Category Archives: Leadership

This is NOT the “end of the war in Iraq”

16 Replies

I was pleased when I heard, on the radio yesterday, President Obama saying this at Fort Bragg:

As your Commander-in-Chief, I can tell you that it will indeed be a part of history. Those last American troops will move south on desert sands, and then they will cross the border out of Iraq with their heads held high. One of the most extraordinary chapters in the history of the American military will come to an end. Iraq’s future will be in the hands of its people. America’s war in Iraq will be over.

I appreciated it because he said “America’s war in Iraq will be over.” At another point in the speech, he referred to the “end of our combat mission,” which was even better, and emphasized that what was happening was that responsibility was being handed over to Iraqi forces.

I was grateful that he had not said this was “the end of the war.” (I was also gratified that he, only slightly grudgingly, spoke of the troops accomplishment: “we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.” Something that, of course, we would not have done had Mr. Obama had his way.)

This was, unfortunately, about the only place where I would be so gratified. Elsewhere in the speech, he said “end of the war” over and over and over again. But I don’t blame the president. The news media were worse:

And on and on. Among those I saw in a quick survey, only NPR got it right, in a headline that said “Iraq Mission Ends.”

Maybe I’m the only one who cares. But I became hypersensitized to the matter over all these years of antiwar folks saying “end the war,” when what they meant was that they wanted the U.S. forces to withdraw. Which is an entirely different thing.

The “end of the war in Iraq” is either something that happened several years in the past (the interpretation I prefer), or, more ominously, has yet to occur. There are a number of ways that you can speak, legitimately, of “the end of the Iraq war:”

  • You can say it ended with the fall of Baghdad in the spring of 2003, as that was when “war” in the Clausewitzian sense of armies clashing on battlefields with battle lines, and the control of a government at stake.
  • You can say it ended with the Surge, which settled down the various insurgencies that erupted after the fall of Baghdad, leading most people speaking of a “war” continuing to that point.
  • You can say it never ended, because Iraq’s security is far from that, say, of a Switzerland.

But in that last case — if you believe the “war” has continued up to this point — then withdrawing U.S. forces most assuredly does not “end” that war. In fact, it’s hard to imagine anything more likely to make fighting flare back up dramatically.

I hope that doesn’t happen. I hope that President Obama (and Bush before him) are right in their projection that things are sufficiently stable for Iraq to deal with the security vacuum created by a U.S. departure. I don’t know whether they are or not.

But I know this: Speaking of what is happening this month as “the end of the war” is highly inaccurate.

Newt has GOP establishment sweating bullets

32 Replies

Peggy Noonan does a good job today of telling us just how uneasy the GOP establishment is about the rise of Newt Gingrich:

… What they fear is that he will show just enough discipline over the next few months, just enough focus, to win the nomination. And then, in the fall of 2012, once party leaders have come around and the GOP is fully behind him, he will begin baying at the moon. He will start saying wild things and promising that he may bomb Iran but he may send a special SEAL team in at night to secretly dig Iran up, and fly it to Detroit, where we can keep it under guard, and Detroiters can all get jobs as guards, “solving two problems at once.” They’re afraid he’ll start saying, “John Paul was great, but most of that happened after I explained the Gospels to him,” and “Sure, Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize, but only after I explained how people can think fast, slow and at warp speed. He owes me everything.”

There are many good things to say about Newt Gingrich. He is compelling and unique, and, as Margaret Thatcher once said, he has “tons of guts.”

But this is a walk on the wild side.

She also understands that the fact that Newt makes the GOP establishment very nervous is a plus for him with the GOP base. Quite a little self-destructive spiral they have going in that party, huh? If the grownups, who’ve been there and know better, say, “Don’t do it!” they just can’t wait to rush in…

Anyone have anything to say about the Ports thing?

2 Replies

Perhaps I’ve been remiss by not commenting on hearings the Senate Medical Affairs Committee has been having regarding the recent DHEC decision to allow the state of Georgia to dredge.

It’s just that I haven’t been sure what to say about it.

The panel itself has absolved the governor and her staff of having exerted undue influence in the decision:

A panel of state senators cleared Gov. Nikki Haley’s staff Thursday of charges that they exerted undue influence in a controversial decision to allow the expansion of a Georgia port.

By a 7-3 vote, the senators, who are investigating the port decision, agreed no evidence exists the that governor’s office unfairly influenced the process….

But frankly, I was never convinced that the panel was asking the right question.

The governor’s political opponents have seemed very concerned with trying to find a smoking gun — some specific instance in which the governor, or someone on her staff, said to the DHEC board, “Do this.”

And as far as most of the Democrats on the panel are concerned, they found it. “Boom! That was it,” says Joel Lourie of an Oct. 4 meeting at which the governor promised her Georgia counterpart a rehearing. “That lit the fire.”

Haley staffer Ted Pitts confirmed that the conversation with Gov. Nathan Deal took place. The governor subsequently “called Allen Amsler, the DHEC chairman, into her office and asked him to grant the hearing.”

But Pitts says there was no promise of an approval the second time around.

So put whatever spin on that you like. Vincent Sheheen is so convinced that this inculpates the governor that he’s including the Post and Courier story in its entirety in fund-raising emails, saying “I urge you to read the article below so that you can tell your friends what a travesty is occurring in Columbia.  We need your help to keep fighting to expose the dishonesty and self interest that has infected our state at the highest levels. Our state’s future is at stake!”

But here’s the thing for me: I don’t need to know who said what to whom on what date. The governor appointed this board. This board made this decision. The governor says she supports the decision. None of this is in dispute.

No voter needs to know more than that in order to hold Nikki Haley responsible for the decision. The rest — hearings and such — is political theater.

There’s no question that it is fair and right to identify Nikki Haley with this decision. That’s not in dispute. The reason why I’m not as up in arms about it as Sheheen and Lourie and others, including such Republicans as Larry Grooms, are is that I don’t know enough to know whether it was a bad decision.

Maybe I’ve missed it in the coverage I’ve seen, but I’ve not encountered a clear answer to this question: Was the board — which is entirely Nikki Haley’s creation — overruling the considered judgment of DHEC staff? At first, I assumed that was the case, and was duly outraged. But I haven’t seen that stated overtly anywhere. If staff concurred in this reassessment, that puts everything in a different light.

So what I’d like to see a Senate panel dig into — if it is indeed inclined to dig — is the extent to which staff and board diverged. That would help me know what to think.

Staff people aren’t going to come forward and dispute their political masters on this. Are you kidding? But perhaps the Legislature could compel testimony not otherwise available…

On a president asking God to bless America

16 Replies

Sooner or later, we’ll turn to more profane matters, but to follow up on a question from Bud:

Does anyone besides me find it offputting when the POTUS says “God Bless America”? Who started this practice? I never noticed it before George W. used it at every opportunity. Now Obama is getting carried away with it.

My first reaction was that every president in my memory had done it. But I thought I’d check, however cursorily. My quick search turned up this piece from TIME magazine. Apparently, no president from FDR through LBJ had ended speeches that way. But then…

On the evening of April 30, 1973, Richard Nixon addressed the nation live from the Oval Office in an attempt to manage the growing Watergate scandal. It was a difficult speech for Nixon: He announced the resignations of three Administration officials, including Attorney General Richard Kleindienst — but Nixon nonetheless tried to sound optimistic. As he approached the end of his speech, Nixon noted that he had “exactly 1,361 days remaining” in his term and wanted them “to be the best days in America’s history.” “Tonight,” he continued, “I ask for your prayers to help me in everything that I do throughout the days of my presidency.” Then came the magic words: “God bless America and God bless each and every one of you.”

Not an auspicious beginning, give the extent to which Nixon was given to self-pitying self-interest.

According to this source, neither Gerald Ford nor Jimmy Carter (surprised?) used the phrase to end speeches. But Ronald Reagan did, big-time. And every president since.

Of course, this account is rather nitpicking. Presidents before Nixon DID invoke the Deity’s blessing, just in different words:

Presidents from Roosevelt to Carter did sometimes conclude their addresses by seeking God’s blessing, often using language such as “May God give us wisdom” or “With God’s help.” But they didn’t make a habit of it.

As for whether presidents should do this or not (and Bud thinks not), I think it’s fine either way.  As I said in response to Bud earlier, I generally like it. No matter how pompous the speaker, those words end the speech on a note of humility. It’s a nod to that which is greater than the speaker and all the power he commands.

It is an invocation. OK, technically, since it’s at the end, it’s a benediction. But basically, it’s a plea sent aloft — Please bless this nation which I have been elected to serve. It’s impossible to imagine anything more benign, or more appropriate, for an elected leader to say.

AT THE SAME TIME…

I respect that some presidents have generally avoided such an invocation. Declining to do so is another way of demonstrating humility, and proper respect toward a deity. A serious, thoughtful politician might well consider it crass to invoke God in connection with a political speech, as the rest of the speech is necessarily tied to petty temporal concerns and usually designed to advance the position of the speaker.

I excuse the practice to the extent that it is a sort of departure from the rest of the speech. I tend to hear it as the speaker saying, “Whether you go along with what I said just now or not, whether I continue to serve you or not, whether I and my party prevail or be consigned to the dustbin of history, I ask that God bless our country.”

It at least gives me one thing I can always agree with.

Does America “feel sorry” for Obama?

17 Replies

Don’t know if you heard about the snafu whereby a reporter for Yahoo (and I didn’t even know Yahoo had reporters) was inadvertently allowed to listen in on a private GOP strategy session…

Anyway, the headline from it was, the Republicans on the call were warned not to attack President Obama too directly as they try to get him fired by the electorate:

Republicans on a private Republican National Committee conference call with allies warned Tuesday that party surrogates should refrain from personal attacks against President Barack Obama, because such a strategy is too hazardous for the GOP.

“We’re hesitant to jump on board with heavy attacks” personally against President Obama, Nicholas Thompson, the vice president of polling firm the Tarrance Group, said on the call. “There’s a lot of people who feel sorry for him.”

Recent polling data indicates that while the president suffers from significantly low job approval ratings, voters still give “high approval” to Obama personally, Thompson said.

Voters “don’t think he’s an evil man who’s out to change the United States” for the worse–even though many of the same survey respondents agree that his policies have harmed the country, Thompson said. The upshot, Thompson stressed, is that Republicans should “exercise some caution” when talking about the president personally…

How about that? There’s hope for the world when we see that top Republican strategists don’t see Obama as the incarnation of all evil — or are at least reluctant to say so. Now, if I can just persuade my Democratic friends that calling other people “vicious” is not conducive to a meeting of the minds, maybe we can get together and solve some problems in this country…

Obama to Pakistan: I’ve got your ‘sorry’ right here

25 Replies

OK, so it wasn’t that dismissive.

Still, it’s interesting that the administration — which apologized for killing that other American (Samir Khan, from North Carolina) who was with Anwar al-Awlaki — doesn’t want to say “sorry” on this one:

WASHINGTON — The White House has decided that President Obama will not offer formal condolences — at least for now — toPakistan for the deaths of two dozen soldiers in NATO airstrikes last week, overruling State Department officials who argued for such a show of remorse to help salvage America’s relationship with Pakistan, administration officials said.

On Monday, Cameron Munter, the United States ambassador to Pakistan, told a group of White House officials that a formal video statement from Mr. Obama was needed to help prevent the rapidly deteriorating relations between Islamabad and Washington from cratering, administration officials said. The ambassador, speaking by videoconference from Islamabad, said that anger in Pakistan had reached a fever pitch, and that the United States needed to move to defuse it as quickly as possible, the officials recounted.

Defense Department officials balked. While they did not deny some American culpability in the episode, they said expressions of remorse offered by senior department officials and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton were enough, at least until the completion of a United States military investigation establishing what went wrong…

Increasingly, we see signs of the U.S. just writing off Pakistan. This appears to be another such sign.

Or, you could go with this explanation, I suppose:

Some administration aides also worried that if Mr. Obama were to overrule the military and apologize to Pakistan, such a step could become fodder for his Republican opponents in the presidential campaign, according to several officials who declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak publicly…

Column III: Kevin Bryant takes destructive approach, offers reader no way out but rage

7 Replies

Talk about your basic destructive nihilism.

Sen. Kevin Bryant offers nothing positive, but simply gives us a Sanfordesque trashing of USC, in his column today in The State.

Go ahead and read it, and tell me where he offers any kind of solution. Show me where he suggests how we might see to it that the university become a better steward of our money. He does not. When he complains that “USC, like much of higher education, sees itself as a sovereign empire,” does he offer a remedy?

No, he does not. He does not, for instance, offer the solution I have offered for 20 years — likely long before Kevin Bryant was thinking about such things — for the fact that our respective universities are, indeed, too autonomous: A state board of regents, answerable to the governor, that would govern the entire system of public higher education.

Or if he has some other idea (which I doubt), he could offer that.

But he doesn’t. Why not? I fear that this is the reason: He’s not sufficiently interested in solutions. What he’s interest in doing, it seems to me, is further eroding the already pathetically feeble public will to support higher education in our state.

As things stand, do you know how much of USC’s operating funds come from state taxes? 9 percent. The state general fund is like the university’s 5th source of funding in order of magnitude. When I was in school, it was closer to 90 percent. So yeah, the university does tend to act rather independently of state government as it seeks to serve our state.

I don’t think it should be that way. I think USC should be clearly a state institution — adequately funded by the state, and held accountable to the state. But I’m not holding my breath, not when our state is run by people like Kevin Bryant.

His column presents no proposals, no arguments, but merely regurgitates what has been reported in news media, only with scornful modifiers added.

His aim, or what I take to be his aim, is best expressed in his trite, hyperbolic conclusion:

The giant sucking sound that you hear is the siphon running from your wallet into the tank at USC. You might want to let your politicians know that enough is enough.

The only point to be gained from this is that he wants us all to be angry. And since he offers no program or solution to address that anger, we can only suppose that said anger is for him an end in itself, as long as you see the university as something that exists purely to waste your money (an impression he creates by ignoring how little of the taxpayers’ money the institution gets), and that you let your lawmakers know that you don’t want them ever spending another dime on that bunch over there.

Never mind that North Carolina has adequately funded its higher education system as an economic development engine (just what the senator despises), leading to the result of having a wealthier and better-educated citizenry. Every word in Sen. Bryant’s column is well designed to make sure that, if there is even a scintilla of desire remaining in the heart of the electorate to invest in public higher system in this state, it gets drowned in the proverbial bathtub.

If he had a different aim, he would offer a solution to the problems he cites. Instead, he urges us to get mad, and be more alienated.

Column II: It’s the government we’re TALKING about here, Cal

4 Replies

Just as one should change a car’s oil every 3,000 miles, I think it is helpful to call “Bull!” about everything 3,000th time I hear a nonsensical rhetorical cliche.

Such as this one in a Cal Thomas column I read in the paper today:

There is something else Republicans must not do. They must avoid making the same mistake Democrats make by looking to government as a first resource.

Ahem.

Cal, you were talking in this column about people running for president of the United States. Someone to run the executive branch of the government. Someone to be in charge of government programs. Someone we trust to be in charge of the things we have decided that we want out government to do.

We are not hiring a pastor for our church, or a den mother for a Cub Scout den, or the CEO of a corporation, or the executive director of a nonprofit. We are looking for someone to run the government.

That’s the job. This person will not be in charge of anything else in the world except the government. Therefore the only tools this person will have at his (or, in one unlikely case, her) disposal will be government tools.

Therefore, the only proposals any reasonable person — whether Democrat, Republican, or whatever — would expect to hear such candidates speak about would be proposals for what to do with the government. Any other proposals would be completely irrelevant.

Now, you or I and lots of other folks might prefer to turn elsewhere for solutions to problems we see in the world, and that’s fine. We should do so as we are inclined. But that is completely irrelevant to the task of choosing a president, a person who would have nothing to do with running those other aspects of life.

Not only the “first,” but the only “resource” this person would be empowered to use in carrying out his (or her) duties would be government.

I just thought I’d point that out. It seems to me to be painfully obvious, but you seemed confused, and I like to help.

Column I: Cindi Scoppe puts Georgia port dredging issue into perspective

6 Replies

Today, I think I’ll use some columns I read in the papers this morning as conversation-starters. We’ll begin with Cindi Scoppe’s balanced, thoughtful approach to DHEC’s granting of a dredging permit to Georgia.

As is her wont, she skewers weak arguments on all sides:

  • To those who ask, “Did Gov. Haley pressure her appointees to the DHEC board to approve the permit?,” she explains that it doesn’t matter. The governor says she fully supports the decision. She takes ownership of it. It doesn’t matter whether she pressured anyone. And what pressure can she exert? She appointed these people, but she lacks power to remove them. Who cares? She appointed them, she in no way distances herself from the decision.
  • Then there’s this red herring: “Why did the DHEC commissioners put Georgia’s economic interests above the economic interests of the state of South Carolina?” It’s not DHEC’s job to decide on the basis of economic interests. It’s their job to protect the environment, which is a separate question.

Here’s the question Cindi urges lawmakers to concentrate on: Did the Corps of Engineers and Georgia grant enough concessions to meet our state’s environmental requirements?

She continues with a discussion of various aspects of that consideration.

Then, in the end, she offers this bit of simple clarity:

We probably wouldn’t have to worry so much about cozying up to our competitors if our own Sen. Jim DeMint hadn’t helped put the Port of Charleston even further behind the Savannah Port, by delaying efforts to dredge Charleston Harbor. But the sad truth is that he has done far more to damage the Port of Charleston than anything DHEC could ever do. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be much the Legislature can do about that.

All around, a good, solid column on a difficult issue.

Clyburn might excuse signing pledges, but I don’t

15 Replies

Over the weekend — before the wretched, useless “supercommittee” had failed completely to do its job — Jim Clyburn had a piece in The Washington Post setting out his views as a member of that panel. This bit jumped out at me:

I understand signing pledges and suspect that all of us have agreed to them at one time or another. But it is beyond me how one defines eliminating a preference or closing a tax-code loophole as a tax increase. Loopholes that allow extremely wealthy and sophisticated Americans to avoid paying any, or an appropriate amount of, taxes while the middle class gets squeezed and working people struggle to pay their bills are fundamentally unfair. That is the big issue and the main obstacles to accomplishing something of which we can be proud and by which our nation will be strengthened.

What Clyburn seems to be saying there is, I understand the games we all play as partisans, the ways we trade away our freedom to be intellectually honest, good-faith participants in the deliberative process, but I think I see the way around it for y’all…

Well, Clyburn might understand it, and even excuse it, but I don’t. Signing pledges preventing yourself from being open-minded and able to make decisions as an elected representatives in the future is completely inexcusable.

And so is this committee’s failure.

On the one hand, I feel a tad guilty getting on Clyburn for trying to see the other fella’s point of view, instead of just bashing Republicans as usual. But he’s seeing their point of view on partisanship itself. And for me, THAT is the “other side,” the enemy, the force to be opposed.

It’s touching that Clyburn also says in the piece, “My reply remains the motto of the great state of South Carolina: ‘Dum Spiro Spero.’ ‘While I breathe, I hope.'” I love my state’s motto. But I have practically no hope in that crowd up there.

America is disgusted, and right to be. And in next year’s election, you’ll see candidates of both parties try to run as outsiders, as a solution to the problem. But if electing them means sending more Democrats and more Republicans, how can that be a solution?

There has never been a better moment for the UnParty. Who wants to run?

Is Walid Hakim a leader? He says no…

29 Replies

Today on their website, Occupy Columbia insists that Walid Hakim — who was arrested last night along with 19 others — is not a leader of their group. They were rather vehement about it:

An article was circulated by FitsNews.com proclaiming that Occupy Columbia has a leader, as they stated an unofficial leader.

This is NOT the case!

This article was taken completely out of context.

Occupy Columbia is and always will be a LEADERLESS movement.

Contact them and DEMAND a rewrite!!!

I could understand how Will would have gained that impression. I did, too, as you can see in the above video.

For me, Walid has been the spokesman — he’s always at the fore and available, he’s confident and articulate, he seems to know what’s going on. He’s the guy you see ostentatiously pacing at the back of the crowd talking on a cellphone as the governor’s press conference breaks upon, seeming to coordinate things. He always does things a little bigger than the others — holding his sign higher, wearing the more visible attire (a keffiyeh, a Marine Dress Blues blouse). He’s got the Days of Rage hair, the whole nine yards. News people gravitate to people like that — in a chaotic situation with no one officially in charge, you look for the guy who seems the least dazed, and start asking questions.

More traditional (if you’ll allow me this ironic use of the world) street protest leaders such as Brett Bursey have been in the background, by comparison with Walid.

But the main reason I always talk to Walid is that I know him. He and I serve together on the board of the Community Relations Council. Below you see him (just left of center) seated at one of our meetings earlier this week, in yet another incarnation, with blazer and khakis. (Yeah, I know it’s blurry, but I wasn’t planning on using it for publication. I was just fiddling with my iPhone during the meeting.)

I realize that to these folks, it’s a really, really important principle not to have leaders. But here’s my prediction: They’ll either get some leaders, or never really accomplish anything much beyond making headlines and getting arrested.

Occupy Columbia getting booted at 6 p.m.

21 Replies

Waiting for the governor to make her move.

See update to this post in this comment below.

The buzz has been out there for a couple of hours. When I got wind of it, I walked down to the State House to see what was up.

The first person I ran into was Wesley Donehue, on his way back to his office at Donehue Direct across Gervais St.

“I guess I really stirred something up,” he said. I said something brilliant like, “Huh?”

Turns out Wesley’s the guy who sent out this letter from Sen. Harvey Peeler to Gov. Nikki Haley, in which he said,

I would like to know what the Budget and Control Board will be doing about the Occupy Columbia group…
If you drive past the State House you will see tables, sleeping bags, coolers, folding chairs and even a port-o-john. I do not know how these items do not invade the public health, safety and welfare of our citizens and visitors to our State House.

He said that “at the very least,” the group needs to complete an application for use of the State House grounds.

This stirred up the protesters considerably, and when I left them a few minutes ago, they were bracing themselves to be tossed out after the governor’s press conference at 4.

Walid Hakim, the only “99 percenter” I know, said his group would behave themselves peaceably.

But he also said, “I’m going to stay as long as I possibly can.”

I’m gonna run back down yonder and see what happens next.

Walid Hakim: "I'm going to stay as long as I possibly can."

USC connection brings 707 jobs to Midlands

38 Replies

First, for the overview, I’ll give you the press release from today’s event (provided by the SC Commerce Department):

Nephron Pharmaceuticals Corporation Announces New Operations in Lexington County

$313 million investment expected to create 707 new jobs

COLUMBIA, S.C. – October 28, 2011 – Nephron Pharmaceuticals Corporation today announced that the company will locate its new operations in Lexington County. The $313 million investment is expected to generate 707 new jobs.

“We are excited to expand our company by locating our new manufacturing facility in Lexington County. This is a big step for our firm and will help us meet increased demand, expand our market share and develop our pipeline of products. South Carolina has an excellent business environment and we look forward to our expansion into the Palmetto State,” said Lou Kennedy, CEO of Nephron Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Nephron Pharmaceuticals Corporation will establish a new pharmaceutical manufacturing campus and offices in Lexington County. The company is based in Orlando where it currently operates 250,000 square feet of manufacturing, distribution and packaging facilities. Additionally, the company has distribution centers in Kentucky and Arizona.

“It’s another great day in South Carolina with today’s announcement. We celebrate Nephron Pharmaceuticals’ decision to locate its new manufacturing facility in the Midlands and create hundreds of well-paying new jobs. This is a big win for our state,” said Gov. Nikki Haley.

In June, William and Lou Kennedy were awarded the Order of the Palmetto for their philanthropy in founding the Kennedy School of Pharmacy at the University of South Carolina. Both are South Carolinians and alumni of the University of South Carolina. Discussions between the Governor and the Kennedys during the Order of the Palmetto visit led the company to consider South Carolina for the new facility.

“I am gratified that Lou and Bill Kennedy, who have already established the Kennedy Pharmacy Innovation Center at Innovista, see the University of South Carolina and our state as locations to further their commitment to pharmaceutical manufacturing with world class quality and efficiency. Their vision and keen business acumen have led to an important second step in increasing innovation and the knowledge economy in South Carolina,” said Dr. Harris Pastides, USC president.

“Nephron Pharmaceuticals’ investment and new jobs will have a huge positive impact on our state. This new facility will be a major boost for our pharmaceutical manufacturing sector. Today’s announcement is the largest one in the state’s life sciences industry this year,” said Bobby Hitt, Secretary of Commerce.

The new facility will be located on a 60-acre parcel of land near the Amazon facility in Lexington. It is expected to be up and running in the next couple of years.

“I would like to take this opportunity to publically recognize and celebrate the remarkable achievements of Nephron Pharmaceuticals and to hail their decision to expand their operations into their ‘home’ state. This expansion will bring over $313 million dollars into our local economy and will generate more than 700 jobs for the citizens of Lexington County, the Midlands and South Carolina. Nephron Pharmaceuticals Corporation is a

renowned leader in its field, and through the years has grown to manufacture over one billion units of medication. What an accomplishment,” said Lexington County Council Chairman Jim Kinard.

Central SC Alliance Chairman Jim Apple said, “Today’s significant capital investment and high-wage job creation announcement by Nephron Pharmaceuticals Corporation is a game changer in our quest to recruit international life science/biotechnology industries to the Central South Carolina region. This company is a market leader that produces millions of units of life-saving medications every year right here in the United States and shortly, product will be coming out of Lexington County. We want to recognize and thank the Kennedys for coming back home to South Carolina in making this announcement. The Central SC Alliance is proud to represent a dynamic nine-county region and we value the outstanding working relationship with the University of South Carolina and the S.C. Department of Commerce as we collectively grow our region.”

The S.C. Department of Commerce has committed a set aside grant of $4.5 million for site preparation and infrastructure. The company was also approved for job development credits, which will be available when hiring targets are met. The company will receive training support from the state’s ReadySCprogram.

Nephron Pharmaceuticals Corporation is a global leader in manufacturing generic respiratory medications. The company’s products are available to retail pharmacies, hospitals, home care companies, long term care facilities, mail order pharmacies, and various other customers. For more information about Nephron Pharmaceuticals Corporation, please visit www.nephronpharm.com.

About S.C. Department of Commerce

As South Carolina’s leading economic development agency, the Department of Commerce works to recruit new businesses and help existing businesses grow. This year, Commerce won the Gold Shovel Award and the Deal of Year Award from Area Development magazine. Commerce has been part of recruiting world-class companies to South Carolina such as Boeing, Bridgestone, Continental, Monster.com, Heinz, ZF Group, BMW and Google Inc. Commerce also supports small and existing business, rural development initiatives and offers grants for community development. For more information, visit www.SCcommerce.com.

-###-

This was a big day for all concerned, as you can tell from the basic facts, but the pics below will help confirm. Everybody wanted to get in on the act — the governor, Harris Pastides and a large array of USC honchos, Lexington County Council, the Lexington legislative delegation, Steve Benjamin and his folks, and of course the whole economic development community, from Commerce Secretary Bobby Hitt (who was sort of the master of ceremonies) through all the local and regional recruiters. Walid Hakim and others from Occupy Columbia were there, which really confirmed what a big deal it was.

There was enough glory to go around for all, especially for USC. Hence the Horseshoe venue. Lou and Bill Kennedy got their start at USC, and they have a child who is a freshman at the university. More to the point, they had already set up the Kennedy Pharmacy Innovation Center as part of Innovista. This is what Innovista is to look like, folks. Not White Elephant parking garages, but industries getting a foothold here through a research relationship with the university, then expanding into good jobs for South Carolinians.

After the formal ceremony, Lou Kennedy said the jobs they’ve produced in Orlando pay an average of about $70,000. And at this point, they don’t plan on bringing any of their Orlando personnel here.

So, very good news. And very little controversy — so far. House Majority Leader Kenny Bingham was given a chance to compare this to the fight Lexington County lawmakers had with the governor over Amazon (which will be this plant’s neighbor), and he declined. This one was nothing but cooperation.

Part of that may be that the industry itself wanted to come here, rather than having to be enticed. (There apparently were incentives, but no one — aside from those involved in the deal — knows what they were yet. I ran into my friend Kevin Dietrich of The Nerve, the scourge of incentives, there, and he didn’t seem on the scent of any yet.) But whatever the reason they’re here. And I don’t feel like I’m going out on a limb when I say that’s a very good thing. Congratulations to all involved, from the governor on down.

Lindsey Graham fighting good fight again, this time to preserve essential foreign aid

20 Replies

Just when you thought Lindsey Graham had collapsed back into a complete defensive mode to protect his right flank, he has stepped out again to lead on an issue that could cost him political support across the spectrum.

This is good to see. This is the Lindsey Graham who more than earns his pay. Because a politicians who isn’t willing to risk his position to do the right thing has no business holding office at all:

GOP’s Sen. Graham works to protect foreign aid

By JAMES ROSEN – McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has taken on tough tasks from immigration reform to climate change, faces another one as he calls for spending billions of dollars overseas on unpopular foreign aid programs that he insists are vital to U.S. national security.

With Congress facing mandatory spending cuts and previously sacrosanct military programs on the chopping block, Graham is trying to protect funding for foreign aid even as most Americans oppose it – 71 percent in a recent poll – and other Republican leaders call for focusing U.S. resources at home.

“It is a tough sell, but you can be penny-wise and pound-foolish,” Graham, a Republican in his second term, told McClatchy Newspapers…

As Rosen correctly notes, this is classic Graham, the one we saw stepping out on rational immigration reform, and (until county parties back home starting censuring him, pushing him toward the defensive posture) on energy and climate change.

This is good to see.

Today, I was walking through Charleston, past 39 Rue de Jean, and mentioned to a friend that the first time I ate there, it was with Alex Sanders. Which got us onto the 2002 Senate campaign, and what a bitter pill it was to the state’s Democrats that he lost — they had placed such hope in him reviving their fortunes. But, my friend noted, Graham has done a good job since then.

Yes, he has. Especially when he does stuff like this.

There’s a slight implication — perhaps not intentional — in Rosen’s story that there’s something ironic about the hawkish Graham pushing “soft power.” But the idea that there’s some sort of dichotomy between soft and hard power is a canard pushed by people who don’t understand foreign policy. Effective foreign policy includes a good deal of both, and Graham is a guy who understands, and advocates, the full DIME.

Oh, by the way — that thing about 71 percent of Americans wanting to cut foreign aid… there’s nothing new about it. Polls always say that. They also tend to say that Americans don’t know squat about foreign aid. When you ask them how much of the budget goes to foreign aid, they tend to answer that it’s something like 25 percent. When you ask them how much should go to foreign aid, they say about 10 percent.

The true amount? About 1 percent. So basically, if Graham sought to make foreign aid 10 times as much of the budget as it is now (or 3-5 times, according to some polls), they should be happy. But watch — they won’t be.

SC Atty. Gen. Alan Wilson at Rotary today…

11 Replies

“Ironically, I tend to look left,” said SC Atty. Gen. Alan Wilson at the Columbia Rotary Club today. “That’s a joke.”

He said that because he had already gotten a big laugh, unintentionally. Worried about his time, he had turned to tell our president that he was just going to speak a minute-and-a-half about Yucca Mountain before going to questions. Except that our president, Rodger Stroup, was on his right, and he turned the other way and said it to David Kunz, who was seated up there to do Health and Happiness. The laugh came when David said, very enthusiastically, “All right by me!”

But the rest of his speech went pretty well. Crawford Clarkson turned to me afterward to say it was one of the best speakers he’d heard at Rotary. And Crawford’s been in Rotary approximately forever. I said I didn’t know about that, but I thought he did well.

He did well because he spoke as something other than what detractors of his Dad might expect. Sure, he started out sounding a lot like Joe, looking around the room and recognizing his many friends. But that was cool. I’ve always liked that about Joe. He’s very sincere about it, and so was Alan. Alan was a bit cooler about it, in fact. Joe tends to be rather manic in his extreme excitement to be there as a congressman.

Anyway, as I said, some would like to think that Alan is another Charlie Condon. (Charlie, who is a perfectly reasonable human being in person out of the limelight, turned into a sort of pandering monster as A.G., pursuing one issue after another that seemed fabricated to further his political career.) But I haven’t seen that yet, and there was none of that in the presentation we got today. Charlie would have worked in the “electric couch” somewhere, but not Alan.

Wilson spent a large portion of his time simply talking about the routine work that the A.G.’s office does in the course of meeting its statutory and constitutional obligations — handling civil litigation, criminal prosecution, post-conviction relief, criminal domestic violence, etc. That he chose to do so, to explain his office in such professional terms rather than political ones, is to me worthy of praise. Perhaps because I’m always on the lookout for another Charlie. (Fellow Rotarian Henry McMaster was a welcome change from Charlie — and it should be pointed out, Henry was largely responsible for the emphasis on CDV. I’m glad to see Wilson is continuing to be interested in that.)

Then he got onto the controversial issues — the NLRB/Boeing thing (although in SC, that’s hardly controversial), the health care mandate, Yucca Mountain — and he fought his corner well on these. His point on each was that he approached them according to the law as he read it. Of course, I’m less likely to disbelieve him than some, since I see the first and third ones the way he does. I disagree strongly with him on the middle one (and the idea that he could be successful in pursuing severability appalls me), although I fear he may be right that in the end it will be settled by a 5-4 SCOTUS decision, one way or the other.

In supporting his assertion that for him it’s about the law and not political advantage, he cited the Cornell Arms case, in which a security guard shot and killed an unarmed man who he said he thought was threatening him. Wilson said some told him that “You’ll take heat” from 2nd Amendment advocates for supporting the government’s prosecution of the guard. But in his account, he said, “That’s irrelevant.” The man had served five years, and would have been released by the state Supreme Court had Wilson not filed for a rehearing. As John Monk (happy birthday, John!) reported after the meeting:

“This has nothing to do with the right to carry (guns), nothing to do with the gun issue,” Wilson said. “The defense has the right to appeal at each level of litigation, and the state has a right to ask the court to reconsider their decision.”

A  good example for the point the A.G. was making. But whether you agree that he’s always representing the law rather than serving politics, I was impressed that he took no opportunity to posture before Rotary. There was no ideological cant about “big government” or, to cite something his predecessor sank to in trying to run for governor, about promising to protect us from Obama and his Washington “vultures.” He opposes the mandate and sees it as constitutionally unsound. Fine. I just disagree. At least he expresses himself like someone who respects the law, rather than an ideological ranter.

And that counts for a lot. Now, to be perfectly frank, his website seems a tad more self-promotional than his speech today (I went there to get y’all a link to look up more about these issues and his involvement with them). But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good speech. That it was, and well received.

Here’s a place for you to talk about Spurrier, Morris, Garcia, etc.

56 Replies

A reader Tweeted, as I was headed to a late lunch (1:46 p.m. EST), “Eager to read your thoughts on Spurrier v. Morris.” I had not the slightest idea what he was talking about, but now I do. I’ve seen the video and everything. (Interestingly, I could not find anything about it on the mobile version of thestate.com, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t on the browser version at the time.)

Of course, by that time, the news that the coach, or Eric Hyman, or somebody, had thrown Stephen Garcia off the team — apparently for real, this time. Hyman explained, “For Stephen to return to and remain with the football squad this fall, we agreed on several established guidelines. Unfortunately, he has not been able to abide by those guidelines and has therefore forfeited his position on the roster.”

I don’t know what the guidelines were, as I don’t follow this stuff. But I did see the Auburn game, and a reasonable guess would be that one of his guidelines involved throwing the football straight. Yes, I’m joking. Sort of.

But Micah apparently wanted to know what I thought about the Ron Morris thing. Gee, I don’t know.

I’m not Ron’s editor; never was. If I were, right now I’d be saying, “What the hell, Ron?” Or perhaps I’d use some other, saltier, newsroom expression. And Ron would tell me what was going on as well as he could, from his perspective. Although, based on the performance I saw on the video, it might not be altogether clear to him what it’s all about (apart from the usual animus that, from what I’ve seen, Ron is accustomed to engendering). Anyway, assuming he had the information available, I would have Ron lay out for me his version of the story. Then, I would check it out as well as I could.

If Coach Spurrier had an ounce of professionalism in him, of course, he would already have communicated to me (as Ron’s theoretical editor) what his beef was. Let’s assume he does, and he did. In that case, I would already have had it out with Ron about it and, given the way Spurrier acted today, probably would have told him I’d decided to back Ron. Hence the public tantrum.

Of course, if the coach did NOT try the normal, civil route first, then his performance today was inexcusable. Perhaps understandable on some level given that his QB was just canned after letting him down, but still not excusable in a man paid $2.8 million a year by a public institution to represent that institution.

Speaking of which, if I were Eric Hyman or Harris Pastides, I’d right now be having a serious talk with the coach about his performance — a sort of mirror of the one I’d be having with Ron as his editor. We’d start by watching his game film. Some of the things I’d be asking him:

  • What’s this really about, Steve? And don’t give me that nonsense about some column last spring. That was last spring; you blew up today. What’s really going on? (Oh, wait: Maybe THIS is the column Spurrier is referring to, in which Morris wrote, “Spurrier poached Horn’s program.”)
  • What exactly do you mean when you say it’s “my right as a head coach” not to talk to Ron Morris? Is that some special right we don’t know about? Do assistant coaches, or ordinary mortals walking the streets, not have that right? Because one would think that they do; that any human being walking the planet would have the right not to talk to Ron Morris if they chose not to. (Unless, of course, they were working for us, and we were paying them $2.8 million a year, and we told them to talk to him…) So what’s this imperious “as a head coach” stuff? Have we really made you feel that important?

And so on. That would just be for starters. And I’d be doing that in between fielding phone calls from people over at the newspaper asking me, “What the heck?” Because they use language like that in talking to the public.

So, as I say, if I were charged with taking a position on this, I’d be in fact-finding mode now before making a decision. But if you held the proverbial gun to my head (and I’d much prefer that to a literal one), I’d have to choose Ron on this one. And I might get embarrassed doing so — I might later have to run a full retraction on the challenged column last spring or something if it turned out Ron was wrong. But if you forced me, I’d go with him on this, because I know him. Or at least, I know him better than I do Spurrier, whom I’ve never met.

That means I used to run into Ron in the hallway sometimes, and stop to chat. I never actually worked with him. I don’t think he was in the newsroom when I was (pre-1994), and even if he had been, we’d have had little occasion to deal with each other. But he has always struck me as a pretty thoughtful, careful guy.

I knew people hated him — people of the “Cocky is God” persuasion. And I used to wonder about that, but I’ve often had occasion to wonder about really serious football fans. Sometimes, when one of Ron’s columns caused a splash of some sort, I’d actually turn to the sports pages and read it. And it usually read OK to me — of course, I was judging it outside the context of having any particular knowledge of the subject matter.

So Micah, that’s what I think.

Caroline Whitson to retire from Columbia College

14 Replies

Here’s something for the “this just in” department:

WHITSON TO RETIRE AS PRESIDENT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE IN 2012

October 11, 2011

Dr. Caroline Whitson, the 17th president of Columbia College, will retire at the end of this academic year – June 30, 2012.

Since coming to the college in 2001, Dr. Whitson has been an energetic advocate for women’s education and forimproving the status of women in South Carolina.

In announcing her retirement on behalf of the Board of Trustees, Chairman Lex Knox said, “Columbia College has been very fortunate and blessed to have someone of Dr. Whitson’s character and talent to lead us for the past decade. She has been an outstanding leader through challenging times, and has steered the college through needed changes. While disappointed at the news, we respect her decision and certainly wish her well.”

Dr. Whitson said, “I am well aware that the successes the college has enjoyed during my time here are a direct result of the work of a talented, committed faculty and staff and the support of an engaged Board of Trustees. I have been fortunate to have the opportunity to work with and learn from them.”

As president, Dr. Whitson championed the establishment of the college’s 4Cs. The unique leadership model combines academic and co-curricular programming to support students in the development of the Courage, Commitment, Confidence, and Competence to lead for change. She guided the expansion of the college’s Leadership Institute, which serves both girls and professional women. Dr. Whitson founded the Alliance for Women, a partnership between Columbia College and the Governor’s Commission on Women, when the commission was targeted for closure in 2004. The Alliance has supported entrepreneurship for women, including bringing both the Women President’s Organization and Make Mine a Million to South Carolina.

During Dr. Whitson’s tenure at the college, annual fund-raising has more than doubled. The college’s endowment has increased by 40%, including the establishment of both the McNair Scholars program and the Reeves Endowed Chair in Leadership Studies.

Facility expansion at the college of 1,269 students includes the addition of a new student union, residential cottages and an athletic complex, as well as renovation of the freshman center, the Goodall Art Gallery, Edens Library and the Cottingham Theatre. The installation of solar panels and a campuswide revision of energy systems have significantly reduced the college’s carbon footprint. A campus beautification program led to implementation of an extensive landscape design.

Recently Dr. Whitson signed agreements for research and for faculty and student exchanges with both the State University of Mongolia and the Hiroshima Jogakuin Women’s University.

Since 2001, Columbia College has received national recognition for teaching and scholarly excellence from the Theodore Hesburgh Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the National Collegiate Honors Council, the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, the Foundations of Excellence for the First College Year, the NAIA Champions of Character, the National Communication Association, and the National Association for the Education of Young Children.

During her tenure at the college, Dr. Whitson has been a leader in civic affairs. She chaired the Richland County Transportation Commission, the South Carolina ETV Endowment board and the Presidents’ Council of the South Carolina Independent Colleges and Universities. She has served on many boards, including those of the United Way of the Midlands, New Carolina, and the Midlands Business Leaders Group. Nationally, she has served on the University Senate of the United Methodist Church, as a member of the President’s Circle in the National Council for Research on Women, and on the board of PLEN (Public Leadership Education Network).

Dr. Whitson has been honored with a “Woman of Distinction” award from the Girl Scouts of the Congaree Area, as the “Outstanding Advocate for Women in Business” from the Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce, and with the Martha Kime Piper award from the South Carolina Women in Higher Education.

Chairman Knox said Vice Chair of the Board Becky Laffitte will head the search committee to find a new president for Columbia College, with the rest of the committee being named within the next two weeks. The committee will include some board members as well as representatives from the rest of the college community.

Caroline has been a great person to work with in the community. I served with her on a local advisory council for the Knight Foundation years ago, and dealt with her during the effort to pass the sales tax referendum for transportation last year — which, as you’ll recall, I interviewed her about on “The Brad Show.” She had helped lead community conversations about transportation for several years leading up to that.

I understand that she plans to stay in the community. That’s good news.

Joel Lourie: What we need in SC is jobs

32 Replies

In a more serious vein, I thought I’d share with you more of what Joel Lourie had to say at Rotary today.

I realize when you read that headline, you’ll think, “So? Everybody knows that, and all politicians say it.”

But Joel said it better than most.

One thing he did was share the numbers above — which I scanned directly from the sheet he shared with me afterward. (To read it better, click on it.) The numbers provide statistical snapshots of South Carolina before and after the Great Recession hit.

What Joel had to say about that was not — as you’d expect in a lesser politician — to complain about those awful Republicans (which in a Democrat in SC these days shows remarkable restraint), and blame it on them. It was more to say look, here’s the situation we have, and this is what we must deal with.

And to him, the way out is not to pass this or that particular piece of legislation (although he did make an able case for comprehensive tax reform), or to embrace this political ideology or reject that one. Nor does he see our state’s salvation in anything that government might do, because government can only do so much. All government can do is pursue whatever policies it can that encourage our economy to come back.

As an example of how lawmakers should work together to allow jobs to emerge in our state, he told the story of how Democrats and Republicans worked together to make sure Amazon didn’t take its 2,000-plus jobs and leave this year, how they worked together to turn a 2-1 “no” vote into a 2-1 “yes” vote for the sake of the Midlands, and of South Carolina. In that ecumenical spirit, he particularly praised his old USC classmate, House Majority Leader Kenny Bingham.

I never was as wholeheartedly for the Amazon deal as Joel was, but I certainly appreciate his point, just as I appreciate the motivation that he and Kenny and so many others had to turn that around for the sake of their community.

For Joel, that sort of service to the whole community is what it’s about, just as it was for his father before him. And because he delivers that service so earnestly and ably, I’m proud to know him. I didn’t tell him that at Rotary today. You don’t want stuff like that to go to people’s heads, you know.

Is Lamar Alexander about to do something very cool — from an UnParty perspective?

6 Replies

I’m puzzling, hopefully, over what this means:

The no. 3 Republican in the Senate will step down from his leadership position early next year, despite having no plans to retire from Congress.

Lamar Alexander informed his fellow GOP colleagues of his rather surprising decision on Tuesday morning in a letter obtained byPolitico, saying that the move was the best decision for him and the Senate.

“Stepping down from leadership will liberate me to spend more time working for results on the issues I care most about,” the 71-year-old former Tennessee governor wrote. “I want to do more to make the Senate a more effective institution so that it can deal better with serious issues. There are different ways to provide leadership within the Senate. After nine years here, this is how I believe I can now make my greatest contribution. For these same reasons I do not plan to seek a leadership position in the next Congress.”…

I’ve respected Lamar Alexander since  I covered him in his first successful run for governor in 1978, spending a good bit of time with him on the road (OK, so I was on the road with him 24/7 for one week before switching over to cover his opponent, but it was enough time to form a positive impression).

Lamar was never a guy you get particularly excited about. He was… bland. One of the most striking things about him was how much his speaking voice sounded like Pat Boone’s. (Once, I heard a PSA on the radio by Boone, and I thought it was the governor until he identified himself at the end — or was it the other way around?) His much-publicized walk across Tennessee in the trademark red-and-black shirt was SO contrived, such an earnest bid to be interesting, that I would joke about it, while at the same time appreciating his seriousness. He was what Tennessee needed after the rollicking corruption of Ray Blanton (who had defeated him four years earlier, on the very first election night of my newspaper career, when I was a copy boy at The Commercial Appeal). I would joke that Lamar’s main appeal to the voters was to subliminally project, “I won’t steal the silverware from the governor’s mansion.” But after Blanton, that was progress.

Turned out that there was a lot more progress to come with Alexander. He was different from any Republican governor I have seen since. He started out appointing Democrats to his Cabinet (his chief political adviser was someone who had worked for Democrats), and he reached out to the Democratic majority in the legislature to get his agenda passed, including significant movement toward merit pay for teachers. From day one, he was about raising the incomes of the average Tennessean, and he was for working with whomever it took to get that done. He worked particularly productively with the iconic speaker of the House (and later governor) Ned Ray McWherter.

He has served his state, and now his country, with pragmatic dedication and moderate sensibilities. So I’m sorry to see him leave leadership.

And puzzled. What does he mean he can be more effective outside that role? There’s a hint in the original Politico story:

Alexander says the decision was rooted in his desire to foster consensus in the gridlocked Senate, a role he felt constrained playing while spearheading the partisan Senate GOP messaging machine.

That sounds very cool — and even, despite this being Lamar Alexander, exciting. In an UnParty sense. I’d love to hear an elaboration on that. It would be nice to have back about 15 minutes of that time I spent riding around with him in cars and planes back in the day. I think I’d have more interesting questions now…

On the campaign plane with Alexander, back in the day./Brad Warthen

If she’s learned a lesson, that will be wonderful

18 Replies

KP brings our attention to this breaking news:

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said Monday she can’t back up claims that half of the people wanting work at the Energy Department’s Savannah River Site failed drug tests and half of the remainder couldn’t pass reading and writing tests.

Haley said in an interview with The Associated Press that she’s learned a lesson and is going to be more careful.

“I’ve never felt like I had to back up what people tell me. You assume that you’re given good information,” Haley said. “And now I’m learning through you guys that I have to be careful before I say something.”

Haley said she’d probably repeated “a million times” the story that about the test failures before being questioned about the assertions after a Lexington Rotary Club on Sept. 8. Her spokesman has been asked almost daily since then whether the claim could be substantiated…

Hey, if she has truly “learned a lesson,” I think that’s wonderful. And if she’s going to be more careful (and, dare we hope, thoughtful), that would be even better.

Hurray for the governor for admitting her error.