Category Archives: The State

Five Points parking project: The position we didn’t take

You may or may not have noticed that we never took an editorial position on the 5 Points South project — the six-story private development that would include two stories of city parking. There were plenty of words on the editorial page on the subject, both pro and con — just not from us. There were letters and op-eds, but no editorial.

This is because we had no consensus on the subject. The problem was me. I didn’t like the project. Why? It just seemed too tall to be right there. It didn’t move me to know that there were other buildings even taller just a block or two away. This would loom right over the heart of Five Points — right over the new fountain forming a gateway at Saluda and Blossom. Besides — and I realize this is purely a personal whim, so I wouldn’t have taken an editorial position on the strength of this; it just didn’t help — I don’t like parking garages. I’ll park half a mile a way and walk rather than get tangled up in a parking garage. Something about the tediousness of getting in and out of them. I like to know I can make a quick getaway, or something. I don’t know what it is.

Other members of the board thought the project was fine, but it wasn’t a burning issue to them. That is to say, they didn’t favor it strongly enough to push me on it. And they had their hands full, as did I. We were in the midst of endorsement season, and unfortunately, state primaries come along concurrently with the last few weeks of the legislative session — a doubly busy time for us. So basically, no one had the time to do the research to overcome my objections. So we neither came out for it or against it.

In the last couple of weeks before the city’s final decision (which came Wednesday — it was approved), advocates for the project asked to come in to talk to us. With the pace of interviews we were dealing with (and remember, with our present staffing levels, we all work a full day getting the pages out without any meetings), we weren’t sure whether it would be time well spent, given how far apart we were on it.

But all of that is hard to explain, so Warren and I agreed to meet with the group on Monday. The delegation included Anne Sinclair from city council, our own James D. McCallister (who I believe is associated with Loose Lucy’s — correct me if I’m wrong, Don), Duncan McRae from Yesterday’s, longtime Five Points leader Jack Van Loan, developer Ron Swinson and city and Five Points Association staff.

I asked them all my questions, and I was satisfied with the answers. The parking is needed, not everyone has my aversion to garages, and the setback should avoid looming over the entrance to Five Points excessively. It means a lot that the businesses most likely to be loomed over want it.

James brought up a good point about "Five Points" as a concept being something that some of us react to emotionally and sentimentally. I acknowledged that to me, that wasn’t even Kenny’s, but the Winn-Dixie. And does it really make sense not to have secure parking for patrons and employees because I don’t want a building taller than the Winn-Dixie?

So that leaves, what? Residential neighbors who don’t like it, right? That’s something that should be respected, but does it outweigh the legitimate reasons set out by the advocates?

With the decision coming up on Wednesday, I huddled with Warren and Cindi to see whether they thought we should take a position before the meeting. At the same time, I made the point that while I had been won over, I didn’t like the fact that there wasn’t time left to spend equal time with opponents. (If I had thought they would be that persuasive, we would have tried earlier to make provision for that.) We decided, in light of what we already had planned to say editorially on Tuesday and Wednesday, not to leap to a conclusion editorially at the last moment. Warren did write a column mentioning the project favorably for Wednesday’s paper, but mentioned MORE prominently the smoking ban, which we were already on record as strongly for.

Why a post on why we didn’t take a position, when we take very clear positions on bigger, more controversial issues than this all the time? Well, I just wanted to post the video of James et al., and this provided the excuse.

That makes three of our regulars who have now been featured in picture (and now video) on the blog — Doug Ross, bud, and James.

On this blog, everybody gets famous eventually. And not just for 15 minutes, either — even though this is the future previously referred to.

Where to find our endorsements

At the start of this year, when we were about to do our endorsements in the S.C. presidential primaries, I asked the folks downstairs at thestate.com to set us up a page where our current endorsements would reside. As long as we remember to do the right coding on the editorials as we run them, they go to this page, and stay.

It just occurred to me tonight, now that we’ve run a few endorsements in the June 10 primary, to check to see if it’s working. And it is. Here’s the link.

That is, it’s mostly working. For some reason a couple of months back, the pictures that were set up to run with the McCain and Obama endorsements disappeared from the files. I went in and, using my limited understanding of the inner workings of thestate.com, managed to restore the McCain one, but the Obama picture defied my efforts to remove the recently passed expiration date.

I think I might go in and try again on that…

How Jake became Jake: Knotts on growing up poor in Columbia


T
here have been times in the past that I’ve heard parts of it, but this time, I sat back and listened to Jake Knotts tell his full story of how he grew up in Columbia.

He was offering it as an explanation of his values, a way of telling us why he approaches things the way he does.

Look at it any way you like — as the inspiring story of how a populist rose up from the poorest corners of our capital city, or how hard times made a "rough cop" and bull-headed hard case of a state senator.

Either way, it’s interesting, and worth watching the video. This is from an interview Tuesday morning in our offices. Once Jake had told his story, we of course launched into the usual questions.

Pictures of what I’ve REALLY been doing

Or at least, from SOME of what I’ve been doing…

I feel like I’ve really been dropping the ball on the blog the last couple of weeks. I’ve been giving you quick and easy posts based on stuff that necessarily passes quickly through my hands during the day — an e-mail here, something from a proof there, maybe a quick take on a headline — and encouraged y’all to talk amongst yourselves while I chug along in meetings with candidates and others, one after another.

The thing is, if I were doing what I started this blog to do — giving you extra, in-depth, raw material that is over and above what I’m able to give you on the printed page (and South Carolina stuff at that, based on access I have to newsmakers by virtue of the job, stuff you can’t possibly get elsewhere) — I’d be writing about the meetings.

The trouble is, I’ve had no time to think about the meetings, or review notes to pull out highlights, or edit video from them, or anything. I’ve just chugged along, out of one meeting and into another. Again we see demonstrated the principle that you can either blog, or you can have experiences worth blogging about; you can’t have both. It’s frustrating.

So accept this quick-and-dirty photo essay, just to give you a taste of what’s been going on here in the editorial offices since Monday the 12th. Here you see at least one photo from each meeting I’ve had these two weeks with a guest or guest from outside the building (staff meetings are not documented), with the briefest possible summary. (I’ve got to get this done and move on to reading proofs for Friday’s paper.)

(In all this time, I’ve had one meeting outside the building. Tuesday afternoon I visited Providence Hospital to get an update on what’s happening there. I had a camera in my pocket, but it all went so fast I never had it out — more of a rush job, unfortunately, than a similar visit to Lexington Medical several months back, when we weren’t as rushed or as shorthanded.)

Here we go…

Monday, May 12, 11 a.m. — John Scott, Senate Dist. 19, Democrat:
Scottjohn_060

Tuesday, May 13, 9:30 a.m. — Kit Spires, House Dist. 96, Republican:
Spireskit_006

1 p.m. — Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott, Democrat:
Lottleon_042

2 p.m. — Katrina Shealy, Senate Dist. 23, Republican:
Shealykatrina_001

Wednesday, May 14, 10 a.m. — Tony Lamm, House Dist. 79, Republican:
Lammtony_030

11:30 a.m. — Don Purcell, Richland County Council Dist. 9, Republican:
Purcelldon_021

1 p.m. — Barbara Scott, Richland County Clerk of Court, Democrat:
Scottbarbara_015

Thursday, May 15, 9:30 a.m. — Jimmy Brazelle, Lexington County Sheriff, Republican:
Brazellejimmy_001

11 a.m. — Kendall Corley, Richland County Clerk of Court, Democrat:
Corleykendall_040

noon — Sheri Few, House Dist. 79, Republican:
Fewsherri_024

1 p.m. — Damon Jeter, Richland County Council Dist. 3, Democrat:
Jeterdamon2_007

Monday, May 19, 11 a.m. — Johnny Bland, Richland County Council Dist. 7, Democrat:
Blandjohnny_109

4:30 — Our own James D. McCallister, as part of a delegation advocating the 5 Points parking garage/multi-use development:
5points_001

4:30 — Columbia City Councilwoman Anne Sinclair, in the same meeting as James:
5points_014

Tuesday, May 20, 9:30 a.m. — Jake Knotts, Senate Dist. 23, Republican:
Knottsjake_010

Wednesday, May 21, 11 a.m. — Tom Comerford, Lexington County Clerk of Court, Republican:Comerfordtom_006


4 p.m. — Gloria Montgomery, Richland County Clerk of Court, Democrat:

Montgomerygloria_024_2
Thursday, May 22
, 9:30 a.m. — Val Hutchinson, Richland County Council Dist. 9, Republican:
Hutchinsonval_007

11 a.m. — Kerry Johnson, Lexington County Sheriff, Republican:
Johnsonkerry_041

1 p.m. — Napoleon Tolbert, Richland County Council Dist. 7, Democrat:
Tolbertnapoleon_030

Sheri Few touts ability to raise funds as advantage in House 79 primary

Fewsherri_024

A
lthough she was a candidate for the GOP nomination for this seat two years ago, this is the first video I’ve posted of Ms. Few — in fact, I don’t think I shot pictures of her either, since I didn’t post any at the time. She was the second candidate to come in for an interview in 2006, and it apparently had not yet dawned on me to take my camera into those meetings for blog purposes.

This time around, I have an embarrassment of riches — so many images and clips on candidates that they keep threatening to crash my laptop. And yet, they’ve been coming in so fast I haven’t had time to post many on the blog. But at least I’m doing this one. (Truth be told, if I weren’t under the gun to produce a video clip of something for the Saturday Opinion Extra by midnight, I wouldn’t be doing this one, either — it’s been a tough week, and hours to go before I sleep.)

In this clip, Ms. Few is talking about her proven ability to raise money, which she suggests (and she’s probably right) is considerably greater than that of her two opponents, David Herndon and Tony Lamm.

Up to now, contributions to her campaigns has been a source of controversy, since she attracts a considerable amount from out-of-state sources pushing private school "choice." But she says Republicans should consider that the party is in danger of losing the seat currently held by Bill Cotty, and that the likely Democratic nominee — Anton Gunn, who played a key role in the Barack Obama campaign in South Carolina — might be able to raise some out-of-state money of his own.

Here’s the clip:

Broder takes buyout from WashPost

We keep getting complaints about the whole no-opinion-pages-in-Saturday’s-paper thing, and when anybody complains to me personally, I ask them what they’d do, given the imperative of cutting expenses. Given our staff cuts over the last few years, I was faced with either doing pages of lesser quality seven days a week, or doing fewer pages, maintaining quality, and staying here really late every Friday night putting a bunch of Extra stuff online for you ingrates.

No, really — I’m humbled by folks missing our pages so much.

But it might be helpful if people had a bit more understanding of the problems newspapers are having lately. I’ve been saving up stuff for a post, such as:

  • Staff buyouts at the Raleigh News and Observer, which is owned by McClatchy, which also owns The State.
  • The announcement of buyouts at The Charlotte Observer, another McClatchy paper, as well.
  • The fact that the International Newspaper Marketing Association is changing its name to drop the "newspaper" part. I am not making this up, as Dave Barry would say.

Actually, I had meant to gather a bunch more pieces of similar string for you to help you gain a little perspective on all this. But I can’t wait for that, on account of the latest.

David Broder, the dean of Washington political columnists, has announced he’s taking a buyout from The Washington Post. You’ll still see his columns, but he’ll be a contract employee. Here’s a memo he sent to us today:

{DAVID BRODER COLUMN}<
{(ADVISORY FOR BRODER CLIENTS)}<
{(For Broder clients only)}<
   <
   Dear friends:<
   I want to give you a heads-up that later this week, The Washington Post will be making an announcement that, along with many other longtime employees, I am taking the buyout offer — and to tell you what it does and does not mean.<
   The column you have been running will not change at all, and you will continue to receive it from The Washington Post Writers Group. I will continue to write from the same office in the Post newsroom and will continue to travel the country to wherever politics is happening. You will find me at the Democratic and Republican conventions this summer and on the campaign trail this fall, just as I have been this winter and spring.<
   As of Jan. 1, I will become a contract employee of The Washington Post Company. For the last two years, the bulk of my reporting has gone into the column, rather than the news pages of the Post. This change will allow me to focus entirely on the column, while freeing up the Post to use its budget for other news-section salaries and expenses. It will not diminish my ability to be out where news is happening.<
   I look forward to being part of your paper for many years to come….<
   Many thanks,<
   David Broder<

Get the picture? The biz is changing. Small wonder that some people come to me as a blogger, without even knowing I have this newspaper gig…

Anyway, I wanted to make sure you knew about the Broder thing as soon as I knew.

Don’t worry; it’s 10 ’til 8

10til8_003

A
few minutes ago Mike warned me that there appeared to be a problem with the op-ed page (which is, until we print it out as a negative and a plate is made10til8_002
from it, just a big QuarkXPress file) — one of the ads hasn’t shown up. This could mean I’ll have to finish it later in the evening because Mike has to leave soon.

I told him not to worry: It’s 10 til 8.

Earlier, as Warren and I were talking about the need to rewrite his column for tomorrow in light of new developments, and he had just told me we were expecting a fourth candidate today on top of the three I had noticed on my calendar, and Cindi started telling me we were facing a "train wreck" on our schedule if we didn’t start endorsing some candidates this week, I said don’t worry; it’s just 10 til 8. Plenty of time.

Some would say the clock in our hallway is broken. Others would say it needs a new battery. I say it’s just perfect the way it is. As I go into meetings with my colleagues and candidates, full of worry about how we’ll get it all done today, I see that clock, and am deeply reassured: It’s just 10 ’til 8.

10til8_001
Ten minutes before 8 is just a perfect time of day, no matter whether it means a.m. or p.m. It means that I’m either about to have my first cup of coffee of the day, or pop open a beer. It doesn’t get better, or more soothing or relaxing, than that. Oh, look: It’s 10 ’til 8. Ahhhhhh.

Some would say it’s right twice a day, and call themselves optimists. But the way I think about it is much more positive: I choose to believe that it’s always right.

I need to go now and see about these pages for tomorrow. But fortunately, I see by the ol’ clock on the wall that there’s no hurry, no hurry at all…

10til8_004

Candidate interviews continue…

Yesterday, it was Rep. Kit Spires, Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott and Senate challenger Katrina Shealy.

Today, it’s House candidate Tony Lamm, Richland County Council candidate Don Purcell and Richland County Clerk of Court Barbara Scott.

But before that ….aieeee, Cindi’s coming to get me for the first one! Gotta go…

Mayor Bob is an op-ed machine

Recently, in a post headlined, "Now I know how Dr. Frankenstein felt," I mentioned that Bob Coble has enthusiastically embraced the new Saturday Opinion Extra venue. And as you probably noticed, we had a piece from Mayor Bob that Saturday.

We had another one from him this past Saturday. And today, I get this message from Cindi:

I see from Mike that Mayor Bob has already submitted TWO op-eds, and it’s barely Monday…

Yikes.

Just pronounce it right: It’s FRAHNK-en-steen.

Senate Dist. 21: A ‘debate’ between Wendy Brawley and Sen. Darrell Jackson over his position on school ‘choice’

This is one of my better little videos from endorsement interviews lately.

Wendy Brawley of Richland One school board, who is challenging Sen. Darrell Jackson for the Democratic nomination in Dist. 21, is going after the incumbent hard, and has a bill of particulars as to how she believes he’s looked after his own business more than the people’s. An example: Her accusation that he favors private school vouchers.

Sen. Jackson argues back strongly, point by point. I think it’s a video worth watching, especially if you live in that lower-Richland and Calhoun County district.

The Idiot

No, this isn’t about Dostoevsky. I’m just responding to a blog post about me (and you don’t have to thank me for boosting your traffic, NVB). I ran across it because I was looking for the URL to provide a link back on this post.

An excerpt:

I started wondering today what qualifications are needed to be an
editorial writer at the state’s largest newspaper. I don’t mean this in
any petty, mean-spirited, Brad-Warthen-is-an-idiot sort of way. But I
know what qualifications are needed to be a doctor or a lawyer or a
brick mason or a fast food worker. I don’t really know what they are
for an editorialist.

It can’t just be that you have opinions. We all have those. It’s got
to be the quality of the opinion that determines, at least as an
initial matter, whether someone is good at that particular job. And
after that, the ability to persuade someone else of that quality.

I’ve criticized Warthen and the gang over at the State with some
frequency not because I disagree with them on the issues, although I
often do, but because, well, either the judgment or the persuasiveness
is often so lacking in what they write. And on top of that, the
reaction from them when they are disagreed with is telling….

It goes on in that vein. And on account of the fact that it’s Friday evening, and I have hours and hours of work ahead of me doing the Saturday Opinion Extra thing that so many people hate, and I want to put THAT off as long as possible (a great deal of blogging is explained by this factor), I responded, as follows:

“Bingo?”

Tell you what, I’m gonna have to go ahead and do what the bingo caller does here, and ask to see your card, to make sure you have five squares lining up.

In other words, it would be nifty if you, or Doug, or “Silence” (and in a completely unrelated point here, I gotta say that I respect Doug WAY more since he uses his real name, and because he recently paid for my breakfast)…

… where was I? Oh yeah, it would be nifty if one of y’all would provide some examples of this failure on the editorial page just one, or two. Or five, if you think you can go all the way to “bingo.”

[I’m looking for examples on] the editorial page, mind you, since what you question is our abilities as editorial writers/editors. I can accept service on the “Brad Warthen the blogger is an idiot” implication, because, well, he’s a blogger.

Not so much on the “editorial page editor is an idiot “implication, though. For that, I seek evidence….

The Chicago Tribune on beating dead horses

You may or may not know that our own Robert Ariail was a leading contender to replace the late Jeff MacNelly at The Chicago Tribune. In fact, he was rumored to be the candidate, which had me pretty worried. But fortunately for me (and you, the reader, I would assert), the Trib decided not to replace MacNelly.

In light of that, and with regard to the cartoon some of y’all got so worked up about, you may find this passage from a Tribune editorial of this week interesting:

The only filly in the crowded field crossed the finish line second, but the fans who’d bet on her still had one last gasp of hope. Perhaps some fortuitous technicality would disqualify the first-place finisher. But things got worse instead of better. We’re talking about Eight Belles, who was euthanized Saturday after almost winning the Kentucky Derby. But we’re thinking about Hillary Clinton….

And here’s the schlag atop the analogy: Tribune ombudsman Timothy McNulty (not MacNelly, McNulty) took offense at the editorial:

Notwithstanding the playful, even clever, writing of the editorial, it
was wrong, I believe, to use language that conflates the presidential
race and the sad need to euthanize a female horse, ending with this
sentence: "There’s no reason to wait until August to put Clinton, and
the rest of us, out of our misery."

Of course, not being into either sports or horses, I didn’t know that the euthanized horse was "the only filly" in the race, until "not very bright" pointed it out. And Robert wasn’t equating Hillary to the horse — the horse, transmogrified into the Democratic donkey, was the thing she was beating, not her (i.e., the party). To put it another way, Robert did not imply in any way, shape or form that anyone should put Hillary Clinton "out of her misery." That would have been creepy.

But other than that, though, an interesting coincidence. I wonder how Mr. McNulty would have felt about a cartoon, rather than mere words.

They euthanize horses, don’t they?

Cartoon2_2

As Bill Murray said so wisely, in "What About Bob?":

There are two types of people in this world: Those who like Neil Diamond, and those who don’t. My ex-wife loves him...

But I’m here to tell you about another dichotomy that may constitute a much greater cognitive divide:

  1. Really serious animal lovers.
  2. The rest of us.

Robert Ariail has been hearing today from some folks who love animals — horses, especially, I suppose — the way Bob Wiley’s life loved Neil Diamond. Maybe more so.

The category that consists of "the rest of us" is large and broad. I suspect it’s the majority, but I don’t know, and I’m certainly not going to claim that it is, much less imply that greater numbers have any moral significance, because I’ve noticed that members of the other group of people can get very indignant. I just know that this group of people includes Robert, and me, and lots of people who range all the way from folks who like animals just fine (which includes me, and probably Robert, although I don’t know, because I haven’t been interested enough to ask, which is probably proof positive that I’m not a member of that other group of people) to those who have outright hostility toward other life forms (include, quite often, other people).

I am often even fond of animals. I like dogs, in the aggregate. I don’t much like cats. I’m not actually hostile to cats; I’d just rather not be around them (and not just because I’m severely allergic to them). They just, for me, lack something that dogs have — let’s leave it at that.

Some of you may remember a column I wrote about a dog of which I was very fond. Some folks projected some of themselves onto that column, thinking that I, too, must be a really serious animal lover. But compared to the folks I mean when I say "really serious animal lovers," I definitely am not.

I do not consider this to be a moral failing on my part. I am not ashamed of it. I say this to draw a distinction between the way I may feel about myself with regard to other human beings. I frequently have occasion to chide, berate and even be ashamed of myself because I have failed to be insufficiently thoughtful of other people and their needs and wants and interests. But aside from feeling a little bad if I forget my dog’s dinner time until WAY late in the evening, I can’t say that I have such pangs with regard to animals. I just go ahead and feed him, and pat him on the head and say, "Sorry, boy," and leave it at that. This is of course facilitated by the fact that the dog forgives me COMPLETELY, which is one of the great things about dogs. Just try getting away with that with a cat, for instance.

I have also felt bad when I’ve lost my patience with my dog — hollering at him to "cut it out" on occasion when he scrabbles at the door with his claws. I feel bad about that because my wife tells me I should, so I do.

But that’s about it.

I don’t feel what one correspondent said I should feel about Robert’s cartoon today: "Shame, shame, shame." In fact, I was puzzled at the assertion.

I’ve had a busy day today. I didn’t see that message until this afternoon, but it immediately reminded me of something that Robert had said to me this morning as I was on my way into a meeting with a candidate: He said some folks were really getting on him about today’s cartoon, the way they had about that Obama cartoon recently. I sort of said, "Uh-huh" or something, but as I went into my meeting I tried thinking about it, and tried to imagine what the widely misinterpreted Obama cartoon and this one had in common, and I couldn’t. I just came up dry.

Several hours later, when I saw the messages I got from a couple of readers — including our regular Randy — about it, I was bewildered again. I had to ask, "OK, I give up — what is it that upsets you about the cartoon?"

Then I went and looked at Robert’s Web site and saw the comments and figured it out — but I don’t think I would have guessed otherwise. Then I came back to my blog, and saw that Randy had confirmed the impression I had just gained: "The cartoon makes light of the horrific pain and suffering of an animal."

Personally, I don’t think it makes anything of "the horrific pain and suffering of an animal" one way or the other. It basically just takes the "beating a dead horse" expression, links it to an event in the news, and uses it to say — very accurately, I believe — that that’s what Hillary Clinton’s doing with her insistence upon continuing to pursue a nomination that is out of her reach.

And I know this for sure — the cartoon itself does not do any harm to any horse or any other animal. It doesn’t even hurt their feelings, on account of — and I hope nobody thinks I’m stereotyping animals or anything here — they don’t read the paper.

All it does is upset some people — some of them very, very nice people (perhaps I should even say MOST of them are very nice people) — because the death of this horse the other day was apparently an event that was freighted with strong emotions for them. At least, that’s what I gather. Since it was not a particularly emotional event for me, I can only surmise this. It’s not that I don’t think it’s sad for a horse to be put down; it is sad. But that’s about as far as it goes with me. It was not a shocking event. If you put horses that have been bred for speed rather than durability under that kind of stress, this can happen. And when it does happen, as the saying goes, they DO shoot horses. Sad, but not what you’d call shocking, and not something I’m going to be brooding about the next day.

I’ve seen things in the news since that race that are a LOT more awful and tragic. Take, for instance, all the dead and displaced in the country formerly known as Burma. But you know what? Nobody — not one person, that I’ve seen — has criticized Robert for "making light of the horrific pain and suffering" of as many as 100,000 Burmese under the dual tragedy of the cyclone and their oppressive, uncaring dictatorship. And yet, one could as easily have drawn that conclusion from this cartoon as the animal lovers did with this one.

And I reflect on this, and there seems to be something wrong here, and it’s not with Robert…

Cartoon1

Now I know how Dr. Frankenstein felt

Remember how I posted awhile back on the subject of how online provides a nice forum for public officials to speak to the public? When I wrote that, I was thinking about our new Saturday online page, as a place where Mayor Bob and others could have frequent missives appear without being limited by the one-column-to-a-customer policy we have in the paper, since in-paper space is at such a premium?

Well, Mayor Bob seems to like the idea. In fact, after I told him late last week that I would feature his latest offering on Saturday, and urged him to submit material for that venue in the future, two things happened:

  1. He has sent us yet another piece.
  2. He’s asked me what the length limit is for online.

Feeling for all the world like Victor Frankenstein throwing the switch, I answered:

"There is none."

Alive, alive, IT IS ALIVE!

The Obama Effect: Democrats’ chances in the S.C. House

   

Here’s a video I prepared for publication on the Saturday Opinion Extra page for this week. It’s from an endorsement interview with Rep. Jimmy Bales, who’s being challenged in the Democratic primary for District 80 by Stanley Robinson.

Mr. Bales mentioned in passing in the first minute or so of the interview that he hoped Democrats would pick up a few seats in the S.C. House this year. Not quite hearing him, I asked a little later whether he had said he thought Dems might regain a majority.

Actually, he did think there was an outside possibility of that, but mainly he was hoping his party would find itself in a better tactical position with a few more seats. He mentions some districts in particular where he thought Democrats might prevail.

Here’s the kicker — he’s pinning his hopes on Barack Obama. This is a theme I’ve been running into, in various forms, in these interviews so far. The Obama Effect ranges from motivating folks who were previously uninterested in politics to run. And it prompts Mr. Bales to hope to get closer to 58 Democrats in the House, from the present 51. This depends, of course, on Mr. Obama being the nominee — as does so much else.

The Democratic Presidential Primary back in January created a lot of excitement, and we’re still seeing the effects.

A little bit of inside baseball: On the video, you’ll hear Cindi jumping in to make sure I have it right, and won’t go hog-wild on the "Democratic Majority" theme. She has nothing to worry about; I’m a professional.

The Energy Party Manifesto: Feb. 4, 2007

Since, I’m on my Energy Party kick again, it occurs to me to provide you with something never previously published on the blog: My original Energy Party column from the paper. Since it was based on a blog post to start with, I didn’t post it here. Consequently, when I do my obligatory "Energy Party" link, it’s always to the incomplete, rough draft version of the party manifesto.

So, if only to give myself something more complete to link to in the future, is the full column version, published in The State on Feb. 4, 2007. Here’s a PDF of the original page, and here’s the column itself:

THE STATE
JOIN MY PARTY, AND YOUR WILDEST DREAMS WILL COME TRUE. REALLY.
By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
EVERYBODY talks about the weather, which is as boring and pointless as the cliche suggests. So let’s do something about it.
    And while we’re at it, let’s win the war on terror, undermine tyrants around the globe, repair our trade imbalance, make our air more breathable, drastically reduce highway deaths and just generally make the whole world a safer, cleaner place.
    It’ll be easy, once we make up our minds to do it. But first, you Democrats and Republicans must throw off the ideological chains that bind you, and we independents must get off the sidelines and into the game.
    In other words, join my new party. No, not the Unparty I’ve written about in the past. You might say that one lacked focus.
    This one will be the Energy Party. Or the "Responsible Party," "Pragmatic Party" or "Grownup Party." Any will do as far as I’m concerned, but for the sake of convenience, I’m going with "Energy" for now.
    Like weather, everybody talks about Energy, but nobody proposes a comprehensive, hardnosed plan to git ‘er done. So let’s change that, go all the way, get real, make like we actually know there’s a war going on. Do the stuff that neither the GOP nor the Dems would ever do.
    I’ve made a start on the plan (and mind, I’m not speaking for the editorial board here). Join me, and we’ll refine it as we go along:
— * Jack up CAFE standards. No messing around with Detroit on this one. It’s possible to make cars that go 50 miles to the gallon. OK, so maybe your family won’t fit in a Prius. Let’s play nice and compromise: Set a fleet average of 40 mph within five years.
— * Raise the price of gasoline permanently to $4. When the price of gas is $2, slap on a $2 tax. When demand slacks off and forces the price down to $1.50, jack the tax up to $2.50. If somebody nukes some oil fields we depend upon, raising the price to $3, the tax drops to $1. Sure, you’ll be paying more, but only as long as you keep consuming as much of it as you have been. Which you won’t. Or if you do, we’ll go to $5.
— * You say the poor will have trouble with the tax? So will I. Good thing we’re going to have public transportation for a change (including my favorite, light rail). That’s one thing we’ll spend that new tax money on.
— * Another is a Manhattan project (or Apollo Project, or insert your favorite 20th century Herculean national initiative name) to develop clean, alternative energy. South Carolina can do hydrogen, Iowa can do bio, and the politicians who will freak out about all this can supply the wind power.
— * Reduce speed limits everywhere to no more than 55 mph. (This must be credited to Samuel Tenenbaum, who bends my ear about it almost daily. He apparently does the same to every presidential wannabe who calls his house looking for him or Inez, bless him.) This will drastically reduce our transportation-related fuel consumption, and have the happy side benefit of saving thousands of lives on our highways. And yes, you can drive 55.
— * Enforce the blasted speed limits. If states say they can’t (and right now, given our shortage of troopers, South Carolina can’t), give them the resources out of the gas tax money. No excuses.
— * Build nuclear power plants as fast as we can (safely, of course). It makes me tired to hear people who are stuck in the 1970s talk about all the dangerous waste from nuke plants. Nuclear waste is compact and containable. Coal waste (just to cite one "safe" alternative) disperses into the atmosphere, contaminates all our lungs and melts the polar ice caps. Yeah, I know; it would be keen if everyone went back to the land and stopped using electricity, but give it up — it ain’t happening.
— * Either ban SUVs for everyone who can’t demonstrate a life-ordeath need to drive one, or tax them at 100 percent of the sales price and throw that into the winthe- war kitty.
— * If we don’t ban SUVs outright, aside from taxing them, launch a huge propaganda campaign along the lines of "Loose Lips Sink Ships." Say, "Hummers are Osama’s Panzer Corps." (OK, hot shot, come to my blog and post your own slogan.) Make wasting fuel the next smoking or DUI — absolutely socially unacceptable.
— * Because it will be a few years before we can be completely free of petrol, drill the ever-lovin’ slush out of the ANWR, explore for oil off Myrtle Beach, and build refinery capacity. But to keep us focused, limit all of these activities to no more than 20 years. Put the limit into the Constitution.
    You get the idea. Respect no one’s sacred cows, left or right. Yeah, I know some of this is, um, provocative. But that’s what we need. We have to wake up, go allout to win the war and, in the long run, save the Earth. Pretty soon, tyrants from Tehran to Moscow to Caracas will be tumbling down without our saying so much as "boo" to them, and global warming will slow within our lifetimes.
    Then, once we’ve done all that, we can start insisting upon some common sense on entitlements, and health care. Whatever works, whatever is practical, whatever solves our problems — no matter whose ox gets gored, or how hard you think it is to do what needs doing. Stop whining and grow up. Leave the ideologues in the dust, while we solve the problems.
    How’s that sound? Can any of y’all get behind that? Let me know, because we need to get going on this stuff.

Join the party at my — I mean, our– Web Headquarters:  http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/.

A Brad’s Blog primer

Noticing that this recent post had attracted some first-time-readers, I thought I’d greet them and give them a quick orientation. And the message I wrote sort of said some stuff that it might be good to remind everybody of occasionally. So I hereby elevate that quick primer to separate-post status:

Marie, Joshua, thanks for joining us. Sorry you’re disappointed, Joshua, but bear with us. And Marie, what part of Tampa are you from? I went to high school for two years there. Robinson High. A long, long time ago.

It occurs to me to give y’all a quick primer on what we’re about here. I’m the editorial page editor of South Carolina’s largest newspaper. We (the newspaper’s editorial board) endorsed John McCain in the GOP primary, and Barack Obama in the Democratic — and had the happy satisfaction of seeing both of our candidates win.

I think the possibility of an Obama-McCain contest in the fall will be the closest thing to a no-lose situation that I’ve seen in my adult lifetime — and I first voted in 1972.

This doesn’t mean being blind to either candidate’s faults. I’m turned off by McCain’s pandering on gas taxes, and Obama has a problem with Mr. Wright — no wishing that away.

Sometime folks come here and have trouble getting their bearings, trying to decide whether this blog goes to the right or the left. Neither. I’m the founder of the UnParty, sometimes also known as the Energy Party — depending on the subject at hand. I’ve also been known to call it the Grownup Party. I’m basically fed up with both the Democrats and the Republicans, although I like some individuals in both parties.

Anyway, welcome.

I should add this: I try, I really try, to encourage a certain level of civility around here. I also try to discourage pointless, cliche-ridden partisan back-and-forth slogan-chanting of the sort you can get out on your ordinary, run-of-the-mill blogs.

But I’ve been pretty laissez-faire about it lately, and it seemed like time to crack heads. So I deleted a couple of, shall we way, less-than-constructive comments back on this post, and banned the posters. Just so y’all know. One was obviously beyond the pale (both the "N" word and the "F" word crowded into a surprisingly short, and distressingly unoriginal, composition), and the other was someone who had demonstrated time and again that he was not here in good faith.

The great thing is that I haven’t had to do that in awhile. I’m not sure whether that’s because y’all have all become so profound and high-minded, or I’ve just gotten more callous. Anyway, thanks for what most of y’all do.

One last thing — to get full value out of the blog, you’ve gotta follow the links…

The latest COLA outrage

Recalling that many readers were understandably appalled at the recent move by lawmakers to sweeten their own pension deal, which was already sweeter than Aunt Joy’s Cakes, I thought you might want to discuss today’s editorial.

It’s about something that is, if anything, even more outrageous than what Cindi brought to your attention several weeks back. Last week, after the embarrassing glare of publicity had caused them to drop their own pension cost-of-living increase, they killed the underlying legislation to give a COLA to state retirees just because it didn’t have their sweetener in it anymore.

Or, as we described it in today’s editorial:

IT WAS NO BIG surprise when legislative leaders tried to sneak through a generous perk for themselves on the back of an important bill to stabilize the State Retirement System and protect tens of thousands of state retirees. Sweetening up their own pension system is something lawmakers try to do periodically, and they always do it quietly.
    But what happened last week, after the House had reversed course and rejected the new legislative perk, reached a new low, at least in terms of what lawmakers have done out in the open: The Ways and Means Committee voted 13-11 to kill the underlying proposal, which guarantees 2 percent annual cost of living adjustments for state retirees. Representatives didn’t kill the bill because they thought it was a bad idea. They killed it because they weren’t going to get their perk.

Anyway, I thought I’d provide this space for y’all to discuss this…

Preview: Cindi’s column Sunday explaining restructuring

Something John Rust — a candidate for the Republican nomination in S.C. House Dist. 77 — said during his endorsement interview earlier this week was very familiar. It’s something we hear all the time as to why some people oppose restructuring South Carolina government to put the elected chief executive in charge of the executive branch.

Cindi Scoppe explores this common misconception in her column coming up on Sunday. An excerpt:

    When I finally managed to claw my way through my over-stuffed in-box, a reprise of the Rust message was waiting for me:
    “I saw, again, in your column, a push for enhanced gubernatorial power in South Carolina. You made reference to a leader with bold ideas that don’t get watered down by the timid legislature. Were you implying that this would protect education from unwise budget cuts? If our present governor’s bold ideas were unchecked, a good portion of our education dollar would be paying private school tuition, even bright kids who read at age five would be getting systematic phonics instruction until they were nine, and Barbara Nielson (sic) would likely be State Superintendent. At least 25% of the income tax burden would have been shifted from upper-incomes to middle and lower incomes.”
    Wow.
    When you put it that way, no one in his right mind would want to “restructure” government…

You may be able to see where she’s going with that. If you can’t, you need to read the column on Sunday.

And before that, I’ll be putting video of the relevant part of the Rust interview on our new Saturday Opinion Extra

In fact, you know what? Since y’all are like my extra-special friends and all, I’m going to go ahead and give y’all the video right now:

Michael Koska, H77, Republican

Koskam_008

10:31 a.m. —
Michael Koska, a professional photographer, is an interesting candidate in a number of ways.

First, he’s a white Republican running in the district that has been represented by John Scott since 1990. That’s often a sign of someone making a purely symbolic, quixotic gesture. But he’s quite serious.

More than that, for someone running for office for the first time, he’s unusually well-informed and thoughtful about issues. His knowledge is born of experience.

He got interested in serving his community after hearing about a school teacher dying on a road he travels every day — Hard Scrabble. He found out that local government didn’t plan to fix the road for another 20 years. So he started a campaign to do something about it. He collected 10,000 signatures on a petition, and went to Sen. Joel Lourie and Rep. Bill Cotty for help. He got $400,000 to fix a problem right in front of the school, which he calls a "very small victory," as a true fix for Hard Scrabble will run $70 million. And, as he just discovered, that’s just the beginning of local road needs that we haven’t figured out how to pay for. (He said he almost ran two years ago after he heard Mr. Scott offer light rail as as answer to our transportation woes — but he discovered the filing deadline had just passed.) He’s for borrowing the money now to fix these problems, as it will only be more expensive later.

He’s also, as a small business owner, very interested in the state finding a way to provide affordable health coverage. He’s had to pay an exorbitant amount for insurance that doesn’t meet his needs — he was charged $20,000 for his wife to go through a perfectly normal, healthy childbirth. But he doesn’t dare try to switch policies because it took him so long to get this one.

And he recognizes the issue as one that goes far beyond his own case. He sees how small businesses in general are held back, which is a millstone around the state’s neck economically. He speaks of all the people who are trapped in jobs they can’t quit, because they can’t do without the insurance.

The video below shows the knowledgeable way in which Mr. Koska speaks of these issues.

On other matters:

  • He favors a move to a Cabinet system of state government.
  • Unlike me he may not love light rail, but he’s all for the state doing what it can (since the federal government has failed so miserably) to move us toward energy independence. "We’re financing both sides in the War on Terror." He’s for going nuclear (in terms of peaceful use, that is), and promoting electric cars.
  • In general, as a Ronald Reagan Republican, "I think taxes should stay as low as they can." But he refused to sign Grover’s pledge, bless him.

So you’re thinking I’ve gotta love this guy, right? Well, nobody’s perfect. He’s for private school vouchers. He thinks it would mean we’d have fewer public schools to build, and help with overcrowding.

Like I said, nobody’s perfect. Here’s the video (sorry about the wiggly picture — it’s the stripes on his shirt):