absolutely, brutally honest. Tell them not to let any misplaced notions about Reagan’s "11th commandment" get in the way. I haven’t asked either of them about this, but I suspect that the honest assessment of either of those leaders would lead to the same conclusion: Don’t even think about it.
  • It occurs to me that the first person Sen. McCain would ask would be Lindsey Graham. And in most things, that would be a wise call. But I submit that as smart as Lindsey Graham is, he has not been here in the trenches, watching with frustration as Mark Sanford has frittered away the very real chance he had of making a positive difference as governor. Don’t get me wrong — I think Sen. Graham’s honest assessment would ALSO be that he should steer clear of Sanford. I’m just saying that those who’ve had front-row seats right here in SC since 2002 have much more relevant, up-to-date information.
  • Some would superficially say Sanford would be a good match for McCain — aren’t they both "limited government" conservatives? But here’s the glaring difference: John McCain has devoted his life to public service, and believes in going to great lengths to make sure government performs its vital role in society as efficiently as possible. Mark Sanford is not a good-government guy (as we thought he was when we endorsed him in 2002). He is an anti-government guy. He exudes contempt for the public sector and all who devote themselves to it. This is something that it takes time with Sanford to understand. I didn’t realize it myself until he’d been in office several months. When it finally hit me, I confronted him about, saying essentially: You ran as a "conservative," but you’re not that at all. You’re a pure libertarian, with all that entails. He did not disagree. This may sound like I’m awfully slow on the uptake, and maybe I am. But it’s easy to be color-blind in this range. Modern conservatism tends to have its strongly libertarian components, so it’s easy to miss when a candidate or officeholder crosses the line into radical libertarianism, to the expense of commonsense conservatism. At least I began to realize it in his first year in office, and didn’t have to wait until he vetoed the entire state budget in 2006.
  • Let’s elaborate on that veto for a moment. It was a watershed event. If you had doubted where Sanford was coming from before, you would have no excuse for doing so afterward. I urge you to go back and read my column on the subject. In that veto, Mr. Sanford demonstrated more clearly than ever that being a hero to the Club for Growth is far, far more important to him than the business of actually governing South Carolina. If his veto had been upheld, there would have been no government in South Carolina — no highway patrol, no prison guards, no anything. Of course, Mr. Sanford will say that he knew the Legislature would override him. What that says is that he relied upon the Legislature to be responsible, using that confidence as license to make a supremely irresponsible, completely ideological gesture. In that moment, he threw away what little credibility he had earned with his obsessively detailed budgets, which we had praised for doing what the Legislature should do: Set priorities, holding some government functions as higher than others. All that was thrown away with a stroke of the pen, which told us all that was just so much abstract posturing. But the governor was just expressing his disillusionment with the process, you say? Well in that case, why not resign from office? That would make the point in a more dramatic, and more effective, way, without abdicating stewardship of the state.
  • But he wouldn’t do that — resign, that is — because that would mean he was no longer positioned to be picked as someone’s veep. And Mark Sanford’s tenure as governor all points to that being his motive. It makes sense of all that doesn’t add up otherwise. Take his supercilious manner toward the Legislature… Taking those two pigs into the lobby makes a great anecdote if your plan is to develop a national reputation as an anti-pork crusader. And if you did it after all other ways of communicating were exhausted, it might even have some validity. But ask the conservative Republican lawmakers who run General Assembly whether Mark Sanford has done the due diligence in trying to work for them to the betterment of South Carolina, and rest assured: The majority would say the stiff-arming contempt that was the central feature of the piglet publicity stunt reflects the governor’s default mode of dealing with lawmakers of his own party.
  • That contempt toward his own fellow Republicans should not be seen, in UnParty terms, as a potential virtue. Yes, it has tickled me at times to see how Mark Sanford sneers at party hoopla, despising parties as I do. But there is no upside to set alongside this contempt — no record of reaching out to, and working with, Democrats or independents, either. Sanford’s independence from his party is not that of the stalwart iconoclast, but of the radical individual who needs no one, and acts accordingly. The political career of Mark Sanford has been all about Mark Sanford. This is not that he is an egomaniac; it is that this is his philosophy. He thinks everyone should be equally focused on self, and private concerns.
  • An illustration of that point: Back during the 2002 campaign, I understood Mr. Sanford’s oft-stated wish to make South Carolina a better, more welcoming place for his sons to grow up in as being standard politicanspeak for, "I want to make South Carolina a better place for ALL children to grow up in." But no. If you look at his policy positions, he really meant HIS sons. And he wanted to advance policies that encouraged everyone to think first of advantages to them and their own, rather than to South Carolina as a whole. An illustration of THAT…
  • … Take his position with regard to education. First, he has no interest in PUBLIC education whatsoever. One of his two great policy priorities (the other is reducing the income tax, to which I will return) is to divert state funds to pay people to take their kids out of public schools, thereby reducing public support for the schools, which leads to less funding, which leads to the reduction of the one biggest item in the state budget. His ideological defenders would say, "No, it’s not about STATE funds; it’s about letting taxpayers keep their OWN money." But that speaks to my point. The governor and his ideological ilk look at public policy as CONSUMERS, not as CITIZENS. A consumer holds to the ridiculous notion that the taxes a parent pays toward supporting public schools are a sort of user fee; therefore if the parent sends HIS kids to private school or homeschools, he shouldn’t have to pay the taxes. But folks, public schools don’t exist merely as a service to the kids who attend them at a given moment, or to their families. If they did, we wouldn’t HAVE public schools, since only about a quarter of taxpayers have kids in the schools at any given time. We have public schools because universal education is a crucial goal of the society as a whole. We have public schools in order to create an educated society, so we have people with skills to fill the overwhelming majority of jobs in the state. We have the schools so that kids have a chance of becoming informed, constructive citizens, voters and taxpayers, rather than rotting away on street corners or in prison. On the most basic level, we have them so that all of us — from toddlers to retirees — can live in safe, prosperous communities, rather than in a Somalia-like environment of despair. And it is one of those few things that the market would never, ever provide on its own, because only society as a whole — rather than private actors — can profit from providing universal education (as opposed to targeted service to segments of the market, which can be profitable to a provider.)
  • To repeat a point I made in my column Sunday, this same kind of Philosophy of the Self is what informs the governor’s other great policy priority: Cutting the state income tax. Our Legislature is full of conservatives who LOVE cutting taxes, but relatively few of them would cite the governor’s choice — the income tax — as their priority. For one thing, it’s not relatively high. But the governor chooses that one for reasons related to what someone at the state Chamber of Commerce once said to me about the S.C. Policy Council: It doesn’t speak for business, or anyone who is creating jobs or might create jobs and wealth for the community. It speaks for people who have put all that behind them, who have made their pile and just want to shelter it from taxes. So would the governor’s approach to tax policy. This is also his economic development policy, almost entirely. He simply does not believe in the government investing in anything like endowed chairs; he believes the way to stimulate the economy is to make this a more attractive place for those who place legal tax evasion first and foremost.
  • Nothing Mark Sanford has done in his life, in either the public or private sector (and he’s spent very little time in the latter, so no balance for the ticket there), demonstrates any qualification or aptitude to be serve as president, should it come to that.

Disregard all political considerations for a moment: For the reasons above, and many more, placing Mark Sanford a heartbeat away from the presidency would be a great disservice to the nation. But if you want to consider the politics:

  • If McCain can’t win South Carolina without Sanford on his ticket, he should quit now. While I believe Barack Obama would break the patter of recent decades to campaign here (after the turnout he inspired in the primary, he could hardly do less than to put in an appearance) and would have an outside chance, it would still be McCain’s to lose. And Hillary "Old School" Clinton wouldn’t even try here.
  • McCain should never make the mistake of thinking Mark Sanford is the kind of guy who would get him in good with the portion of the base that he needs to win over. Think about it: Who is it that GOP voters have been voting for as the McCain alternative? Mike Huckabee. Gov. Huckabee is, on many levels, the opposite of Mark Sanford. Consider this one aspect: Mark Sanford is the hero of the Club for Growth, for all of the reasons I cited above — they love a guy who prefers anti-government posturing to governing, and their membership tends to consist of kinds of people who are independently wealthy to the degree that they see themselves as not needing the rest of society, and wonder what value other see in any sort of government. Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee is anathema to the Club for Growth, and the feeling is mutual — he calls it the Club for Greed.
  • The rise of Gov. Huckabee to the point of becoming the ONLY Republican alternative to Sen. McCain reflects a yearning in the base for something Mark Sanford could not satisfy. Mike Huckabee is no country-club conservative, but — as he puts it himself — a Boys and Girls-Club conservative. He is someone who shares the appreciation that ordinary people have for society’s institutions and the important role that they play in our lives. He knows that regular folks rely on institutions — including government — to provide things that mere individualism cannot offer. This is why he was even willing to go along with a tax increase to make sure the state adequately provided the basic services citizens rely upon. As he also says, Mr. Huckabee reminds voters of the guy they work with. The Club for Growth is like Mitt Romney — it looks like the guy who wants to lay them off.
  • What’s the one issue that has been most damaging to McCain this year? It’s illegal immigration, and the huge resentment of it out in the base. Is Mark Sanford a likely spokesman for that resentment? Of course not. That’s not a Club for Growth, fat-cat type of issue by any stretch. Once again, Huckabee would be a far more likely asset in this regard. (But don’t think this is about pushing Huckabee — it’s just that he’s the guy most often mentioned, so he comes first to mind, and when he does, he stands head-and-shoulders above Sanford on point after point.)
  • McCain would have good reason to want to counter an Obama candidacy with someone younger and more representative of "change." But Mark Sanford is one of the few people he might choose who actually have less in the way of accomplishments in public office than Sen. Obama. And remember that there is an inspirational, populist element in the appeal of Obama (and of Huckabee as well). Sanford would not bring that. As lacking in success as his tenure as governor has been, it looks better than his six years in Congress. All he accomplished there was making headlines for sleeping on his futon — a fact that perfectly encapsulates his career (plenty penny-pinching publicity stunts, few actual accomplishments).
  • Remember, we’re not talking about a guy who achieved a lot in the private sector, either. He managed to make a nice little pile without having a big impact on the business world, and then he essentially retired. Sanford is no Mitt Romney. Sanford has spent most of his last two decades in public office; if he hasn’t accomplished anything in public office, what has he accomplished? The answer: not much.
  • An argument could be made that a governor would help balance the ticket. And for a longtime senator, that’s true. But why this governor? Why a governor who is essentially an anti-governor? Why not someone like the governor of Florida, who not only could help deliver a critical swing state (remember the election of 2000), but who actually supported the McCain campaign when it counted.
  • That brings me to my last point for the moment (I know I’m leaving things out, but at some point I’ve got to go home for the day). In classic Mark Sanford style, our governor sat out the recent primary. At a time when both U.S. senators and other top Republicans laid their reputations on the line stating preferences at a critical moment in our state’s and nation’s history, at a time when most Republicans in the state were working as hard as they could for the candidate of their choice, Mark Sanford kept his theoretical options open by staying out of it. His apathy was palpable. There was nothing in it for Mark Sanford, so why make the gesture. Far better to choose someone who endorsed ANOTHER candidate (that could at least add balance) than someone who did not care whom was nominated.

I’m sure that the above rambling list will add to further discussion, and I will have additional points to make. For now I will close with the thought that there is a galaxy of reasons why Mark Sanford would be an awful choice for veep, and no good reasons to the contrary. Y’all take it from there.

Sanford fails to derail progress — this time

51 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
LATE WEDNESDAY, I thought I had come up with an excuse to say something encouraging about Gov. Mark Sanford.
    Such opportunities come so seldom that I didn’t want this idea to get away from me. I sent a note to my colleagues to enlist their help in remembering: “Should we do some kind of attaboy on the governor using his bully pulpit for this good cause (as opposed to some of the others he is wont to push)?” I was referring to his efforts to jawbone the Legislature into meaningful reform of our DUI law.
    Moments later, I read the governor’s guest column on our op-ed page about a flat tax, which was his latest attempt to slip through an income tax cut, which at times seems to be the only thing he cares about doing as governor. This chased thoughts of praise from my mind.
    For the gazillionth time, he cited Tom Friedman in a way that would likely mortify the columnist and author. His “argument,” if you want to call it that: Since The World Is Flat, folks on the other side of the world are going to get ahead of us if we take a couple of hours to pull together our receipts and file a tax return. Really. “Rooting around shoeboxes of receipts” once a year was going to do us in. (And never mind the fact that most paperwork is done on the federal return, with the state return piggybacking on that.)
    Then, he argued that his plan for cutting the income tax (which was his point, not avoiding the onerous filing) was necessary to offset a proposed cigarette tax increase. The alternative would be “to grow government,” which is how he describes using revenue to get a three-to-one federal match to provide health care for some of our uninsured citizens.
    Here in the real world, folks want to raise our lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax to price the coffin nails beyond the means of teenagers. Everybody who has in any way participated in conversations at the State House about the issue over the last several years knows this. Yet the governor of our state, who seems only to have conversations with himself, can ask this about raising that tax: “(W)hat for, more government or a lower-tax option?” In his narrowly limited version of reality, those are the only considerations.
    But enough about that essay from an alternative dimension. What I read on the front page the next morning drove it from my mind: “Sanford: ‘Endowed chairs’ a failure.” It was about his latest attack on one of the few really smart, strategic moves this state has made in the past decade.
    It’s the one good thing to come out of Gov. Jim Hodges’ execrable state lottery. (I used to struggle to come up with good things to say about him, too, but this was one such thing.) The scholarships? We were doing that without the lottery, and would have expanded them without the lottery except Gov. Hodges vetoed that bill (because he wanted a lottery).
    But a small chunk of the new “chump tax” was set aside to provide seed money to attract some of the best and brightest minds to South Carolina, and put them to work building our economy. Gov. Sanford has never liked this idea, because he doesn’t like the state to invest in the future in any appreciable way apart from land conservation (which is a fine idea, but hardly a shot in the arm to the economy). He believes we don’t need to invest more in education, or research, or even our Department of Commerce, which he takes such pride in having trimmed. His entire “economic development” plan is to cut the income tax. This attracts folks who have already made their pile and are looking for a tax haven in which to hide it, and makes him a hero to the only political entity in the nation that sees him as a hot property: the Club for Growth, whose president showed just how out of touch that group is with even the Republican portion of the electorate by suggesting John McCain pick Mr. Sanford as his running mate.
    The thing that made this outburst from the governor particularly galling is that on Wednesday, I had met Jay Moskowitz, the new head of Health Sciences South Carolina — a consortium of universities and hospitals teaming together to make our state healthier, both physically and economically.
    Dr. Moskowitz is the former deputy director of the National Institutes of Health, and most recently held a stack of impressive titles at Penn State, including “chief scientific officer.” He made it clear that he would not be here if not for the endowed chairs program. Nor would others. He spoke of the top people he’s recruited in his few months here, who have in turn recruited others, an example of the “cascade of people that are going to be recruited with each of these chairs.”
    These folks aren’t just coming to buy a few T-shirts at the beach and leave. They’re here to make their home, and to build their new home into the kind of place that will attract other creative minds. The endowed chairs program is the principal factor that convinces them to pull up stakes and make the effort. “I had a wonderful job in Pennsylvania,” said Dr. Moskowitz, and he wouldn’t have left it without believing that South Carolina was committed to moving forward on a broad research front.
    He doesn’t say it this way, but it’s obvious he wouldn’t have come if he had thought Mark Sanford’s “leave it alone” approach was typical of our state’s leadership.
    Fortunately, it is not. The S.C. House, led by Speaker Bobby Harrell, rose up in response to the governor’s naysaying and voted unanimously to extend the endowed chairs program.
    This is a moment of high irony for me. For 17 years I’ve pushed to give more power to South Carolina’s governor because our state so badly needed visionary leadership, and I thought there was little reason to expect it would come from our Legislature.
    But on Thursday, it did. And if the Senate has the wisdom to follow suit, your children and my grandchildren will have reason to be grateful.

Obama: ‘Those old categories don’t work’

15 Replies

Obama_2008_wart3

Further continuing the conversation that we continued here…

As you know, I’ve challenged the facile use of the word "conservative." My point is, you can’t just say "I’m conservative" or "he’s not conservative" and have it mean anything. You have to explain, conservative how — in what way? Because alone, the word has had the meaning leached out of it.

Similarly, the word "liberal." This is an excellent video clip of Barack Obama fielding questions about having been judged the Senate’s "most liberal" member. He does a pretty fair job of deconstructing the term, and then goes on to the more important point: "This is the old politics. This is the stuff that we’re trying to get rid of."

He is speaking to… what? … the real split in American politics, between the old-style partisan warriors that we swing voters long ago got sick of, and those who would lead a different kind of pragmatic, results-oriented discussion of issues.

Clinton_2008_wart2

The real split in American politics

74 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
LATE ON SUPER Tuesday, I was typing on my blog in one room while Hillary Clinton was addressing her supporters on the TV in another.
    I couldn’t hear every word, but the ones that did cut through were telling:

    Now, we know the Republicans won’t give up the White House without a fight. Well, let me be clear — I won’t let anyone swift boat this country’s future.

    “Republicans.” “Fight.” “Swift boat.” Terms calculated to stir the blood of the Angry Faithful. Then, later: “Together, we’re going to take back America.”
    There was kinder, gentler stuff (if I’m allowed to borrow language from that other side) in the speech, about health care for all and supporting our veterans and helping the powerless. But Barack Obama talks about that stuff, too. Since these primaries are about choosing one or the other, one listens for the differences.
    Between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, the difference lies in those fighting words. It’s a difference set out with great clarity in a recent letter to the editor in this newspaper:

    …(W)hile Sen. Barack Obama is an incredible orator and inspires hope for a post-partisan future, the reality of American politics is partisan. Astute voters realize this and want the candidate who is best suited to fight the Republican Party. Hillary Clinton and her team have gone toe-to-toe with the Republicans and beaten them more often than not.

    The reality of American politics is partisan. And Barack Obama is running on a platform of changing that reality. So, in his own way, is John McCain.
    The Democrats to whom Sen. Clinton appeals don’t despise Sen. Obama (they save that for Republicans), but they don’t see him as having his blood sufficiently up for doing battle with the “enemy.” And they’re right.
    Consider what Sen. Obama said in South Carolina on the night of his primary victory:

    We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents… it’s the kind of partisanship where you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea — even if it’s one you never agreed with. That’s the kind of politics that is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

    In the Republican camp, Sen. McCain has done more than just talk about moving beyond mindless partisanship; he’s risked his political future repeatedly to work with Democrats to achieve goals that put country before party. Last week, he asked the Angry Faithful in his party to “calm down,” and defended his habit of working across the aisle. Self-appointed spokesman for the Angry Faithful Rush Limbaugh responded:

    When did the measure of conservatism… become reaching out to Democrats?… If this were a war, what we’re saying is, “Enemy, come on in, and come be who you are when you get here.”… We view those people as threats to the American way of life, as we’ve always known it…. We view them as people who need to be defeated, not worked with.

    The truly great irony here is that the Angries on the left and the right do work together. In their pas de deux of mutual loathing, they cling to each other so tightly that there’s no room for anyone who’d like to separate them and create a space for rational discourse, or — the gods of left and right forbid — agreement on issues.
    Here’s an example of how the left’s Angries work with their counterparts on the right: The left emotionally demands stem cell research, as Sen. Clinton did in her speech Tuesday. The right cries, No, Never! Ignored are such facts as a) stem cell research is going on, just without federal funding in some areas; b) recent breakthroughs could make embryonic stem cells, the kind being fought over, irrelevant; and c) the man Sen. Clinton seeks to face in the fall, John McCain, favors broadened stem cell research.
    Another example: Last week, the leftists of the Berkeley, Calif., city council dissed the U.S. Marines. Eager warriors on the right (such as our own Rep. Joe Wilson and Sen. Jim DeMint) practically fell over themselves rushing to denounce the Berkeley council. The Marines are a great bogeyman for the loonies in Berkeley; Berkeley is a rare, juicy steak to the right. Call me paranoid, but sometimes I suspect the two sides of working out these stunts between them ahead of time. Everybody comes out on top, except the Marines — and somehow I think the guys who took Iwo Jima will overcome this as well.
    There is indeed a stark divide in this country, but it’s not between the Angry Left and the Angry Right. They just prop each other up. Collectively, they are both the Other Side to me, striving to distract us from realizing the central truth that we’re all in this together.
    On the one hand are the Clinton Democrats and the Republicans who sincerely would rather see Sen. Clinton elected than Sen. McCain. They depend upon each other. They deserve each other.
    The rest of us believe we deserve, for once, a presidential election between candidates who care more about solutions than whether left or right “wins.”
    This is not about affirming some “mushy middle.” You can hardly find two positions farther apart that the McCain and Obama views on Iraq. They have very different ideas on how to fight America’s enemies abroad. But at least neither of them sees the main “enemy” as being their fellow Americans who happen to disagree.

A dialogue about Hillary

23 Replies

Hello Mr. Warthen:

    Thank you for your reply. I posted to this effect in response to the blog entry in question, the one along the lines of "Watch Out, Hillary’s in Victim Mode." With all due respect, I feel it was totally unprofessional, snarky and uncalled for. Several others flamed you for it in the comments section, and you replied apologetically, to your credit, to one of them – "redd," I think it was.
    As I said in a second comment, in response to your apology of sorts, I know Mrs. Clinton. I had the pleasure of working on her campaign staff in 1992 on the Clinton-Gore ’92 campaign. She was kind, gracious, courteous and considerate to us several young ‘uns from around the country who had dropped everything to come help her and him. I have seen a side of her you most likely have not. She is not a two-dimensional cartoon villainess. She is a very bright, forceful, intense advocate for the causes in which she believes, and yes, she can be tough as nails. When was the last time that was a fault in a political leader.
    I could go on – but the notion that she is somehow evil and that Obama is pure as the driven snow is a bit much to take. Did you see where he turned his back on her last night, even as she had the good grace to extend a hand in friendship and good grace to Sen. Kennedy, who had just endorsed him? Do you forgive his campaign for fanning the flames of a race war so as to win South Carolina, based on Bill Clinton calling his claims of purity on the Iraq War a "fairy tale"?
    All I am saying is they’re both playing tough, at times dirty political hardball. Neither campaign is peopled with saints. They will, however, either of them, almost certainly do a better job than has Mr. Bush, given the opportunity. Be fair. That’s all. Personal invective of the sort you directed toward her should be beneath someone of your station.
    My two cents.

                            Christopher A. Stratton, Esq.
                            West Hartford, CT

From: Warthen, Brad – External Email
To: Christopher Stratton
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:00 PM
Subject: RE: Who’s the real victim?

    Thanks for going to the trouble to further share your thoughts (mind if I post them?).
    I think if you go back before this past week, you won’t find a whole lot of criticism of Sen. Clinton from me. The closest you’ll find will be my column openly worrying about the fact that a Clinton nomination would worsen polarization in the country. And if you can spot anything "snarky" in that — anything other than what I just said, an expression of concern (my distaste for our nation’s increasing partisan divisions is long-established).
    Over the past week, however, I’ve formed an increasingly negative impression. You can probably track it day by day on my blog. It really got started AFTER our editorial board meeting with Obama. I’ve just been more and more alarmed at the idea of her winning the nomination, and more and more glad we chose Obama.
    Maybe the things I’m reacting to were always there; or maybe it’s stepped up in the past week (which seems to be the conventional wisdom). Or maybe before last week, I was just trying so hard not to choose between them before our meetings that I let a lot of stuff slide. I don’t know. I do know that I’ve taken a different tone the past week, and that it reflects what I’ve been thinking…

Hello Again, Mr. Warthen:
    I very much appreciate your kindly following up on my thoughts and comments, and I respect that your general bent appears to be more deliberative and thoughtful than the taunt against Sen. Clinton which was my introduction to you. And yes, of course, please feel free to post my remarks from the prior e-mail below.
    I think the difficulty here is the translation between the more private, extraordinarily decent Hillary I have seen up close on several occasions and the sometimes over-intense Hillary that comes across in public. I think she may not see herself as the world sees her (as is true for so many of us, but for so few of us does it matter so much as it does for her). She has certain natural tendencies which don’t come off super well before a broad audience. She is a very, very intense figure. She is brilliantly intelligent and passionately committed to her causes. And she has the courage and the confidence of her convictions. And because of the courage and confidence, she ordinarily trusts her natural reactions, which at times are, to put it bluntly, to kick fanny and take names – to vanquish her opponent via sheer intelligence and intensity, in the first instance, and by other means at times as well. This is a role that suited her well as the wife of a major political figure, a sort of enforcer for her husband and an intellectual heavyweight who could also simply outsmart and out-argue dadgum near any foe.
    Now, though, those tendencies can come off as over-intense and scary when she is gunning to be the top dog in our country – and in the world for that matter. I think she may be starting to see that, but she is having to feel her way through this minefield in front of the entire world and is not extraordinarily sure-footed about it, and this has somewhat shaken her confidence – she doesn’t know when to trust her instincts and when not to. Add to that that she is up against an opponent who, sheerly as a stump salesman and presence, has the agility and grace of a lead dancer in the New York City Ballet. (The problem I have with Mr. Obama, whom I admire greatly and sincerely, is not with his talent, it’s with his seasoning, his reliability, his depth of experience and understanding. For me, Hillary is money in the bank on policy, a deeply smart, sensible, practical hand. Oddly enough, it is a bit of a conservative, cautious streak in me that is part of why I am supporting her. Personal loyalty is part of the equation for me, but by no means all.)
    Speaking of personal loyalty, Mr. W, please note that it is no coincidence that so many people who work or have worked for Sen. Clinton are fiercely loyal, and it’s not due to some brainwashing regimen, to that I can personally attest. She is extraordinarily gracious, courteous, respectful, considerate and loyal. She is a very fine friend to have and is widely loved, not merely liked, by those who spend more than a little time in contact with her. I have heard it said many times that people who have known them both have a pronounced tendency to favor her over her husband, and – remember – it was he who long ago said, back when they were finishing law school, that she, not he, should be the one who ran someday for president. I think he was deeply wise on many levels in that insight. (I think he was a very fine president on policy, by and large, but I think his personal flaws and weaknesses – and not just the philandering business – greatly undermined what could have been a far more successful presidency than it was.)
    So, catching my breath here for a moment, if she does win election to the presidency, Mr. W, I think Ms. Clinton will diligently and energetically do the rather extensive clean-up job that our federal government needs. She, better than nearly anyone, knows the extent of the damage and the fixes and repairs that need to be put into place across the broad expanse of our federal government. She will pursue these improvements and repairs with great energy, consideration and intelligence. With utmost respect, I do not believe Senator Obama can match her in these regards. She is, in my considered opinion, on balance, the better choice, but that is not to say that others cannot reasonably disagree. (I would, though, so love to see a ticket headed by her with him as the VP and still and yet hold out hope that this can happen – remember Sen. Kerry rather disliked Sen. Edwards and JFK and LBJ were not exactly chums.)
    Lastly, what I have difficulty abiding is numerous supporters of Sen. Obama’s viewing this as a clear cut, obvious choice between good and evil. It is not, and that is foolish. There are too many people whose tempers are running too hot. I hope we can heal this rift in our party, to which both sides have contributed far too much. It is highly counterproductive.
    That’s my bit for tonight.

                            Cheers,

                            Christopher A. Stratton, Esq.
                            West Hartford, CT

Kathleen Sebelius sounds kind of like UnParty material

20 Replies

Obama_sebelius_wart

Until a couple of days ago, I had never heard of Kathleen Sebelius. That may seem odd since I once had charge of the political reporters at the largest newspaper in Kansas. But that was more than 20 years ago, and I long ago shook the dust of that place from my shoes, thank the Lord.

Then on Sunday, I heard this advance feature on NPR about Gov. Sebelius, who was to give the Democratic response to the State of the Union address. I was ready to be displeased in principle, because I’ve always thought those responses to be an offensive institution in practice as well as in theory. The Constitution requires a state of the union message. The "response" is just partisanship for partisanship’s sake; it has existed mainly to have an argument.

But I was pleased at what I heard about this governor who has "spent years learning how to get along with her political opponents," and the piece on the radio seemed to promise something different this time, more along the collaborative lines of the recent economic stimulus deal.

Then came her actual response the next night, which is worth reading. An excerpt:

Good evening. I’m Kathleen Sebelius, governor of the state of Kansas, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. I’m a Democrat, but tonight it really doesn’t matter whether you think of yourself as a Democrat or a Republican or an independent or none of the above…

And so I want to take a slight detour from tradition on this State of the Union night. In this time, normally reserved for a partisan response, I hope to offer something more: An American response. A national call to action on behalf of the struggling families in the heartland and across this great country. A wake-up call to Washington, on behalf of a new American majority, that time is running out on our opportunities to meet our challenges and solve our problems….

Nice beginning. You’ve got this UnPartisan’s attention. Sure, she goes on to give a challenge to the president that is very Democratic in nature, and he as a Republican is bound to take exception to parts of it. And sure, she gets in the usual antiwar licks. But she presents it all in terms that an independent like myself can respect, instead of spewing the usual vile mess we hear out of Washington. I’ve got no problem with Democrats and Republicans setting different sorts of ideas out in competition with one another. I just want them to do it in a way that doesn’t make me want to turn a hose on them.

So — lots of UnParty points for Gov. Sebelius. How could she top that?

Like this: by endorsing Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president who embodies the same kind of "One Country" approach that she tried to invoke in her address Monday night.

The only way she could possibly top herself would be to endorse John McCain as well, he being the natural Republican counterpart of Sen. Obama. Sure, I know that’s asking a bit much, like whipped cream on top of hard candy. But just think: If she did that, we’d have to give her the UnParty nomination for president on the spot!

Sebelius_state_of_the_wart

Vincent Sheheen’s plan to revamp state gummint

3 Replies

Vincent_004

 

State Sen. Vincent Sheheen came by to explain his government restructuring plan, which he wrote about recently in this op-ed piece.

The significance of Vincent’s initiative (and I call him “Vincent” on account of knowing his daddy and his uncle before I knew him) is that it constitutes a credible, worthwhile government restructuring approach from within the General Assembly, the place where governor’s plans generally go to die.

Over the years, I’ve generally just given the legislative side of restructuring a lick and a promise when I write about restructuring. In the Legislative State, lawmakers can already do pretty much anything they have a mind to do, whereas the executive has been kept purposefully too weak to perform its constitutional role. Back when I did the Power Failure series, I referred to the fact that the Legislature would need to be more serious about advice and consent, and to a lesser extent oversight, if the executive were empowered to do its job. But that always seemed to me a secondary consideration, one that only became important after you do the executive.

Vincent’s idea is to stress the legislative part every bit as much as the executive, if not more so. His Government Accountability Act of 2008 would formalize lawmaker’s oversight of executive agencies, making legislative hearings looking into agencies’ performance more routine. What would be the virtue in that? Well, everybody about had a cow over the recent legislative probe into the Corrections Department, and with good reason — several good reasons, in fact. The unusual investigation WAS politically motivated, legislators didn’t have the staff to do a relevant critique and the Legislature as a whole hasn’t budgeted responsibly for corrections in many years.

Vincent’s proposal would make hearings standard operating procedure, which would lower the stakes when they happen, and thereby help lower defensiveness. Committees would have staff (an expense, but cheaper than the kind of waste it might prevent) to do a professional job in reviewing agency procedures and budgets. And the committees doing the probing would be the same ones responsible for a rational, programmatic budget for the agency. Rather than having a single committee do all the budget work, the committees with oversight authority would bring their expertise to bear to draft more realistic budgets, agency by agency.

As for the executive revamp, there are three main items:

  1. Create an Inspector General’s office empowered to look into just about anything in the executive branch, with independence from the governor.
  2. Eliminate three constitutional officers — not the ones that it makes the most sense to eliminate (such a list would include Education Superintendent and Adjutant General), but the ones that Vincent thinks most doable, given the proclivities of the Legislature: Comptroller General, Secretary of State, and Commissioner of Agriculture. (Basically, what this would constitute would be a start.)
  3. Takes purely administrative functions away from the Budget and Control Board, and vests them in a new Department of Administration. The constitutionally hermaphroditic board would still, inappropriately, have power to make policy decisions.

There’s a lot I would change in this, and a lot farther I would go, but this plan has one virtue over anything Gov. Sanford or anyone else has proposed lately: political viability.

At least, I hope it does. If we can’t do this much, we’ll never have responsible, accountable government in this state.

Race doesn’t matter!

28 Replies

Since I was doing the live gig at ETV last night, I missed a lot of the action at the Obama victory rally. I heard his wonderful speech, and that was about it.

But afterwards, I spoke to Inez Tenenbaum, and it seems I missed a lot that it would have been great to have witnessed. One, which I’ll just mention and move on, was when Bill Clinton appeared on a screen and the crowd booed, probably the only negative moment in that night of joy. But it marked an important moment, in terms of S.C. Democrats rejecting the kind of hyperpartisan, do-anything-to-win approach to politics that the former president, Sen. Clinton, and their supporters (think Don Fowler) embodied. As Inez said, "Would you ever have imagined a crowd of South Carolina Democrats booing Bill Clinton?" Until last week, no.

But that sour note just served to emphasize the alternative that had just been embraced so emphatically by South Carolina voters — the joy, the hope, the welcoming, the affirmation that filled the hearts of the hundreds of thousands who came out to vote for Barack Obama.

And that led to what had to be the high point of the night — indeed, a high point in South Carolina history: That room full of people, black and white, young and old — but predominantly young — chanting "Race doesn’t matter! Race doesn’t matter!"

People who had long been involved in struggling to make South Carolina a better place for all people, only to be disappointed so many times as things dissolved in acrimony, looked at each other in disbelief, with chills running down their spines. They truly never thought they would see the day.

This was more than just a bunch of charged-up supporters giving a team cheer. It was THE message of the day. A half million people had turned out, thousands upon thousands of them who had never voted before or hadn’t voted in years because they were so turned off by politics as usual, and the overwhelming majority had chosen the man who embodies the fact that race doesn’t matter. He embodies it in his own life — a man with a white mother and a black, immigrant father, who grew up in Hawaii (and if you haven’t lived in Hawaii — I graduated from high school there — you can’t imagine the degree to which our whole mainland black-vs.-white thing makes NO sense to the people of the islands) and abroad, a man who can’t be pegged, either in his skin or his mind or soul, as being THIS or THAT.

And he embodies it in his message, as he so eloquently encapsulated in his victory speech (and as soon as I get the full text I’ll post it here).

They were, in advance, repudiating the divisive, identity-politics, racist message that the Clintons will try to see between now and Super Tuesday (I understand that Bill has already said something like well, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, too, as I had predicted he would). The very fact that the man whose message was the Race Doesn’t Matter got 80 percent of the black vote speaks volumes. That that was the chant in this moment of victory — rather than some cry of triumph on the part of blacks, or women (the majority of whom ALSO went for Obama), or any other demographic group — marked this as a tremendous moment in American history.

And that it happened HERE, in South Carolina, where once the majority of the state’s population was enslaved, where the Civil War started, where so many live in deep, inherited poverty, after all the scorn we have had to endure from the rest of the country over our race-based pathologies — what a wonderful, triumphant day for the people of this state!

Yesterday, we overcame so much. Thank God for this. We have overcome so much. Now, South Carolina has set the most positive example that can be set for the rest of the nation. I pray that the rest of the nation will understand the message. It has to; it just has to.

Because Race Doesn’t Matter!

Yeah, but what did Thomas Jefferson know?

15 Replies

My old friend Bud Ferillo, an Obama supporter (and coiner of "Corridor of Shame") who was quoted in this Bob Herbert column, has shared with me a note he sent to David Broder, whom he says he has "known pleasantly for years":

Dear David:

    Long time no hear. Hope you are well.
    I read your piece on South Carolina and agree that this is a must win state for Obama who I am supporting enthusiastically. I think the black vote is breaking heavily for him and should provide a double digit win, even though Bill Clinton will be here most of the week. Obama is stumping the state solidly. You’d think he was running for Governor of SC with four appearances a day set through Thursday. Hillary has left until Friday. I expect they’ll spin SC as a race based vote and continue that labeling to discount the results.
     Early voting here in Richland County (seniors over 65 can vote 30 days prior to a primary or election and absentee voting is easily done) is extremely heavy. I stood in a line for 75 minutes to cast my ballot today and was one of  very few whites to do so. Also standing in line for an hour was 85 year old Federal Judge Matthew Perry: we agreed that voting in SC is still an arduous task!
    My reason for writing, other than to say hello, is to address the charge that Obama does not have the experience to be president.
    I sat down today – with the knowledge that he has 8 years of elected office in the Illinois legislature and three years in the US Senate for 11 years in total years in elected office – and Wikipedia’ed (new verb) earlier presidents.
    My report is this and I am somewhat surprised that no one has mentioned this: Obama has more time in elected office than the following individuals before they were elected President: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln ( only 2 years in the US House), Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Franklin D.Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. (I quit my research with these but there are probably more US Presidents who meet the experience test than those I have listed.) And … to top it off … more time in elected office than Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
    Is this not worth some attention? What the hell am I missing?

    Hale to the Redskins!

Bud/

I think Bud meant "hail to the Redskins" there. And I don’t so much mind him running down Thomas Jefferson like that, but I’m a John Adams man from way back. I think we have to consider the crucial job he did representing our nation in both Paris and London during the Revolution. Sort of counts for more than routine elective service, I’d say.

We endorse Barack Obama

31 Replies

Here’s a link to The State editorial board’s endorsement of Barack Obama, folks. As promised, we put it up on thestate.com early. Formally, it will appear in the paper on Wednesday’s editorial page.

Please read it, and react. Needless to say, elaboration follows — in column and video form, as we did with the Republicans.

To read my column about how our board’s discussion of the endorsement, click here.

For a video clip of me talking about the endorsement, click here.

This time, a quick consensus

25 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
THIS TIME eight years ago, The State’s editorial board faced a choice in the S.C. Republican primary between a visionary, “maverick” lawmaker with an inspiring resume and a governor who said he’d take the CEO approach, delegating the vision to the team he would build. We chose the self-described executive type, much to our later regret.
    This time, we’re going with the hero.
    Our board — Publisher Henry Haitz; Associate Editors Warren Bolton, Cindi Scoppe and Mike Fitts; and I — sat down Friday morning and deliberated for about 90 minutes before emerging with a clear and unequivocal consensus: We like former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee a lot, but we have no doubt that Sen. John McCain is better-prepared to be our commander in chief.
    As our lead editor on national affairs, Mike framed the discussion, speaking at length about each of the Republicans. As others joined in, it quickly became apparent that each of us had reached very similar conclusions.
    You may not think that’s remarkable, but it is. Ours is a diverse group, and we struggled through remarkably grueling disagreements over presidential primary endorsements in the Republican and Democratic contests in 2000 and 2004, respectively. Those debates led to outcomes that some of us were never happy with. This time was very different.
    Mike spoke for everyone when he said Ron Paul was running in the wrong party; he had been a far better fit as the Libertarian nominee in 1988.
    Fred Thompson’s campaign peaked before it actually began, and never had much appeal. His candidacy still seems to lack a reason for being, although Warren suggested one: In the Myrtle Beach debate Thursday night, Mr. Thompson seemed to be “carrying water” for his friend John McCain, with his unrelenting attacks on Mr. Huckabee.
    While Rudy Giuliani makes the case that being “out of line culturally” with S.C. Republicans should not be a deal killer, he’s not so convincing that he’s the guy to lead the country in a dangerous and volatile time. Beyond his constant refrain of “9/11,” he doesn’t articulate what he would offer that the others would not. Mike, who is much troubled by the Bush record on civil liberties, worried that the former prosecutor would actually be worse.
    Mike was sorry Mitt Romney never came in for an interview, because he had “heard so many different things about him.” Of course, the “different things” came from the candidate himself, who has reinvented himself on issue after issue in his effort to find a stance that sells. So how can he be trusted to lead? Cindi observed, and I strongly agreed, that Mr. Romney’s great mistake was not running on his solid record as governor, particularly health care reform. He ran from it instead, suggesting contempt both for GOP voters and for the people who had elected him governor.
    Mike Huckabee made a very good impression in his meeting with us, back when almost no one thought he had a chance. We particularly liked his lack of fear of the more virulent government-hating element in the GOP — he had been unashamed to govern in Arkansas. He has the best grasp of the nation’s health crisis among the Republicans, and the greatest ability to communicate. We don’t like his “flat tax” or his vague protectionist notions, and he’s very weak on national security. That last point is his biggest drawback. His “gates of hell” bluster about the Iranian gunboats Thursday struck a jarringly false note, and it’s not what we’d want a president to say.
    John McCain has no such need to prove his toughness, so he’s comfortable speaking more reasonably. His understanding of America’s role in the world greatly exceeds that of his rivals (and of the current administration). He will always fight for what he believes in, but will not dismiss those who disagree. He’s never been an executive (in civilian life), but he’s a leader, which is better. Henry, the only businessman in the group, said the economy and health care are important, “But Iraq and foreign affairs are still the top concern,” and no one is better suited to address them.
    Warren demurred, especially with regard to Iraq: “I don’t think we ought to be there.” But while he disagrees with the senator (and me) on that, he respects and appreciates his military record, his willingness to work across party lines and his integrity.
    Henry’s one concern about Sen. McCain was his age. The rest of us were less worried — he seems unfazed by the strain of campaigning. But we agreed that should be a consideration in his choice of a running mate.
    Before we broke up, we agreed that the two leading (in the polls, and in our estimation) Republican candidates were preferable to either party’s nominee in 2004. Americans deserve a choice, at long last, between “good” and “better,” rather than being forced to settle for “sad” or “worse.”
    In a few days, our board will convene again to decide whom to endorse in the Democratic primary. I don’t know where we’ll end up on that; we have yet to meet with the major candidates.
    But however that comes out, we feel very good about the growing likelihood that one of the candidates on the ballot in November will be John McCain.

To read our endorsement, click here. To see video about the endorsement, click here.

Anti-school forces have one less lawmaker to pick on: Bill Cotty to give up seat

10 Replies

This release just came over the transom:

S.C. REP. BILL COTTY ANNOUNCES HE WILL NOT RUN FOR RE-ELECTION
COLUMBIA — House District 79 Representative Bill Cotty announced that he
has accepted a private sector job opportunity that will result in his not
seeking re-election in 2008. 
    "Over the Holidays one of my long-time clients made me a wonderful business
offer," Cotty said. While the terms we agreed on will allow me to serve out
my current term, I’ve promised to work with them full time after the House
adjourns in June."
    "I’ve been blessed by voters to have the honor of serving in elected office
the past 20 years, eight on the Richland Two School Board, and the 14 in the
House.  It’s time now to give someone else a chance and I wanted to let
folks now immediately so anyone interested in running has time to decide
before filing deadline at the end of March."
    "This is an opportunity for me to work on innovative land use planning
projects that incorporate new technologies for recycling and resource
conservation practices, something I’m very passionate about.  My wife and I
have places to go and grand babies to hug, the fifth of which is expected in
May."
    Rep. Cotty is a Columbia Attorney and was first elected to the House in
1994.  House District 79 encompasses Kershaw and Northeastern Richland
counties.

                    -30-

I certainly wish Mr. Cotty well in the future, but he will be missed in the Legislature. The Richland Republican has been a stalwart supporter of public schools in an era in which out-of-state, anti-public-education money has been spent by the bucketload to try to get rid of real conservatives (the kind who support society’s fundamental institutions, as opposed to the libertarian radicals who want to tear them down) like him.

So that’s a few thousand bucks that SCouRGe and its fellows will save in smearing Mr. Cotty’s name in this year’s primaries.

Beyond that, it will be interesting to see if Anton Gunn takes time away from the Barack Obama campaign (which we assume will still be going strong at the time) to make another run at the seat. He was a very promising newcomer, make District 79 one of those few districts with an embarrassment of riches — a choice between two very good candidates, rather than the all-too-common opposite situation.