Category Archives: The State

David Herndon, S.C. House Dist. 79

Herndondavid_044
9:35 a.m. —
David Herndon turned 40 a few months ago, looked around, and decided it was time to get involved with politics. His business (trucking) was in good shape, and his kids at an age that he could free up the time.

First, he replaced Sherri Few as chair of the Kershaw County GOP. Then, when he heard Bill Cotty would not seek re-election, and Ms. Few was the only Republican contender for the seat (at that time), he filed for that.

He cites two main differences between him and Ms. Few, who as you may recall ran against Mr. Cotty last time:

  1. She’s the private-school voucher (or tax credit) candidate, and he stands in opposition to that. With three kids in public schools he says he feels like he’s got too much investment in them to give up now. He says his opponent’s support of private school "choice" isn’t overt, but all you have to do is look at where her money comes from. The current holder of the seat, of course, has been a favorite whipping boy of the out-of-state interests that have financed the private school "choice" movement in S.C.
  2. He’s a businessman, who’s made a payroll and knows what it’s like to make his way in the real world. By contrast, Ms. Few’s main experience is in the nonprofit world, with "most of the money coming out of Washington."

Beyond his opposition to vouchers, however, Mr. Herndon doesn’t have much to propose in the area of education, beyond paying teachers better.

He does have other reforms he’d like to see. He’s one of those all-too-few candidates who brings up government restructuring before we can ask him about it. He would get rid of the Budget and Control Board, and reduce the number of constitutional officers.

He says that "in general" he’s against tax increases — except for the cigarette tax. He wants to bring more of "a business approach" to government, but his emphasis is less on taxes than on spending. He’s an advocate for setting priorities, and an opponent of such pork spending as the Green Bean Museum in Lake City.

He also wants to work to make health care coverage more accessible. He learned the hard way — through having a child with cancer — that health insurance "is one of the most important things a family can have."

Looking ahead to the general election, he said he sees himself as having an advantage over Democrat Anton Gunn, in terms of having lived in the district 30 years, and having his roots there.

Robert’s rough day

Robert Ariail, despite appearances to the contrary, is actually a shy guy, who has trouble shrugging off criticism.

You’d think, being a satirist, that he’d have a tougher hide, but he really takes it to heart when people tear into his work.

But what really gets him, what really eat him up, is when the criticism is based in something he didn’t intend at all. Such is the case with the minor uproar over his Thursday cartoon. As he wrote on his new Web page:

Given the number of comments on this cartoon I thought it would be constructive to offer my own. My intent was not to imply that Obama is a muslim terrorist- though now that it’s been pointed out to me, I can see how some would reach that conclusion. Basically, I was playing on the name [sounds like bomb] and the possibility that his words could blow up his campaign. A number of comments implied I have it in for Sen. Obama and favor Sen. Clinton, yet my first take on this was to point out the irony of Clinton calling Obama an elitist- see previous day’s cartoon.

I told him that the kind of people who assume he’s the kind of person who would make Obama out to be a terrorist will never believe the truth — that he simply never thought of it, that the gag really was so simple as to be playing on the fact that he was committing political suicide, and "Obama" sounds like "bomber" — hence, "Suicide Obama." But he should state the truth anyway.

The awful thing is that once you think, "Oh, this is another of those Barack Hussein Obama things," it’s hard to see anything else in it. But before publication, Robert didn’t see it. Neither did I. The only discussion we had about it was when I questioned him as to whether the word balloon where he’s saying, "Uh, let me rephrase that…" added anything to the gag. Robert thought he needed to be saying something, and that having him say that emphasized that Obama didn’t really mean to sound all elitist and dismissive, and had been trying to correct that impression by explaining himself.

And now Robert’s having to explain himself. Ironic, huh? Of course, the Web being the way it is, nobody’s listening to him.

OK, so I jumped to a conclusion

After years of Democratic and Republican seats being made safer and safer for their respective parties by way of increasingly sophisticated partisan (and incumbent-protective) gerrymandering, one forgets sometimes that members of underdog parties DO occasionally take a run at a seat in the opposing column — particularly when the seat is open.

So it is that, without thinking about it, I made a mistake when I said that Joe McEachern would be the third candidate we’ll talk to who is seeking to fill the seat John Scott is vacating. As a colleague corrected me:

Mr. Byrd is indeed the second candidate we’ve had in for H.77. But Joe McEachern is not the THIRD candidate we will meet with. He is the third DEMOCRAT we will meet with. The THIRD candidate for this seat whom we’ll see is Michael Koska — one of the two or three Republicans in the race. (I say two or three because there’s one candidate whose district is listed as 77 on one GOP document and 79 on another — and I haven’t gotten a call back from him yet).

———————————-
Cindi Ross Scoppe

So now you know.

Now that I think about it, Republicans have taken a run at that seat before — just unsuccessfully.

By the way, I was going to tell you HOW unsuccessfully (I was curious to see if the numbers indicated any sort of opening that would make a Republican candidacy anything other than purely quixotic), but the state election commission Web site isn’t providing that information today — which is inexcusable.

Benjamin Byrd, S.C. House District 77

Byrdbenjamin_012

9:45 a.m. —
Benjamin Byrd is the second candidate we’ve spoken to who is seeking the seat being vacated by Rep. John Scott. The first was D.J. Carson; the third Democrat, Richland County councilman Joe McEachern, will come in next week. Mr. Byrd is retired after three decades with the state Department of Transportation, where he helped start the minority business enterprise program, before becoming the freedom of information officers in the agency’s legal department.

Mr. Byrd is a soft-spoken man who does not boast — for instance, when he said he was running on the basis of his "experience" and Cindi asked about those experiences, he did not mention that he had served on the Richland County planning commission. What he did mention was his time at DOT, but also his involvement as a parent when his two children were going through public schools — both with PTA and the school improvement council.

While recognizing that the Legislature’s primary responsibility is to pass laws, he is very interested in providing constituent service, and would want to exercise leadership in the community beyond legislation — for instance, he would work to encourage district churches to get more involved in education, through after-school activities, mentoring and homework centers.

His response to the private school "choice" movement is that we "need to make sure all of our schools are financed or operated to where there’s no need to be talking about school choice," because none of the public schools would be inadequate.

While he didn’t use the term, when asked about taxation he asserted the need for considering the system comprehensively, rather than reacting to this or that tax piecemeal. One change he mentioned specifically: "When you buy a car, you enjoy" paying no more than $300 tax, "but that’s not realistic."

His planning commission experience came up in connection with the state’s relationship to local governments. He spoke of the wisdom of merging city and county planning commissions to be cost-effective and more efficient, and in general observed that "I think we have too many little governments."

Mary Barber Kirkland, S.C. House Dist. 70


4 p.m. —
Mary Barber
Kirkland
, whose father and grandfather were both school principals and
has spent 39 years in public education herself, is challenging Rep. Joe
Neal. Originally from Hopkins, she has been involved in a lot of
community efforts in lower Richland. She says she’s running because she
"wanted a leader who is visible and focused." She declined to criticize
the incumbent, although those points are common to candidates who have
opposed Mr. Neal (unsuccessfully) in the past — assertions that he is
not engaged enough locally between elections.

But Mrs. Kirkland
preferred to talk about what she would do, and she would concentrate on
education and economic development, the latter being particularly
sorely needed in her district.

She believes that parental and community
involvement are the main elements needed for children to succeed in
school, and she has seen her share of children struggling — and says
she has seen gang involvement as young as the second grade — "I can
see the little ones joining now… seeking that family that they don’t
have at home."

She also favors programs that enable senior
citizens to share their wisdom with younger generations.

Stanley Robinson, S.C. House District 80

Robinsonstanley_011

1:30 p.m. —
Stanley Robinson,
who is retired from the Air Force, is opposing incumbent Jimmy Bales in
the Democratic Primary. He has no particular criticism of Mr. Bales’
stewardship of the seat, but he thought this would be a good year —
"an exciting year, an historical year" — to try to get into politics.

He readily acknowledges that he is "a rookie," but figures he ended up
doing well at other things he’d never tried before, such as when he got
married 36 years ago, and the first time he was ever stationed overseas
— daunting, but not insurmountable.

He’s interested in improving
access to health insurance. "The patients seem to think the doctors are
getting rich, but they’re not," he says from his experience the last
few years working in the health insurance industry.

He wants to improve
public education, particularly in the distressed areas in the Pee Dee.
He sees early childhood education as key.

While he is a Democrat, he’s
"just as conservative as anyone else," and believes that "picking up
litter isn’t partisan… people are people."

   

Mike Sturkie, S.C. Senate District 23

Sturkiemike_016

10 a.m. Michael Sturkie
is one of two challengers going up against Jake Knotts in the
Republican primary for this Lexington County seat. Mr. Sturkie has
lived in the district 26 years, and owns two businesses, S & T
Grading and Excavating, and S&T Landfill.

He says he thinks the
people of the district want more focus on "major issues," rather than
what he says is an overemphasis on "good ol’ boy issues." I asked him
for a definition of the latter (since a lot of folks use it, sometimes
meaning different things), and he meant "favoritism" in appointments
and such. Beyond that, he said of Mr. Knotts, "It seems like he’s
picking fights" all the time, whereas Mr. Sturkie said he would present
a lower profile: "I can take a back seat."

He suggests he would never
vote otherwise than in accordance with the wishes of his district,
whatever the facts, and believes more issues should be settled by
referendum rather than through representative government. He wants to
do away with property taxes altogether, and pay for everything with an
even higher sales tax. He said he’s "not looking to pad my pension,"
and would want to "fix" the overgenerous deal afforded lawmakers. Of
teachers, he said "they’re getting paid a lot less than they deserve.

Legislative interviews begin today

Late last week, I forwarded this release to Cindi:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 28, 2008
Contact:          Kerry Abel

MEDIA ADVISORY

Carson Announces for SC House
A New Generation for District 77

COLUMBIA, SC – Local attorney DJ Carson announced today his candidacy in the June 10th Democratic primary for SC House seat 77.
    "I grew up right here in this community," Carson said. "This is my home, and it deservesCarsondj
fresh, energetic leadership that looks beyond the daunting circumstances of what is and into the possibilities of what could be."
    Though this is Carson’s first run for public office, he is no stranger to politics. He spent 2000 as a grassroots organizer for the Democratic Party’s Coordinated Campaign and has also served as an aide to Rep. J. Todd Rutherford.
     Combined with his work as a Richland County Prosecutor, these experiences have given Carson a unique perspective on some of the most challenging issues facing us today.
     "I see how much drugs, guns, and gang violence costs this community every day and I’m ready to take that fight to the next level," Carson said. "I’ve been in the trenches and now I’m ready to lead the charge."
     "The time for excuses has past. The time for change has come. The future is now!"
      
                ###

Cindi responded thusly:

And we get to meet
him on Wednesday, at noon.

Ohmigosh, and here it is Wednesday at 11:21. And so it begins. I haven’t counted yet myself, but Warren said he counted up the candidates running in Midlands legislative and county primaries, and we will have 52 interviews between now and June. He also noted that we will have far more interviews for primaries than we will for general elections in the fall. Such is the domination of reapportionment by incumbents and political parties.

And Mr. Carson, who will be competing with Joe McEachern & Benjamin Byrd for an open seat currently held by Rep. John Scott (who is seeking a Senate seat), will be the first.

Robert Ariail video

We’re launching two new Web features tonight — one is the Saturday Opinion Extra, which should show up at the top of the regular Opinion page at 12:01 a.m.

The other is the new site devoted to my friend and colleague Robert Ariail and his stellar work. Andy Haworth of thestate.com has done a nice video for that site to help us launch it. I invite you to watch it above, and then go check out the whole Ariail site.

Now, I’ll go back to watching the clock, waiting for the Saturday thing to launch. I think it’s ready…

Notes from the bunker

Sorry I’ve been so scarce the last day or two. I’ve been trying to make this Saturday online-only opinion page thing happen. As I suspected it would be, it’s WAY harder to make happen than just doing editorial and op-ed pages the old way.

That is, it’s harder for me. It’s lighter on the rest of the staff, which is the point, since it’s a smaller staff than it was.

So I hope you’ll get some use out of it — and offer constructive suggestions. It will evolve.

Anyway, in case you missed me, I replaced the Easter-eggs shot with a new picture — upper left part of the page. Can’t you tell I’m having lots of fun today? (Gary Ward of thestate.com, who shot it, asked me to look "serious." That’s why it looks like I have indigestion or something.)

Last-minute ploys in city council race

Kappaalpha

S
ince I haven’t decided what I think about it myself, let me ask you: What do you think of the last-minute attacks in the Columbia City Council at-large race?

Two examples of what I’m talking about: Cameron Runyan holds a press conference to claim that incumbent Daniel Rickenmann had a conflict-of-interest on recent tentative decision to approve a six-story development in Five Points. There was a story about that in the paper the other day.

Then, on Sunday, the above flier shows up on windshields outside Bethel AME Church. (This was reported on in today’s paper.) There is no date on the photo, and little explanatory information. But to describe it as simply as possible, it purports to show Mr. Rickenmann at what has all the marks of a Kappa Alpha fraternity party. But I suppose it could be just about anything. As to whether that’s Mr. Rickenmann, well … all those preppy white boys tend to look alike to me. As I said awhile back, I think Cameron Runyan looks like Daniel Rickenmann, so don’t go by me.

Here’s what today’s news story said:

The fliers showed a picture of Rickenmann at a fraternity party while
he was a student at USC. He and a group of fraternity brothers, some
dressed in Confederate uniforms, are posing in front of a Confederate
battle flag. In the picture, Rickenmann, dressed in a tuxedo, is
toasting the camera with a drink.

Or, you could just look at the picture above.

No one has taken responsibility for the flier — neither Hamas nor the Symbionese Liberation Army has come forward, and Mr. Runyan denies it outright.

Both of these attacks came after we had endorsed Mr. Runyan for the seat, and we had no interest in running anything about them in editorial. We don’t even have an editorial position on the (relative) high-rise in Five Points — I’m at odds with my three associates on that one — much less what role Mr. Rickenmann should or shouldn’t have played in the decision thus far.

As for the "Confederate" picture… even if we had raised it to denounce Mr. Runyan (or whoever distributed it; I don’t know who), it would have focused so much negative attention on Mr. Rickenmann that it would look like we, as Runyan supporters, were piling on. (Add to that our usual reluctance to air any new charges in the last day or two of an election, when it’s too late for the accused to give a fair answer.)

Anyway, it all came out in the end for Mr. Rickenmann, so congratulations to him and his supporters. I just provide this post as a place for y’all to discuss the last-minute stuff.

On Saturdays, you’ll find us on the Web

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
SINCE YOU’RE reading this, we can assume you found us in our new location. Actually, Page D2 is sort of an old location for the Sunday editorial page. We were here for many years before jumping to the A section a little more than a year ago.
    Being back on D2 feels like home to me; I hope it will make our pages more convenient each week for you as well.
    But my purpose today is not to talk about a change already made, but one coming up. And this one is going to feel a lot less familiar to all of us.
    Starting six days from now, we will no longer publish opinion and commentary pages on Saturdays in The State. Instead, we’ll unveil a new Web page featuring content of the sort that we would have published in the paper, only more of it. The new page will be called “Saturday Opinion Extra.”
    Why are we doing this? Two reasons, which I’ll keep as simple as possible:

  1. We have to cut costs.
  2. There are things we can do online we can’t do in the paper.

    Now, about the cost-cutting:
    You may have read that newspapers don’t make as much money as they used to. We still make money, just not as much as the stock market demands. And when you’re a publicly traded company, you have no options: Making less money is something shareholders don’t stand for.
    So you do two things: You work like crazy to bring in more revenue, which is not my department. And you cut costs, which does involve the editorial staff.
    When we lost one writing position three years ago, we eliminated staff-written copy from our Monday pages. Now, faced with further reductions, we’re eliminating editorials from another day, plus eliminating two pages of newsprint a week.
    But just as we replaced the staff copy with a lot more letters to the editor (one of the most popular features in the paper) on Mondays, you’ll get more content on Saturdays online than we could possibly put in the paper. For instance:

  • We get far more syndicated and local guest columns than we can fit on our op-ed pages during the week. On our new Saturday Web page, we’ll be able to give you several op-ed pages worth of columns from the likes of David Broder, Kathleen Parker, Maureen Dowd, David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, Cal Thomas, Paul Krugman and Charles Krauthammer.
  • Add to that at least one column from a local writer, just as you would normally have received on Saturdays. But the particular columns we put online might be something you’d never have gotten in the paper. We often get more than one column in a month from such newsmakers as Gov. Mark Sanford (Columbia Mayor Bob Coble has submitted three this past month). But since space in the paper is at such a premium, we try to limit each writer to no more than one a month. We also turn down most columns that other newspapers have published. So we turn down some interesting, relevant columns — but finite space in the paper demands tough choices. Online space is virtually unlimited, so you’ll get additional chances to read what newsmakers, and others, are thinking.
  • You will see at least as many letters to the editor online as you would have received in the paper, with the added bonus that some of them will be letters held out for no reason other than that they were too long for our page, and didn’t lend themselves to trimming.
  • We regularly shoot video during editorial board interviews with newsmakers. I’ve been using some of it on my blog the last couple of years, but sporadically; the Saturday Opinion Extra page gives us a place to showcase some of the most interesting footage from the past week.
  • You’ll find links to such things as a new, improved page devoted to Robert Ariail’s recent cartoons, featuring such DVD-style bonus features as unpublished sketches, archives, and video of Robert talking about what he does. (There will also be links to recent posts on my blog, of course.)

    That’s the content we’ll be starting with, and I hope you will suggest more.
    This is a big and scary step for us in the editorial department. We have always published editorial and op-ed pages daily, and departing from that feels a little like stepping off something firm and secure into thin air.
    But like skydiving, it’s also pretty exciting. Ever since the 1980s — since before there was a Worldwide Web — I’ve been interested in the potential of an electronic opinion forum, with immediacy and interactivity you can’t get on paper. That’s why I started the blog; this takes us another step.
    Sure, we’ve let  our paper content flow onto the Web for years, but we’ve hardly scratched the surface of what we can do there in the opinion realm. The editorial board needs to turn some attention to better serving the 800,000 unique visitors who come to thestate.com each month.
    Please check out this new feature on Saturday, and let us know what you think of it. Even more than a published page, this new venture will always be a living work in progress, and I’m counting on our readers to help us shape it.

Until the new Saturday Opinion Extra page appears, please come to my blog to share your thoughts:  thestate.com/bradsblog/. Or send us a letter at stateeditor@thestate.com.

Wright context doesn’t change message

OK, I finally got around to watching one of those longer clips of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright — specifically, one that contains the "God Damn America" part. I’ve been told many times that I just needed to get the context to understand that what he said shouldn’t be understood in the stark way that I have understood it.

The Rev. Joe Darby, in his op-ed piece on today’s page, suggested the same point:

… America is still focused on a few ten-second sound bites from Rev. Wright’s 30- or 40-minute sermons

Anyway, I watched this six-minute, 48-second clip — and it doesn’t change a thing. "God Damn America" still means "God Damn America." There’s no part in which he says, suggests or even hints that he didn’t really mean it, or that he thought America was in danger of damnation, and he wanted to save it. No, if anything, it’s clearer that he meant what he said.

But I think some of the well-meaning folks trying to explain all this to me are actually misunderstanding me. Start with the assumption that I somehow lack information. Aside from the above quote suggesting I need the context of the remark, the Rev. Darby also says:

Dr. Wright’s critics also need to learn more about the historically black church and its clergy…

I surely don’t claim to be an expert on the black church, especially in the presence of Joe Darby, who lives it. But no one has told me anything about the black church, in the course of "explaining" Mr. Wright to me, that I did not know. Sure, maybe something is lost in translation, but so far I’ve seen no indication that that’s what is at work this time.

But what Mr. Wright said is clear. The six-minutes-plus of context that went before "God Damn America" was exactly what I would have guessed went before it. Essentially, it was a review of history, mixed with a small dollop of political partisanship (the comparison of not-so-bad presidencies with the current one). Short version: The government has upheld oppression of black people during the course of American history.

Folks, I’m an American history major, and I’ve lived in this country for most of 54 years. What part of the rather sketchy overview in that sermon do you think I didn’t know already? If I’d been sermonizing, I could have added a lot to it — including the fact that the blood offering of the Civil War, as horrific as it was, seems to have been an inevitable sacrifice to expiate the sin of slavery. And I would have said the evil didn’t end there, nor could it, there being original sin in the world, and no one of us since Jesus Christ born free of it.

But I wouldn’t have said "God Damn America." Not in a million years. For me, the point of bringing up evil is to try to overcome it — as I believe two people Mr. Darby mentions (King and Bonhoeffer) were trying to do.

Sorry, but I can’t accept that the Rev. Wright was saying "things that challenge America to rise above its sins of prejudice and greed." No, if he’d said America was in danger of damnation, or headed straight thataway, rather as Jesus said to the Pharisees in the example cited by my colleague Warren Bolton this week, that might have been seen as a challenge, perhaps even a well-intentioned warning. (Personally, although he had more right, being God, than anyone else to do so, I don’t remember Jesus ever damning anything more sentient than a fig tree.)

But Mr. Wright didn’t call on us to do anything. Instead, he called on God to damn America.

One last point — Mr. Darby seems to assume, as have other writers, that those who say things like what I just said are against Obama. Well, I’m not. But just because I like a guy, I’m not going to sugarcoat a problem. As I said, Obama gave a brilliant speech, but he did not succeed in separating himself from what the Rev. Wright had said. He couldn’t. If he had disowned him at this point, it would have been crass opportunism, and beneath him.

So this guy I like — Obama — has a problem, one he can’t get rid of. Just as another guy I like, John McCain, is way old — nothing he can do about that, either.

I would suggest that if anyone out there supports a candidate and thinks that candidate is perfect, he should look a little harder. Nobody meeting that description has come along in two millennia. Thus endeth my sermon for today.

Tom Davis predicting Rod Shealy attack

   


A reader yesterday asked what I thought about the smear job, reportedly engineered by Rod Shealy, that hit Tom Davis this week at the outset of his attempt to unseat Sen. Catherine Ceips.

When I read about it, I just nodded. Tom, the subject of my column this past Sunday, indicated last week that he expected something of the kind, and that it would probably be worse than even he expected:

    I hadn’t even thought about that, to be honest with you… I hadn’t even thought about what it’s gonna be like having a guy who wakes up in the morning who just wants to strip the bark off me. I mean, and that’s what Rod Shealy’s gonna wanna do… I’ve never been through a campaign. I’ve been told just to expect, whatever it is about you that you don’t want people to know, expect it to be known.

Tom thought it would be about something true about him — such as the fact that he was a Democrat when he was young — instead of this illegal-alien nonsense. But that’s Tom’s great liability in this race: He’s a Mr. Smith type. He’s a very open, candid, straightforward, sincere kind of guy (I would have added "thrifty, brave, clean and reverent," but you get the idea), so he figured whatever he was hit with would be something real.

So he was right: He hadn’t really thought through what it would be like with Rod Shealy after him. That’s because Tom Davis is incapable of thinking like Rod Shealy.

It’s a helluva thing, isn’t it, when honest people have to fear running for public office because of sleazy stuff that will be done to them that has nothing to do with their suitability for office?

Oh, but wait! Rod Shealy is reformed! It’s got to be true… PBS said so

Anyway, in the video above, you’ll see and hear Tom talking about this subject.

Graham on his road trip with McCain, Lieberman

   


K
ids have Christmas, and Lindsey Graham had his recent road trip with John McCain and Joe Lieberman to Iraq, the Mideast and Europe. To a foreign policy wonk, what could be better? I’d like to have been along myself.

Basically, he got to be at the elbow of the guy who, as he put it, has a 50-50 chance of being presidentFrance_mccain_wart
next time he talks to these foreign leaders, only under circumstances without all the formal bull you have to deal with traveling with an actual president.

Anyway, as this clip begins, he is giving his enthusiastic assessment (which now that I look back at the video, sort of stands in contrast to the merely polite description he gave of Gov. Sanford) of Nicolas Sarkozy of France, and goes on from there. This was near the very start of our meeting.

10senators

Graham on Sanford, S.C. politics

Graham_008

Sen. Lindsey Graham made headlines today by rather dramatically breaking with his friend and fellow Republican Mark Sanford. Far from having a "list" of Republican lawmakers he’d like to get rid of, Sen. Graham gave a thumbs-up to the whole GOP field of officeholders in South Carolina.

So when he came by today to talk about Iraq, Iran, Europe and nuclear proliferation, before he left we inevitably got into S.C. politics, starting with a question from reporter John O’Connor about to what extent Mark Sanford is actually a veep contender.

Mr. Graham was careful only to say positive things about the governor, he did say something about himself that drew a contrast between the two of them. He said he was backing Republicans, regardless of whether he agreed with them totally or not, is because "I’m a party leader." Which of course suggests that certain other people are not, but he wasn’t going to say so.

He was much more forceful and articulate when talking geopolitics, of course. I plan to go back through the more substantive parts of the interview and see if I can can pull out a clip or two from those parts later. For now, I thought I’d share the part that dealt with today’s news story.

   

Joe Azar, The State on same page for once

Just saw this e-mail that Joe Azar sent out to his list:

    Today The State editorial board endorsed Cameron Runyan over incumbent Daniel Rickenmann. Read it below. From all I can hear and see, Runyan should become our next city councilman. But don’t sit back and wait, forward this to everyone, call all your friends, and make sure to get everyone out to vote Tuesday, April 1. That is the only way to win, so do it!…

You should take note of this moment, because you won’t often find Joe so heartily agreeing with us. I for one intend to enjoy it while it lasts.

Here’s the editorial to which he refers.

What is the useful role of CHE?

Waltersgarrison

A
s foreshadowed in a previous post, we met this afternoon with Garrison Walters, the new (new to us, anyway) head of the state Commission on Higher Education.

Once upon a time, that post was filled by Fred Sheheen — Vincent’s Daddy, for those keeping up with political genealogy — who had an active, aggressive notion of the role the CHE should play in marshaling this poor state’s limited higher education resources to greatest effect. The powers that be, such as those who revere the prerogatives of the godlike boards of trustees of the respective institutions, did not like his style. They moved not only to get rid of him, but to restructure the CHE to make it kinder, gentler and less likely to say "nay" to anything they wished to do — or to have any authority even if it did say so.

Since then, the organization has been a lot more studious and polite — content with a "coordinating" rather than "governing" role. Mr. Walters is aware that our board has long favored a Board of Regents that would treat our collection of public, post-secondary institutions as a system rather than islands. He maintains, as do many who cast doubt on our restructuring fervor (say, the Senate on doing away with the "long ballot," or defenders of the council-manager system in Columbia), that some states with such boards do well, and others do not, while some states without overall governance do fine (he cites Michigan, Illinois and Texas).

My position, as always, is that given a choice between a structure intended to facilitate efficiency and accountability on the one hand, and a structure that one can succeed in those regards in spite of, I prefer the former.

As previously noted, of course, we temporarily have a condition in which our three research institutions, motivated in part by such inducements as the endowed chairs, are pulling at their oars as though they understand that we’re all in the same boat. Mr. Walters made note of that. Our position is to applaud our current state, but to worry about what happens when the current individuals in leadership move on, as Andrew Sorensen is about to do. Below that level cooperation and coordination is less evident, although there are encouraging exceptions to that trend.

Anyway, Mr. Walters held out hope that once a study committee finishes its work in September, we might see a new focus and purpose toward focusing our higher ed efforts. Let’s hope he’s right. In the meantime, I provide a video clip in which I ask our guest what he thinks it will take for South Carolina to get where it needs to go, and what CHE’s role is in that…