Category Archives: Media

Yo, GOP: Huntsman may be your man, if you’d calm down and listen for more than 30 seconds

I was struck by Daniel Henninger’s column in the WSJ this morning. He was decrying the freak show that is this series of GOP presidential debates, and the way they are making our republic stupider by the day.

And then he got to talking about the way Jon Huntsman impressed in an editorial board meeting:

These dark thoughts came forth earlier this week when a group at The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page spent some 75 minutes talking to candidate Jon Huntsman. He’s the one they stick on the end of the podium.

Say this: Jon Huntsman may or may not deserve to be the nominee, but he’s better than the back of the line.

After starting with a horrifyingly robotic recitation of his resume (exactly as he’s said in every debate), the former Utah governor took us on an intriguing tour of his thinking on a range of issues.

Mr. Huntsman said the U.S. likely would have to intervene militarily against Iran’s nuclear program in the next four or five years, a remarkable assertion. He said this in an Oct. 10 speech in New Hampshire, but even in our super-saturated media age, trees fall silently in an empty forest.

He supports “regime change in Syria” through diplomatic and covert means. We should try to make Iraq a “buffer” between Iran and Syria.

He supports the details of the Ryan Plan on entitlement reform. Like Rep. Ryan, he says this contest is “not a normal election”; if the Republicans lose, he said, the U.S. could be on course to repeat Japan’s 10 years of moribund economic growth.

There was more, some of it impressive, some not (for ideas on economic policy, he talks to his brother, an entrepreneur). The point is that one left the meeting with a basis to think about Mr. Huntsman as president, rather than the thumbs-down vote he’s gotten from the Roman Colosseum of the TV debates…

You may or may not have noticed that, when Huntsman sat down with The State‘s board recently, he also impressed them as being the guy with the most substance in the field. Or he impressed Cindi, anyway, which takes some doing.

Part of this is that an editorial board meeting is a vastly superior vehicle for assessing what sort of POTUS a candidate might be than the Reality TV formats of the “debates,” especially given what Mr. Henninger called “(t)he assumption that every cat and dog must be in the debate.” If only there were a way to duplicate that experience — sitting down with a candidate for an hour or two or three and really digging into issues, with discussion rather than robotic questions and timed answers.

But maybe there’s also something about Huntsman — something that even the traumatized, extremism-ridden, post 2008 GOP would see if they’d stop sticking him at the far end of the podium, uninvite some of the less-suitable candidates, and give him an extended listen for once.

SC Dem spoof of bizarre Herman Cain advert

I’m not going to tell you which is the real Cain thing and which is the spoof… OK, if you see them both, I guess you can tell. But if I just showed you the Cain video alone, and asked you whether it was real or a spoof, you’d have trouble getting it right.

In fact, I’m still having trouble with it. I’m still thinking Herman Cain might be sending us up. Look at that grin.

The WashPost suspected the same thing:

A few questions come to mind….

1. Why is Mark Block, Cain’s campaign manager, smoking a cigarette?

2. Why is Mark Block blowing cigarette smoke into the camera?

3. Why is Mark Block on camera?

4. Who is holding the camera?

5. Why did anyone think this was a good idea?

6. Why is Herman Cain smiling?

7. Are we being punked?

Anyway, enjoy. And don’t y’all be smoking anything, OK? It’s all bad for your lungs.

(The spoof, by the way, is the best-executed video yet from Tyler Jones, who posts on YouTube under the handle, SCForwardProgress. Or at least, I assume he’s the one doing them, since he’s the one who always calls them to my attention.)

No, really, I think Fox will tire of Sanford

Meg Kinnard Tweeted earlier that Fox News and Mark Sanford have made it official:

Former SC Gov. Mark Sanford hired by Fox News

SC State Wire
Published: TodayCOLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is joining Fox News as a political commentator through the 2012 presidential elections, a Fox Channel spokeswoman confirmed Saturday.

The network spokeswoman told The Associated Press the two-term Republican governor has been hired as a contributor, though she declined to give any details on his pay or when he would start.

Sanford was a rising political star before he vanished from the state for five days in 2009, and reporters were told he was hiking the Appalachian Trail. When he reappeared, the father of four admitted to being in Argentina with a woman he later called his soul mate.

The international affair destroyed his marriage, which ended in divorce, and derailed his once-promising political career, which had included talk of presidential aspirations…The term-limited Sanford has appeared on Fox since leaving office in January. In September, he told the Associated Press his interview with Sean Hannity was his way of slowly getting back to talking about the nation’s troubles.

“I think this represents me sticking my toe back in the water and talking about things I care about,” he said then. “I care passionately about the direction of this country and deficit and debt and all the things that seem to be in vogue right now.”

He reiterated that he had no intentions of getting back into politics, though he noted he’s learned “you never say never in life.”

Sanford did not immediately return phone or e-mail messages Saturday.

Sanford’s new job was first reported by The New York Times.

When I reTweeted the news, I added the comment, “Fox will tire of this sooner than they realize…”

Apparently, my comment was taken in a spirit other than the way I intended it, because former Sanford press secretary Joel Sawyer (recently seen with me on Pub Politics) responded:

But I wasn’t being hateful at all. I was just saying something that I believe to be true. I really do think that, six months or perhaps a year after he starts, they are likely to question the decision.

I think he has plenty of experience that will stand him in good stead at the outset. After all, they did have him on 46 times during those few months when he was fighting to prevent South Carolina from getting all of its stimulus money. Really. Not making it up.

So there had to be something they liked.

But here’s the thing about Mark: After awhile, he naturally kicks back into his normal mode of speaking. And the nation hasn’t heard him in large-enough doses to know what I’m talking about.

Except once.

After his infamous post-Argentina press conference (later on the same day Gina Smith caught him at the Atlanta airport), several national media types remarked to me the weird, aimless way he had wandered about, seemingly endlessly, in making his confession.

I was surprised that they remarked upon it. That’s the way he talks all the time! He backs into topics, and backs out of them. I don’t have much room to talk on this score, I realize — maybe it’s why I liked Sanford so much early on — but that’s the way he speaks. Like neither his nor anyone else’s time is valuable. About as hurried as he is out operating the backhoe out on the “farm.”

There’s good TV and bad TV, and it has nothing to do with what sort of human being you are. The world is loaded with fine people who would not be good on TV.

I could be wrong, but I really think a time is likely to come when someone at Fox cries to the ceiling, “Why did we do this?

We’ll see. Or you’ll see. I don’t get those 24-hour TV “news” channels any more.

He don’t know Steny very well, do he?

In a column today in the WSJ (“Squatting on Wall Street“), Daniel Henninger scoffed a great deal at Occupy Wall Street (“Compared to this group, Mark Rudd and the Columbia University sit-ins of 1968 were Periclean Athens.”)

I have no huge problem with that, although I think his ultimate point of trying to tie the Obama re-election effort firmly to OWS seems to go a bit far.

And I had to hoot at one passage:

And so on Sunday, Mr. Obama found a way to yoke Martin Luther King Jr. to Occupy Wall Street: “If he were alive today, I believe he would remind us that the unemployed worker can rightly challenge the excesses of Wall Street without demonizing all who work there.” Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has praised OWS for its “spontaneity.”

What came to be known as Occupy Wall Street began several blocks from Wall Street itself, in Zuccotti Park, in downtown Manhattan. I spent a morning in Zuccotti Park this week. Let’s put it this way: I’d make a contribution to the Democratic House re-election committee to see Mrs. Pelosi lead the austere Steny Hoyer and a delegation of her House colleagues through Zuccotti Park. Spontaneity? Most of the people living atop the park’s pavement are virtually catatonic.

Hey, anybody who thinks Steny Hoyer is “austere” didn’t see him doing the Electric Slide in Columbia last year, and really getting into it. I did, and the video is above.

He don’t know him very well, do he?

Even the rednecks pick on South Carolina now

This morning, I could not tolerate another second of the pledge drive on ETV Radio (even when I have money to give, and DO give, I can’t abide actually listening to the pledge drive; it’s all those repetitions of the phone number that get to me), and I didn’t like what was on Steve-FM, so I decided to get my first John Boy and Billy fix in a long while.

And that’s when I heard the Tim Wilson song you hear in the video above.

Partial lyrics:

You can go to war when you’re 18
But you can’t buy a beer
You can load missiles on a submarine
But you can’t buy a pistol here
You can breathe chemical weapon fumes
But they don’t want you to smoke
so when you’re shootin’ up a bar in Baghdad, don’t order a rum and coke

OK so far, typical redneck comic lament. But then you get to:

You can be a governor at 21
Or a president at 35
You can be the senator from South Carolina
If you can just stay alive…

This has gone too far. Jon Stewart picking on us is something you’d expect, but when the rednecks start giving us a hard time over our political predilections and idiosyncrasies, maybe we’d better start talking seriously about making some changes.

WashPost column about the limitations of OWS

I found this column by Anne Applebaum in the WashPost this morning interesting:

What the Occupy protests tell us about the limits of democracy

On paper, it isn’t easy to reproduce the oddity of the Occupy the London Stock Exchangerally that took place on the steps of St. Paul’s Cathedral last weekend. It’s all very British — people are cooking pots of porridge on the sidewalk — yet reverent homage is being paid to the original Occupy Wall Street protests, too. The London demonstrators have even adopted the “human mic” used in New York’s Zuccotti Park — the crowd in front repeats whatever the speaker says, so that the crowd in back can hear — despite the fact that megaphones and microphones have not been banned in London. The effect, as can be heard on aGuardian online video, was something like this:

“We need to have a process.” (We need to have a process!)

“This meeting was called for a reason!” (This meeting was called for a reason!)

“We know that you are there!” (We know that you are there!)

“And we have solidarity with you.” (We have solidarity with you!)

Unintentionally, it sounds a lot like a scene from the Monty Python movie “Life of Brian,” the one in which Brian, who has been mistaken for the Messiah, shouts out at the crowd, “You are all individuals!” The crowd shouts back: “We are all individuals!”

Then there was this good bit:

In New York, marchers chanted, “This is what democracy looks like,” but actually, this isn’t what democracy looks like. This is what freedom of speech looks like. Democracy looks a lot more boring. Democracy requires institutions, elections, political parties, rules, laws, a judiciary and many unglamorous, time-consuming activities, none of which are nearly as much fun as camping out in front of St. Paul’s Cathedral or chanting slogans on the Rue Saint-Martin in Paris.

Then there was this excellent ending:

Democracy is based on the rule of law. Democracy works only within distinct borders and among people who feel themselves to be part of the same nation. A “global community” cannot be a national democracy. And a national democracy cannot command the allegiance of a billion-dollar global hedge fund, with its headquarters in a tax haven and its employees scattered around the world.

Unlike the Egyptians in Tahrir Square, to whom the London and New York protesters openly (and ridiculously) compare themselves, we have democratic institutions in the Western world. They are designed to reflect, at least crudely, the desire for political change within a given nation. But they cannot cope with the desire for global political change, nor can they control things that happen outside their borders. Although I still believe in globalization’s economic and spiritual benefits — along with open borders, freedom of movement and free trade — globalization has clearly begun to undermine the legitimacy of Western democracies.

“Global” activists, if they are not careful, will accelerate that decline. Protesters in London shout,“We need to have a process!” Well, they already have a process: It’s called the British political system. And if they don’t figure out how to use it, they’ll simply weaken it further.

Amen. Bottom line, as good as the piece was, the headline is misleading. This is more about the limitations of the OWS approach.

OK, I quoted an awful lot of it, but if the Post believes I quoted TOO much, I’m sorry and will take it down. But in the meantime — I urge you to go read the whole thing, at The Washington Post.

Yep, they’re laughing at us in the UK, too…

Rick Noble shared this with me today at Rotary, from The Economist:

IT’S a great day in South Carolina, and if you don’t believe it, ask Governor Nikki Haley. On September 27th the governor ordered the 16 directors of cabinet agencies under her direct control to change the way their employees answer the telephone. So now when phoning, say, the Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services or the Department of Employment and Workforce, callers are supposed to hear this cheery greeting: “It’s a great day in South Carolina. How may I help you?”

Ms Haley says the new greeting will boost the morale of state workers and help her to sell the state. “It’s part of who I am,” she declares. “As hokey as some people may think it is, I’m selling South Carolina as this great, new, positive state that everybody needs to look at.”

The blogosphere has been inundated with people mocking the new salutation and proposing alternative greetings. One suggestion: “It’s still better here than Mississippi. How can I help you?” Another was more explicit: “Thank you for calling South Carolina where unemployment is high, morale is low and political leaders are very busy wasting your resources. How may I direct your call?”…

Man, I miss reading The Economist. I used to get it at the paper. But I’m already paying for too much other stuff that used to be covered by the paper, so that’s fallen by the wayside. (Man what DID I spend my salary on back when my club memberships and subscriptions were paid for?)

I used to know the South Carolina writer who wrote for The Economist. I sort of see (or imagine I see — “That blame media is SO bah-ussed!”) her political views in the particular facts chosen in this brief piece — and they are not views that are consistent with those of the editors of The Economist. But I’m not going to name her, because it might be somebody else by now, and then I’d look stupid. Or rather, stupidER.

Great to see Jeff, but I still await that Dole story

Jeff Miller and Warren Bolton, outside Yesterday's in Five Points.

Yesterday my phone rang, and told me Jeff Miller was calling. This was confirmed when I answered and heard his voice:

“I’ve got that Dole story for you.”

Except that he still didn’t have it. He was just stringing me along…

The background: I pulled Jeff out of The State‘s Newberry bureau in late 1987 to assign him to cover the upcoming Republican presidential primary here — the one that launched George H. W. Bush toward the nomination and the presidency, and did so much to burnish the S.C. primary as the early contest that picked winners.

I had other political reporters — plenty of them, in those days. But Lee Bandy was up in Washington, and my others who could do the job would be busy with the Legislature by the time of the primary. I needed somebody to work this story full-time, and for the duration. We could see it was going to be a big deal, with the nation’s eyes on South Carolina, so I didn’t want to treat it like just another story. Gordon Hirsch, who was then the news editor, suggested Jeff as somebody who, despite lack of political experience, could do the job. I jumped at the offer, and our state editor lost him from then until after the primary. (Actually, the State Desk have lost him permanently — eventually, he joined my governmental affairs staff for good. I just can’t remember whether he went back to Newberry for a while first. It’s been a LONG time.)

He did a great job, and had a great time, I think. I still remember him talking about being on the bus with David Broder, and what a nice guy Broder was. Jeff was young, and new to all this, and he was really impressed that the legendary Broder would just sit and talk with him like a regular person.

But he wasn’t too starry-eyed to do his job well. I was pleased. There’s just this one beef. After the primary was over, I had one more story idea for him. After all these years, I can’t even remember what the specific idea was, but I thought it was a good one — it was an angle about Bob Dole’s defeat here that no one else had done. Jeff wasn’t so sure. He was also pretty exhausted with writing about that stuff, and needed to move on to his other reporting duties. I kept bugging him about it — just this one more story, I kept saying. I was like that as an editor — even when people had been working double-time for a long time, actually even when they were on vacation, truth be told — and I usually got my way, through sheer insufferability. Not this time. Jeff would say, “Yeah, sure…” but I never got it.

So he owed me.

Today, he paid me back by taking Warren Bolton and me to lunch, on his first visit back to Columbia in a decade. We went to Yesterday’s, of course, because I got to pick (see the ad at right). We had a great time talking about the Dole story (neither of us can remember what it was about now — but it was gonna be good). We talked about the Cosmic Ha-Has, the softball team on which both Jeff and I played (I was the last Ha-Ha left at the paper; all gone now).  We talked about the county league basketball team that Jeff and Warren played on, and how neither of them plays any more. (I went out to play with them once. For some reason, they never begged me to come back.)

A lot of the intervening years — I was last Jeff’s editor in 1993 — Jeff was still covering politics, but for other papers. Washington became his home base, and when I last saw him, at the Republican National Convention in New York in 2004 (below), he was in the Washington bureau of the Allentown Morning Call, if I remember correctly. In 2006 he left newspaper work, but has stayed in D.C. Now, he’s the vice president for communications of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

It was great to see him again. Warren, too. But it’s usually not so long between times I get to see Warren.

Jeff and me on the last night of the RNC in NY in '04. The marathon was nearly over (conventions mean 20-hour days for press types). Like my beard? I was so much older then; I'm younger than that now.

Endorsements that don’t help Huntsman, but should

Last night on Pub Politics, since Joel Sawyer was co-hosting, I brought up this Tweet from the day before in which Nicholas Kristof mentioned Joel’s candidate:

It’s odd to see Republicans struggling to find an electable candidate.They have 1: Jon Huntsman.They just don’t like him.

To me, that’s a fine thought with which I agree completely. I greatly respect Nicholas Kristof. But of course, with the great mass of GOP voters who seem determined in 2012 to run off a cliff together with the most Out There candidate they can find, it’s an invitation to like Huntsman even less. Because Kristof is a liberal. A very thoughtful, iconoclastic liberal (a guy who, for instance, persuaded me to have a big problem with Obama’s lack of support for the Colombian Trade Agreement in 2008) who is in no way like the ranting partisans of the left.

But that doesn’t matter. He’s a liberal, and that’s that. The kinds of Republicans who don’t like Huntsman — and there are a great many of them — are of the sort (and you find far too many such people in both parties) who are convinced that a person who leans the other way would only say good things about a candidate of their party as some sort of dirty trick meant to promote the weakest candidate.

That, of course, is extremely foolish in this context. If Kristof is up to anything underhanded in this instance (which he isn’t), it would be a sort of double-reverse move — I’ll praise the best candidate in their party so they’ll be sure not to like him.

This huge mass of post-2008 Republicans seem bound and determined not to nominate anyone who might win the general election. Which is very odd, given that they seem to dislike Barack Obama so much.

In 2008, a wonderful thing happened: Both parties actually chose the candidate most likely to appeal to the political center. I do not recall any time when that happened before in my adult life (or at least, I don’t remember the last time my own favorite candidates in both parties won their respective nominations).

At the time, of course, there was a faction that utterly rejected this approach, and for the longest time waged an “anybody but McCain” quest. (Ironically, the choice of the Right — such as Jim DeMint — was Mitt Romney, who this year is considered Mr. Moderate. Which shows you what’s happened since 2008.) Just as the more vehement partisans of the left insisted their party had to nominate Hillary Clinton.

Tragically, the conclusion that far too many Republicans have drawn from 2008 is that they were not extreme enough. (They fail to understand that McCain was defeated mainly by two factors: the collapse of the economy in mid-September, and his having chosen Sarah Palin as an attempt to please the very faction that didn’t like him.)

So they flit from Bachmann to Perry to, now, Cain. And in the polls, Romney remains bridesmaid to them all.

And they utterly ignore that there’s another moderate choice, one without Romney’s baggage: Huntsman.

Last night, when I brought of the Kristof Tweet on the show, co-host Phil Bailey (who works for the SC Senate Democrats) weighed in with how much he, too, liked Huntsman.

I don’t think that thrilled Joel, either.

Phil, I believe, really was employing the strategy of saying nice things about a strong candidate on the other side so that the other side wouldn’t like him. But don’t let that blind you to the fact that Huntsman is the candidate most likely to appeal to the center, and even to disaffected Democrats.

That’s more like it, Boyd. Good lad!

Last night, Phil Bailey called me with five minutes to go and asked me to be a last-minute replacement for Joel Lourie on Pub Politics, so of course I said yes, and they held the show for a few minutes to give me time to get there.

That’s seven times now, people. No one else comes close. The Five-Timer Club long ago became passé for me. I’m the standard fill-in guest. The one sad thing is that I can never be a stand-in guest co-host, because you have to be a Democrat or Republican. That’s the format. Speaking of which, Wesley Donehue was out of town again (China was mentioned), and Joel Sawyer filled in for him. You know, the former press secretary to Mark Sanford, now state campaign director for Jon Huntsman. He did great.

One of our topics, as it happened, was Kevin Fisher’s column about my post about Boyd Brown’s inappropriate little witticism. (When I entered The Whig, I saw Corey Hutchins seated at a table, went over and stood over him, cocked a fist back and said, “Look out — I’m liable to attack you…”) Our discussion — during which both Phil took the position that Boyd’s comment was great, and Joel held that it was Corey’s journalistic obligation to report it — led me to an ironic observation: While one of them represented the left and the other the right, I was the only real conservative at the table. They would only agree that I was the grouchy old guy upholding outdated notions of civility and propriety. (Which is basically what conservatism is, properly understood.)

We also discussed other, more interesting stuff. I’ll post the show when it’s available.

But that’s not why I come to you today in this post. I wanted to share with you this op-ed from the aforementioned young Mr. Brown, in which he expresses his thoughts regarding the “F” the governor gave him in a far more mature and appropriate manner. An excerpt:

Recently, as you may have heard, Gov. Nikki Haley released her legislative report cards for 2011. I will not venture into the sheer pettiness of this nonsense, although it is just that – petty nonsense. Instead, I’ll explain why I got the grade I received, and why, for the first time in my life, I’ll ignore the “teacher’s” advice on how to improve my grade.

According to her standards, I was given an “F.” Not since my first year of Carolina have I been awarded an “F,” and now that I’m in law school, I hope it’s not a recurring theme. I was ashamed of the “F” I received on my first test in freshman philosophy, but I recovered and did well in the course. I can’t say the same for the “F” I was awarded by Nikki Haley; instead, I am proud of it.

Some would argue that since she is our governor, she knows what the people of South Carolina want. Those who are really drunk on her Kool-Aid would probably argue that point loudly and irrationally. Here is my argument:

The “F” I received stands for Fairfield, for your family. In last year’s election, Senator Vincent Sheheen won our county with overwhelming numbers. Nikki Haley and her platform (or lack thereof) were soundly rejected. She is clearly out of touch and out of step with our community – just look at the election returns.

It is offensive to me for her to think that her agenda for our state trumps the agenda of those who I represent. For her to think otherwise shows her skyrocketing level of arrogance, which only rises higher with every national news show she visits, and every out of state fundraiser she attends….

And so forth.

This is good. This is right. Far better that you express clearly why you are offended by her actions (and you have every reason to be offended by her presumption) that for you to be offensive yourself.

That’s it. That’s my fatherly, or at least avuncular, advice for today.

Kevin says I ‘attacked’ Free Times. News to me…

Perhaps you should go back and read my original post. Not much to see, really — a lightweight stream-of-consciousness thing in which I started out joking about something I’d read on Twitter, teasing everyone involved… and then decided, near the end, that that was too much levity and that I should play the grownup and harrumph a bit over the Decline of Western Civilization. So I did. And down below, I will again.

My award-wining colleague Kevin Fisher seems to have taken it quite seriously:

Brad Warthen, local blogger and former editorial page editor of The State, is someone I know, like and read regularly. But it seems he needs a trip back to the newsroom at his old haunt on Shop Road, or to sit in on a Journalism 101 class at USC, or to reflect on the wisdom of shooting the messenger.

In a post on bradwarthen.com that surprised me (and I bet others who know and respect him), Warthen attacked Free Times staff writer Corey Hutchins for accurately reporting a comment made by Rep. Boyd Brown (D-Fairfield) about Gov. Nikki Haley…

He was even offended by the joshing part, before I got around to the harrumphing:

Yet Warthen seemed unable to differentiate between the message and the messenger in his Oct. 5 post on the subject, writing: “And Corey and Boyd — what are you boys doing using language like that …”

“You boys.” Tsk, tsk. Yeah, that sounds like me rolling out the big guns, all right. Kevin should refresh his memory regarding the way I write when I’m being critical. This, for instance, is me criticizing someone:

Mark Sanford approaches elective office with the detachment of a dilettante, as though it simply does not matter whether anything is accomplished. His six years in Congress are remembered for a futon and a voting record replete with empty, ideological gestures. As governor, he has proven himself utterly unable — or perhaps worse, unwilling — to lead even within his own majority party. He is easily the most politically isolated governor we can recall. He is startlingly content to toss out marginal ideas and move on, unruffled by the fact that most of his seeds fall on rocky ground.

I guess I should have sensed a foreshadowing of this. Initially, Corey Hutchins and Eva Moore seemed a bit put out with me, but then I decided they were being ironic, too. A day or two later, I worried that I’d misread that situation when Corey Tweeted another mention of me. But all was well, he assured me when I inquired: “All in good fun, friend!”

Maybe THAT was ironic. But I don’t think so.

Originally, the headline of that post was something like, “Don’t use that language around Amanda!” or something similarly silly. Me being the avuncular old guy, protecting the young lady’s sensitive ears: “(W)hat are you boys doing using language like that around Amanda?” See what a corrupting influence this has had upon the poor lass?

But just before I published it, my rather slow mental processes finally penetrated down a couple of layers and realized what I was looking at. So I began the “Seriously, folks…” part, and then changed the headline. (I dig alliteration.)

Why did I do that? What did I see that I hadn’t seen when I started out being facetious?

First, consider that on a superficial level there was nothing original in what Boyd had said. It’s become a bit of tired joke in politics to say something like, “Oh, he’s only doing to her what he’s been doing to the rest of the country for four years.” The reference is a bit salacious, but refers obviously to what the speaker believes as harmful policies. (I say “old.” The earliest references that I find in a quick search — such as here — refer to Bill Clinton. I found some to Bush and Obama, too. But I actually think the device is older than that, a bit of a chestnut.)

But this was said with reference, specifically, to Nikki Haley. Who is not only the first woman ever to be governor. but the only candidate I can recall to have been accused, repeatedly and VERY publicly, of marital infidelity in the course of a political campaign.

Which takes on something different from the meaning of that joke in the normal course of political waggery. And which is, as I said, “grossly inappropriate” in the public sphere, whoever says it and whoever passes it on — particularly when one cutely plays around with the coarsest word we have in the language for such activity.

I shouldn’t have to explain all that. Our sense of propriety should not be so far gone that such an explanation should be necessary. But what should be and what is are not always the same.

The Perry media staff is very energetic

That’s the conclusion that I draw from the fact that I have received 16 email releases from his campaign in less than 24 hours (typical headline: “TRUTH REVEALED: ROMNEY MANDATE LED WAY TO OBAMACARE.”)

Thus far, that’s the only conclusion about them I’ve been able to reach. I certainly haven’t had time to read them all. And I have… 139 other new emails to deal with in that one account before I can get down to any actual work today. Either that, or I can ignore my Inbox and have twice as many tomorrow.

In any case, I thought I’d report the salient fact: Perry has a very eager, very energetic media staff.

Meanwhile, no word from current front-runner Herman Cain. Perhaps I should sign up for his stuff. Or wait a week, and see who the new flavor of the month is.

A weird political season.

By the way, anyone see the debate last night? I didn’t get home until after it had started, and it wasn’t on any of the few TV stations I now get, and I got out my laptop to try to find it, got distracted by some comments here on the blog, and eventually decided to eat some dinner.

Anyway, if you saw it, any thoughts?

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

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.

‘Obama: A disaster for civil liberties’… Really?

On my way back to the office from Rotary today, I heard this guy Jonathan Turley on NPR going on and on about how Barack Obama is — gasp — “worse than Bush” on civil liberties (or words to that effect; I wasn’t taking notes while driving).

Conveniently, he wrote out his thoughts on this in an op-ed piece in The Los Angeles Times recently. An excerpt:

Civil libertarians have long had a dysfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party, which treats them as a captive voting bloc with nowhere else to turn in elections. Not even this history, however, prepared civil libertarians for Obama. After the George W. Bush years, they were ready to fight to regain ground lost after Sept. 11. Historically, this country has tended to correct periods of heightened police powers with a pendulum swing back toward greater individual rights. Many were questioning the extreme measures taken by the Bush administration, especially after the disclosure of abuses and illegalities. Candidate Obama capitalized on this swing and portrayed himself as the champion of civil liberties.

However, President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them. The earliest, and most startling, move came quickly. Soon after his election, various military and political figures reported that Obama reportedly promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. In his first year, Obama made good on that promise, announcing that no CIA employee would be prosecuted for torture. Later, his administration refused to prosecute any of the Bush officials responsible for ordering or justifying the program and embraced the “just following orders” defense for other officials, the very defense rejected by the United States at the Nuremberg trials after World War II.

Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised. He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.

But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama’s personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush. Indeed, only a few days after he took office, the Nobel committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize without his having a single accomplishment to his credit beyond being elected. Many Democrats were, and remain, enraptured…

As you know, I have commented upon the same phenomenon myself, only not as a bad thing. From my endorsement of his tough talk about Pakistan in 2007 to my praise of his national security continuity right after the election, through my noting the end of the “Kent State Syndrome,” I’ve been pretty laudatory.

What’s really amazing about Obama is that he managed to persuade people before the election, and many after, that he’s this antiwar guy who was going to undo all the supposedly wicked deeds of the Bush administration. I wasn’t hearing that.

But even I was unprepared for how much further Obama would take things than Bush. I guess he’s able to do it because he has the political permission within his own party. Sort of like it took Nixon to go to China, Obama is allowed the latitude to more aggressively pursue the (I’m going to use the term that his base avoids) global War on Terror. As you recall, I made the analogy earlier that Bush was like Sonny Corleone (the blusterer who had trouble getting the job done), and Obama is Michael (who speaks softly and convinces everyone he’s the peaceful don, but wipes out his enemies efficiently without a word of warning). Of course, I don’t see them as heading a criminal enterprise. Others disagree.

It really does put Democrats in a weird place. Some of my most reasonable Democratic friends used to make these extravagant claims about how George W. Bush had trashed the Constitution. They really seemed to believe it. They are quieter now.

Hear our own Phillip Bush on the radio today

Just reTweeted this urgent news:

Today on @yourdayradio a nation #divided and Pianist Phillip Bush. Listen on-air or online at noon for these and more. #ETVRadio

Yep, that’s our Phillip Bush, blog regular, whom you’ve seen on video here.

Find the live audio stream here. (I hope it works. I can’t confirm that until it’s live, apparently.)

Bobby Hitt on media, unions and other stuff

SC Commerce Secretary Bobby Hitt speaking to the Columbia Rotary Club on Monday.

Here’s a post I’ve been meaning to get to all week…

Fellow Rotarian Jimmy Covington asked my long-ago managing editor, Bobby Hitt, what he thought of the news media today. Bobby, who is now SC Commerce secretary, said:

I think that it’s as good as it can be.

That was followed by a long pause, with Bobby regarding the crowd with one of those patented Hitt wiseguy grins as they laughed with appreciation, before he added:

… but not as good as it was.

That said more succinctly what I say so often in answer to the same question. My more wordy answer goes something like, “You have to understand that my friends who still have jobs in the MSM are working heroically in the face of a really horrific lack of resources, yadda yadda….” Bobby put it more cleverly.

Here are some other things he said to the Columbia Rotary Club Monday…

  • Between the newspaper and Commerce, Bobby spent 18 years at BMW. So it was with some authority that he said that whatever you may think about the government providing economic incentives to attract jobs — however much you may want markets to take care of everything — the truth is that “BMW has never built an Interstate highway, and has no plans to do so in the future.” But without them, no BMWs would get delivered, and there would be no BMW plant in Greer.
  • A core strength of South Carolina in economic development is that “We’re good at making stuff.” When’s the last time, he asked, that a manufacturing company located here and then left? That’s why, aside from the new Bridgestone plant, Michelin has just expanded. Those are jobs that are here to stay, he said: Our grandchildren will be working at those plants. “The world gets us, maybe better sometimes than we get ourselves.”
  • Tensions between one part of the state and another are “foolish.” A great advantage we have is that we are a small state, and it’s possible for us to work together statewide. “I look at South Carolina as one big county” in promoting economic development.
  • “I would like to see a time when South Carolinians are not just on the plant floor; they’re in the front office.”
  • Staying a right-to-work state is key to economic development, and in any event it’s not up to him. He just doesn’t see any political chance of it changing. He said he doesn’t see South Carolinians as interested in third-party representation: “Most people in South Carolina don’t want to be told what to do by anyone other than the one that pays them.”

Laurin and Nancy at the social media symposium

Laurin is presenting, Nancy is going over her notes, and I'm trying to think up some mayhem that will get me sent to the principal's office. Just like school.

Last night, I participated in a symposium on politics and social media at Francis Marion University. Which was great. Trouble is, I was on a panel with Laurin Manning and Nancy Mace. And they were better prepared than I was.

See, I thought it was going to be just a panel discussion, so I had jotted some notes about points I wanted to be sure to hit on, and showed up. Laurin and Nancy had slide shows, and got up and made presentations. So I had to, too. No problem, really, because I can fill any amount of time… I talked about the old blog and why I started it and how it related to my old MSM job, and the new blog and how it’s going, my Twitter feed (dang! I forgot to mention I’m one of the Twitterati!), how I hate Facebook (it’s the AOL of this decade), “Seinfeld,” my Top Five Baseball Movies, and I don’t know what all.

Then at some point, I realized I’d gone on enough, or more than enough, and shut up. Which I think was cool, but it was way less polished than what the other panelists did.

You know how, when you were in school, there were these girls (and sometimes traitor guys) who always showed up with their homework done? And raised their hands and asked for more work, for extra credit? And when the teacher had been out of the room, and came back, they told her what you had been doing while she was gone? It was like that. Laurin and Nancy were good.

But I survived to the actual panel discussion part, and that went well (I think), so all’s well that ends that way. As it happened, I enjoyed it.

I especially enjoyed learning from Laurin and Nancy.

Laurin was sort of a mentor for me when I started blogging in 2005, and she was well established with the legendary Laurinline. She later was part of the unstoppable Obama social media machine of 2008. Recently, she’s blogged at SC Soapbox.

Nancy, the first female to graduate from The Citadel (how’s that for intimidating?), is founder and CEO of The Mace Group, LLC. She’s also partners with Will Folks in FITSNews— she does the technical side, and leaves the content to Will.

I’m not going to share with you all the cool trade secrets they imparted, because knowledge is power, and I want it all to myself. But I will share this anecdote that they told us about:

You know how Will started his blog? By accident. He was actually trying to post a comment on the Laurinline, and got so confused in trying to do so that he inadvertently set up a blog of his own. Really. That’s the way Laurin and Nancy tell it. The site is much more technologically sophisticated now with Nancy involved, and has more than a million page views a month — compared to my measly traffic, which has only broken a quarter of a million a couple of times. (That’s it. That was my display of humility for this month.)

Anyway, that’s why I was in Florence.

The ends meet: a nexus between Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street

This morning I was listening to a discussion on NPR. Tom Ashbrook kept asking callers whether Occupy Wall Street was this year’s answer to the Tea Party — sort of the other side acting up.

But I was particularly interested in what one of the callers said about a me-too “Occupy Wall Street” demonstration he’d witnessed in Nashville. He said he saw Tea Partiers participating, “in absolute accord with the message, that it’s not about Republicans or Democrats, it’s about corruption…,” referring to the “criminal activity on Wall Street,” which he (the caller) says caused him to lose so much of the value of his home.

One of the guests on the show observed that left or right, the growing objection appears to be with bigness — big gummint, big business, big media.

You can listen here.

Yep. Populism is populism, when you scrape off all the external trappings. To a certain extent, anyway.

Burl’s column about his Dad and the 8th Air Force

Burl Burlingame says on Facebook that he was contacted by “a documentary crew who reminded me of this piece I wrote some years ago. I miss my father.”

Here’s the piece, from June 15, 2003. If the Star Bulletin gets mad at me for repeating it in its entirety, I’ll boil it down to a quote and a link. But here’s the whole thing:

To England and
back with Dad


Dad doesn’t talk much about the war unless he’s had a couple of drinks, and even then you have to keep him from drifting into the realm of airplanes, which is related but has little to do with real life and family history. There is a period of his life — and my mother’s — that seems boundless and malleable, a mysterious dark forest with little light to illuminate the way, the few years between school days in rural Ohio and a rootless existence as the head of a career Air Force family, a wandering life that eventually settled in Hawaii 38 years ago.

The war came along and swept Dad up, rattled the childhood right out of him, stamped and marked the man who raised me. Like most veterans of his age, the war is likely the most vivid period of his life, and one that is quietly put away in a rarely opened compartment.

In college on a swimming scholarship, Dad joined the Army Air Forces and became a fighter pilot. By the time he was 20, he was flying Mustangs for the 8th Air Force, part of the desperate crusade throwing itself against Hitler’s Europe.

Once, as a adolescent, I was watching an aviation show on television and I asked Dad if he remembered what life was like on an English airfield during the war. Sure, he said, watching smoke curl upward from his cigarette. He described seeing a bomber full of teenage Americans smack into the ground and cartwheel, flinging debris and flames across the green grass. He spotted what appeared to be a parachute pack hanging on a wire fence and, trying to be useful, he trotted over to retrieve it — only to discover that it was actually a young man’s torso, tangled in the wires. I think it was the first time he’d seen a dead body.I shut up and he continued to watch cigarette smoke curl away into nothing.

We shared a love of aviation and Dad introduced me to the exacting craft of building model airplanes. The first model I built on my own was a clunky Aurora P-51 Mustang, the same kind of airplane he flew during the war, and I painted it with a can of lime-green zinc chromate he liberated from the base motor pool. It was hideous; I’m still building models of Mustangs, still trying to get it right.

Dad retired from the Air Force after a long career and went back to school. For a while, we were in college at the same time and, since our names are the same, our transcripts would get mixed up. He got better grades than I did. Eventually he earned a doctorate and taught university classes. The Air Force receded into the past and the war acquired a faint burnish, the rough memory worn down to gleaming daydream.

Like others of Dad’s generation — the generation Tom Brokaw is so impressed by — the 1980s and ’90s were a period in which veterans looked back on the war with perspective and an ability to come to terms with it. My father began attending reunions of the 355th Fighter Group, got involved in creating a memorial commemorating the group’s brief, dangerous liaison with the tiny towns of Steeple Morden and Litlington in faraway Cambridgeshire, north of London. Dad spoke of Steeple Morden with a fondness he doesn’t have for his own hometown.
This spring, it looked like the group association would have its last reunion. All of the members are in their 80s. A last hurrah was planned, a farewell tour, a final addition to the Steeple Morden airfield marker, a closing of the door, a turning off of the lights. Although Dad bought tickets, my mother decided she wasn’t up to the trip. Dad has a pacemaker, and a daily cocktail of heart drugs that makes him unsteady at times. Without backup, he wasn’t sure he was up to the grind of traveling. Would I be interested in filling in for Mom?
Absolutely. It’s impossible to do enough for your parents, and besides, I had not been back to Europe in 20 years. This time, however, I’d be experiencing it through my father’s eyes, seeing the places and people that became touchstones in his life and, by extension, my own. A journey into our shared past.
The traveling turned out to be the easy part, even though I haven’t traveled with a parent in more than two decades. Dad and I preferred the same hard mattresses, the same amount of ventilation in the rooms, falling asleep and waking up at about the same time, a glass of beer before dinner and something harder afterwards, an amused wariness of artery-hardening English breakfasts. On the other hand, I still hold out hope that Europeans will discover the magic of ice cubes in drinks; after 60 years, Dad has given up on them.
In the rolling green farmlands of Cambridgeshire, I discovered that the war was neither far away nor a fading memory.
The tour was organized by retired tractor salesman and aviation enthusiast David Crow, an apple-cheeked bundle of energy and the 355th’s English point of contact. During the war, he was one of the scrawny Brit kids hanging around the airfield, asking, “Got any gum, chum?” In school, when asked what he wanted to be when he grew up, Crow wrote, “A Yank!”
Instead of simply being lonely teenagers thrown into the maw of combat — the 8th Air Force had the highest casualty rate of any American military organization during the war — the Americans were heartily appreciated, perhaps more so in retrospect. They had a profound effect on the British simply by their presence. These “fields of Little America” that dotted the English countryside created lasting bonds between America and England, and help explain why the English stick up for us when other countries don’t.
Retired sales manager Albert Moore, whom I met in the spectacular 8th Air Force Memorial Library in Norwich, studies the deeds of the 8th Air Force every weekend while his wife goes shopping. Why? His eyes softened. “All those lovely boys sacrificed,” he said. “Mr. Hitler would have taken us, no error, if it had not been for the Americans. It was the Yanks saved our bacon, even though we had no bacon left.”
Another one of the veteran pilots, Bill “Tiger” Lyons, speaking at the rededication of the 355th Memorial at Steeple Morden, pointed out what a near thing it had been. “Imagine what the world would be like now if the Nazis had won,” he said. “Just imagine. Well, I can’t. It took desperate teamwork from the diverse peoples of the world to stop fascism, the political movement that wanted to destroy diversity. Well, it was diversity that made us strong, holding hands across an ocean.”
It was a mighty near thing, the war. Americans sacrificed lives for it, but we never came close to sacrificing our entire culture and history.
The reunion ceremony caused a bit of a news stir in England, as a panel had been added to the memorial commemorating the Royal Air Force — the first time an American military organization had so honored the British — and also because the Duke of Gloucester had asked to be part of the ceremony, reading a religious passage — the first time a royal had participated directly in such a ceremony. It took place beneath a lowering English sky, in an emerald stand of spring wheat, the long-ago vestiges of the Steeple Morden airfield barely visible in the contours of the land.
At the nearby Steeple Morden schoolhouse, which dates back several centuries, the hallways are illustrated with heroic images of flying Mustangs. The English children greeted the shuffling old American aviators as if they were pop stars. They sang hymns like angels; they performed an American cheerleading routine; a little girl sang “America the Beautiful” solo, in a haunting voice that hung in the air. I saw my Dad and others wipe their eyes.
In nearby Litlington, half the village turned out to feed the Americans in the town center. Relationships were renewed that had begun more than half a century before. The Crown, a Litlington pub that stood during the war, still has 8th Air Force pictures on the walls. Americans lifted pints of dark, bitter beer as they did in the days of 1944, and remarked how it still tasted the same.
Inevitably, a group photo was called for. The American veterans, some with walkers and canes, slowly assembled on Litlington’s small public stage. The English folks took snapshots of their heroes and friends. It was likely the last time they’d visit, at least as a group. Even this will pass.
Suddenly the American pilots began to sing:
Off we go into the wild blue yonder
Climbing high into the sun
Here they come, zooming to meet our thunder
At ’em boys, give ‘er the gun!
Even Dad, who never sings in church, was bellowing along, smiling and content. The citizens of Litlington clapped delightedly.
I began to understand how this relationship with the British has helped clear away the darkness of war. It is a flame that continues to burn; it is the light that preserves the world. I am immensely proud of my father, not just for surviving the horrors of the war with honor, but for coming to terms with it over the years.

Burl Burlingame is a Star-Bulletin writer and editor.

Burl’s an awesome writer. But of course, that’s awesome material.

Guess who topped this list of dumb governor tricks? Yep, ‘Gov. Sunshine’…

I’m beginning to suspect that when people go to compile such things as this piece on Salon, “Why are the governors of America saying such dumb things?,” they look at South Carolina first. The very first example given was:

According to the Associated Press, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley announced at a cabinet meeting on Tuesday that forthwith, state employees are to answer official phones with a cheery, “It’s a great day in South Carolina!”

Gee whiz, that should solve everything! As AP noted, “Never mind the state’s 11.1 percent jobless rate and the fact that one in five residents are on Medicaid.” Great day, indeed. Presumably, Gov. Sunshine plans to accompany the next set of her state’s unemployment figures with a chorus of “We’re in the Money.”

Which frankly isn’t even fair. It’s not even something Nikki said; it’s something she made everybody else say, which therefore goes into the category of dumb things governors do.

If they wanted something she said, they could have gone to the thing Cindi was writing about — the one about all the drug fiends applying to work at SRS. She apparently said that one over and over, which should have qualified for extra points.

But I’m really tired of national media, and comedians, looking first to South Carolina for material (as Jon Stewart keeps saying, “THANK YOU, South Carolina!”).

I’m even more tired with our politicians giving them reason to.