Category Archives: Democrats

Defining deviancy down in our discourse

Corey Hutchins started this rolling on Twitter this morning, but what shocked me was that Amanda Alpert Loveday reTweeted it:

Best @nikkihaley quote ever! “She’s been busy F-ing the rest of the state. I’m not surprised that she F-ed me.”@HBoydBrown @CoreyHutchins

My shock arises partly from Amanda being the… well, something over at the SC Democratic Party (apparently they’re too democratic at party HQ for titles, but she recently appeared on Pub Politics as the counterpart of Matt Moore, the GOP executive director). I know that her Twitter feed says “My tweets reflect my personal opinions…..,” but still…

The second is that, well, Amanda just seems like such a sweet “little girl” (to use our governor’s term) to an alter cocker like me. I mean, look at her; I ask you.

Amanda, Amanda, Amanda…

And Corey, and Boyd — what are you boys doing using language like that around Amanda?

Seriously, folks… This is not only grossly inappropriate language to be used when referring to the governor of our state, it’s not an appropriate topic, even if you used euphemisms.

And why am I writing about it? Well, I wouldn’t have if this had come from one of the usual sources for such. But this was said (apparently on the record) by a state representative, repeated by a representative of the Fourth Estate, and picked up by a party official.

And that’s wrong, on all counts. Daniel Patrick Moynihan had a term for it, or at least one that can be adapted to this purpose: Defining deviancy down.

We don’t need to be on this downward spiral, people.

Joel Lourie: What we need in SC is jobs

32 Replies

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

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

But Joel said it better than most.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Jim Clyburn, earmarks, race, and representing a poor district

8 Replies

I’ve never liked one thing that traditionally has been core to the makeup of members of Congress: bringing home the bacon.

Yes, I know it’s a particularly honored tradition in South Carolina, from Mendel Rivers through Strom Thurmond and on and on. This state was devastated in The Recent Unpleasantness, and it was sort of natural in subsequent generations for folks to want their elected representatives to bring home Yankee bacon whenever possible.

Doesn’t mean that’s the right way to run a government. The federal government should look at the entire country and decide where it needs to build military bases or roads or bridges or place programs of any sort, according to which locations best suit the needs of the whole nation. Or where the greatest need for a particular service might be at a given time — such as disaster services. Largess should not flow according to which lawmakers has the most pull.

Congress has been so bad about this that when we decided we needed to close some military bases the nation no longer needed, we had to set up BRAC to prevent interference by individual members of Congress. It’s been a successful process, but the need for it testifies to a painful failure of our basic system of government.

Congressional pull is not the way to set priorities for our government. This is particularly obvious to a lot of people when we look at spending, but I’ve always been concerned that it’s just a bad policy all-around for making effective decisions for the country. And it disenfranchises Americans whose representatives have less pull.

So it is that I’ve been pleased (in general) with Jim DeMint’s efforts to stop earmarks (which are actually only a small part of the problem), and have never been much of a fan of Jim Clyburn’s more traditional bring-home-the-bacon approach.

But I’m not without sympathy for Clyburn. To explain why, I’ll share a story that at first may seem unrelated. I did not witness this, but I’ve heard about it.

A large part of why Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, as you will recall, was that he proposed to clean up government. No more Watergates. He promised, although we didn’t yet use this word for it back then, transparency. It was a huge deal; he was never going to lie to us. So after the election, there was a meeting in Columbia of people who had worked in his campaign in South Carolina. Probably a pretty big meeting, since back in those days, we actually had some Democrats in this state. And the Carter guy who was conducting the meeting told them that they shouldn’t expect any inside track on getting positions in the new administration. Everything was going to be open and aboveboard and a level playing field, and there was to be no smoke-filled room patronage.

One of the campaign supporters in the room, a local black leader who was then quite young (I’d want to talk to him and refresh my memory of the story’s details before using his name), protested, “But we just got into the room, and we just started smoking.”

Which was true enough. And more than once have I heard such protests from black politicians — now that we have some political influence, you want to weed such influence out of government.

Well, yes, I do. And I’m sorry some folks just got into the room, but we’ve had enough of that kind of politics.

Nevertheless, I am sympathetic to Jim Clyburn’s desire to get some federal investment into parts of the state that were bypassed when white politicians were grabbing federal resources for South Carolina. This isn’t about unsavory practices; this is about funds that will be distributed somewhere, so why not in your neglected district? Perfectly understandable. Even admirable. So while I am against, for instance, the bridge he wants to build between Lone Star and Rimini, I understand his desire to get some infrastructure into that area that might help economic development flow in behind it.

Against this background, I was interested in Warren Bolton’s column in The State today. I had actually missed it in a cursory skim through the paper this morning (I was conversing with several people while perusing), so I’m glad that my attention was called back to it by a release from, quite naturally, Jim Clyburn’s office. It was headlined, “Earmarks saving grace for Clyburn’s district.” An excerpt:

Frankly, I think the free-wheeling system that has allowed members of Congress to target pet projects for funding is too loosely monitored and arbitrary and, therefore, can be wasteful. But I don’t think that earmarks in general are bad; they can be used to make sure worthwhile projects are funded. In addition to a lack of transparency, the big problem is that the system doesn’t ensure that those important things get done.

But Mr. Clyburn didn’t invent this system. It was in place eons before he even arrived in Congress. Given that those in his district have grave needs that aren’t being met by the state, which has yet to come up with an effective way to address rural challenges that can’t be met by cash-poor local governments, he’s doing what he can.

It’s amazing to me how so many in this state can criticize Mr. Clyburn’s actions when they should be familiar with the challenge of rural South Carolina. While we get many letters to the editor from writers taking issue with Mr. Clyburn on legitimately debatable grounds, such as his positions on issues, his philosophy and even his use of earmarks, many others make statements and accusations that are just plain unfair, false and — quite frankly — racist….

I, like Warren, have fielded some of those calls — and emails, and letters, and blog comments. And while I may often agree with the person commenting that a particular spending proposal is a bad idea, it is disturbing to hear the undertone, the emotion that underlies the complaining. And Warren is right to use what he calls “the ‘R’ word” to describe this thing we hear. It’s the same undertone that I so often hear in the constant attacks on the very idea of public schools, or of government in general — because so many whites in our state, and in other parts of the country as well, have gotten it into their heads that government exists to take money away from honest, hard-working, moral, thrifty, sensible white people and give it, outright, to lazy, shiftless, no-good black people.

Not to put too fine a point on it.

Anyway, I’ve probably given you enough to discuss, but I’d like to point out another passage in Warren’s column:

I get lots of letters and calls from people who try to suggest that Mr. Clyburn can be a big spender and favor increasing taxes on the rich because he is insulated by voters in his “gerrymandered” majority-black district; some all but suggest that the congressman configured the 6th District himself.

But the truth is that Republicans in the S.C. State House gerrymandered the district in an effort to pack as many of the state’s black people together as possible so they could get as many Republicans as possible elected to Congress. That meant creating a majority-black district that has lots of rural areas that are heavily poor, undereducated and undeveloped. They’re areas that lack infrastructure such as water, sewer and roads — or libraries, theaters and bowling allies.

Amen to that Warren, and I’m glad to see you writing that, since I’m not at the paper to do it anymore.

I would amend his characterization of what happened slightly, though. I recall particularly what happened in the early ’90s in the Legislature: Republicans worked with black Democrats to draft a plan, over the resistance of the white Democrats who ran the SC House, that created several more majority-black districts.

Black lawmakers were frustrated with Speaker Bob Sheheen and other Democratic leaders because they were not willing to draw as many “majority-minority” districts as possible. The motivation of the Republicans was less direct. They had figured out that for every district you make majority black, you remove black voters from several other districts, thereby making those seats safe for Republicans, and unsafe for Democrats of any color. So, a tiny gain for those who wanted a few more black lawmakers, but a HUGE, strategic victory for Republicans who wanted to take over South Carolina.

Once that reapportionment plan was in place, the way to power was paved for the GOP. It put them in striking distance. They had big gains in the 1994 election. That, plus some key defections by white Democrats after the election (indeed, the earlier defection of David Beasley to the GOP had given them the head of their ticket), and we saw the Republicans take over the House in January 1995.

But I’ve reminisced enough. Time for y’all to have your say.

Moderates are rare in office, but fairly numerous out here in the real world

5 Replies

The other day, Bart shared with me the following piece from The New York Times. Before I provide an excerpt, I’ll share what Bart had to say first:

Brad,

I am copying and pasting an article in the NYT about Jim Cooper, a Blue Dog Democrat considered to be the last true moderate in the House. A very good read. FYI – linking to articles is not one of my strong points.

Personally, I think he has identified the turning point of politics in my lifetime and how things have devolved since Newt Gingrich, a man I have never liked for one second, was elected to congress. Gingrich tries to come across as an intellectual but in my estimation, he is a man possessing a high I.Q. but without the ability to put it to proper use for the good of everyone, not just his own personal ambitions.

The article is a refreshing walk down memory lane when one considers the tone of things out there today. There was a time when politics was populated with men and women who had a certain sense of duty to all citizens, not just party loyalty.

Thanks,
Bart

My response to Bart was to say:

I don’t know whether Cooper is the LAST, but there are precious few — in office. We’re not so rare out in the population.

Which is true. Unfortunately, our vaunted two-party system increasingly guarantees that moderates will not make it to Congress. No one has a chance in the fall without the backing of one party or the other. And the nominating process weeds out reasonable people, most of the time. Sort of makes me want to try running myself sometime, just to see how hard it would be. My prediction: Hard as getting a Republican to say something nice about Barack Obama. Or a Democrat about W.

Here’s the excerpt:

The Last Moderate

By JOE NOCERA
Published: September 5, 2011

Jim Cooper, a Blue Dog Democrat who represents the Nashville area, was first elected to Congress in 1982. He was 28, and if it’s not quite right to say he’s been there ever since — he spent eight years in the private sector after losing the race for Al Gore’s Senate seat — he’s still been a congressman most of his adult life.

You’d think that Cooper’s tenure would ensure him the privileges of seniority. It doesn’t. Considering that he’s a mild-mannered man, you’d think he’d have friends on both sides of the aisle. Not so. He’s loathed by Republicans for being in the wrong party, and scorned by Democrats for his fiscal conservatism. At the least, you’d think that he’d be respected for his institutional memory. Wrong again.

The reason is that Cooper is the House’s conscience, a lonely voice for civility in this ugly era. He remembers when compromise was not a dirty word and politicians put country ahead of party. And he’s not afraid to talk about it. “We’ve gone from Brigadoon to Lord of the Flies,” he likes to say….

Read the rest here.

Hey, that kinda stuff can get you into trouble: My email from then-Rep. Anthony Weiner

1 Reply

A few days ago, I actually managed to get my email INbox down to single digits. Which required days of ruthless slaughter, starting close to 500 and more than 100 coming in every day.

Before I delete it, though, I thought y’all would enjoy this perfectly routine official Democratic Party rant — of the sort that I frequently share with y’all — which would not have been worth sharing, except that it was from a guy who was not quite yet a household word at the time. OK, so maybe his name WAS a household word, but it wasn’t applied to him, specifically, until he showed his to the world.

The date was March 26 (oh, trust me; I dug through layers of sediment much older than that). The name was Anthony Weiner:

Brad —

Let me tell you something about these Republicans: the only way to deal with them is to stand up and face them head on.

Just look at the stunts they’ve tried to pull since taking the Speaker’s gavel: cutting off funding for teachers, ramming through a bill to defund NPR and repealing health care reform.

Now, they’re trying to let the same banksters and corporate criminals that got us into this economic mess off the hook by tearing away at Wall Street reform.

We’re fighting them with everything we’ve got but it doesn’t mean anything unless we’ve got you standing behind us every step of the way.

Contribute $3 or more to our Million Dollar Matching Gift Campaign before the March 31st FEC deadline and your contribution will be matched 2-to-1 by a group of generous Democrats — tripling the impact of your support.

I mean seriously — an emergency meeting to defund NPR?

This is going to create jobs and get our economy back on track? This is the crisis that Republicans think we should be focused on? Give me a break.

We’re just 5 days out from the big March 31st FEC deadline. Everyone’s going to be pouring over Democrats’ numbers to see if we’ve got what it takes to fight the right. We’re just over $300,000 short of our million dollar goal. I need you to stand with us.

Contribute $3 or more to our Million Dollar Matching Gift Campaign before the March 31st FEC deadline and your contribution will be matched 2-to-1 by a group of generous Democrats — tripling the impact of your support.

Thanks,

Anthony Weiner
U.S. Congressman

“the only way to deal with them is to stand up and face them head on…” But one tip, Mr. Weiner: Be sure your clothes are on before you do that! Oops. Too late…

Dems keep cranking out those videos…

16 Replies

Dick Harpootlian’s Democratic Party seems determined to pull us completely beyond the era of text-based press releases. At least it’s entertaining — sometimes. Above you have the state party’s most recent release. There was some text with it. Here you go:

Columbia, SC – This weekend, the Charleston Post & Courier exposed shocking information about Nikki Haley’s taxpayer-funded European vacation. Click here to read the article.

Nikki Haley spent more than $125,000 of your tax dollars on this trip and with nothing to show for it.

SCDP Chairman, Dick Harpootlian, appalled by Tricki Nikki’s latest hypocrisy, released this video and the following statement in response to the Post and Courier article:

Where in the world is Nikki Haley? We don’t where she is, but we know where she’s not. She is not fighting to improve education or to lower unemployment in South Carolina. She is nowhere near any effort to improve health care desperately needed by many in our state. The Post & Courier article shows once again that she only does what’s best for her and not the people of South Carolina.

Below is one that Dick sent out several days ago…

This voter ID thing is just never, ever going to end, is it? (Please tell me I’m wrong.)

28 Replies

First, for those of you who are new to this blog (and you’re out there, I know, going by my growing readership numbers), I have no truck with either of the two major political parties. And even less with the minor parties that you’ve heard of (the Libertarian Party, for instance, makes the Dems and Repubs look like the soul of reasonableness. Or used to. You can count on less and less, these days).

So when you see me mock a fund-raising press release from the Democrats, do not assume that I’m a Republican. And when I criticize Nikki Haley’s latest madness on Voter ID, do not assume that I’m a Democrat (not that you would, in her case, since she infuriates so many Republicans — although on that issue, they are perfectly in sync with her). When you do those thing, you tick me off, of course — which is why some of you do it on purpose, to get a rise. But more to the point, you find yourself misunderstanding, and following a path that will cause you to to fail to follow other things that you read here.

So it is that, after marveling at the foolish sequence of statements and actions into which her advocacy of Voter ID has led our governess, I now complain at having received yet another communication from the Democrats on the same subject.

As I’ve said over and over, this is an issue that exists purely as something for Democrats and Republicans to fight over. It has no bearing on reality. There are no elections to point to in which significant amounts of fraud occurred, nor elections in which lots of people who followed basic procedures were denied the opportunity to vote. This issue will not affect the outcomes of elections.

But… the Democrats and Republicans believe it will, and that the effect will be manifest along partisan lines. They both believe that it will keep poor black people (and other demographic groups sharing certain characteristics) from voting. The Republicans welcome that anticipated development; the Democrats fear it.

And because of that, day, weeks, even years of legislative time has been wasted on “debate” over this non-issue. It really ticks off the Democrats and Republicans when I say this, because they are both PASSIONATELY devoted to the principles they see at stake — and even more so to the electoral advantage they see as being at stake. You will see a great deal of solemn, deadly serious pronouncements on this subject.

I have lamented every moment wasted on this subject that could have been spent on something else, so I wanted it either to pass or be decisively defeated, so we could move on. Eventually, it passed in South Carolina, and the governor eagerly signed it, and Republicans hailed it as the greatest thing ever, and Democrats wailed and rent their garments, or whatever the modern equivalent is.

For my part, I was glad that it was over. Oh, foolish optimism! Because of course, Republicans are doing all sorts of foolish things to try to ameliorate the perceived harm they have done, and Democrats are getting more and more indignant as days go by, such as in this release I got today:

My Fellow South Carolinians,

My first political memory is sitting on the floor in front of the television watching the results of the 1984 Presidential election with my grandfather. I asked him hundreds of questions about the candidates, the White House, and past Presidents, and in his loving way, my grandfather attempted to answer each question to the best of his abilities.

Society would have classified my grandfather as a simple but hard-working man, a product of the segregated south. He didn’t have much money, he didn’t have much education, and he didn’t have a fancy job. But what he had and cherished was his dignity, his family, and his right to vote. It was a right that he didn’t always have — and sometimes didn’t even exercise. Nonetheless he felt it was a right that could not and would not be taken away from him.

The South Carolina Voter ID bill that was passed with GOP support and signed into law by Governor Haley, disenfranchised more than 180,000 South Carolina citizens, and if my grandfather was still alive it would have disenfranchised him as well (after having his leg amputated he no longer had a government issued Driver’s license).

Thanks to the efforts of the Democratic members of the Senate and House, the SC Progressive Network and others to oppose the bill on the grounds that it discriminates against minorities and seniors, the Department of Justice is asking for more information about the legislation.

As Americans, not as Democrats, nor as Republicans, but as Americans, we must keep the pressure on the DOJ, in the 60-day window we have to make sure the SC Voter ID bill is finally struck down. This bill not only affects our state but others across this nation, who are facing the same efforts to suppress voter participation….

And so on. Pretty moving, passionate stuff, huh? (Although I wish he hadn’t spoken of the extremely recent year of 1984 as though it were olden times, sitting at his grandpa’s knee. I was in my 30s and had already had three kids of my own then.) Yeah, this stuff just isn’t going away.

It’s not that I don’t see merit in what the Dems are complaining about. While I don’t think the new law imposes a significant burden (anyone can find a ride to the DMV SOMEtime during the two-year stretch between elections), I do find the motives of the Republicans off-putting.

Off-putting, but not as horrible as the Democrats think. Because I can see merit in the GOP position to this extent: I don’t believe “easier” is necessarily a good goal when it comes to voting. That runs against something deep in the soul of a Democrat, but there it is. I think this country is full of people — left, right, and middle — who don’t take voting seriously enough. This is why I oppose early voting, and virtual voting, and just about anything other than heading down to the polls and standing in line with all your neighbors on Election Day, being a part of something you are all doing together as citizens. I believe you should have to take some trouble to do it. Not unreasonable amounts of trouble, just some.

We’re expected to deplore low turnout, and I used to dutifully do so. But then I thought, and quit deploring it quite so vehemently. Because when I look at some of the horrible decisions that voters have made because they didn’t think hard enough, and I think of all those people who didn’t care enough even to take the trouble to vote, the last thing we need is to induce those apathetic souls to come out and add their thoughtless votes to the total. We don’t need more voters; we need better votes.

I digress. Back to the topic: Have Voter ID or don’t have it. But let’s not talk about it any more…

So have y’all had enough Nikki Haley yet? If not, I’m sure there’s plenty more comin’ atcha…

13 Replies

Just thought I’d ask because of stuff like this:

No thanks: Haley to reject fed health exchange funds

By GINA SMITH – [email protected]

Gov. Nikki Haley said she will let federal deadlines slip by and not accept millions in federal funds to help South Carolina set up its own health insurance exchange.

Health insurance exchanges, the centerpiece of federal health care reform, are online marketplaces, to be set up by each state, where the uninsured could compare insurance plans from private insurance companies and buy the one that best fits their needs. Uninsured people who meet certain federal poverty guidelines could buy coverage using federal tax credits.

The exchanges are scheduled to open in 2014 when the health care law goes into full effect. If a state has not made progress by Jan. 1, 2013, the federal government will step in.

But Haley and Tony Keck, whom Haley appointed to head the state’s Department of Health and Human Services, say the federal plan is not the right fit for South Carolina.

“The governor remains an equal opportunity opponent of ObamaCare, the spending disaster that South Carolina does not want and cannot afford,” said Rob Godfrey, Haley’s spokesman. “She and Tony Keck are focused on finding South Carolina solutions that provide our state with the most health at the least cost.”

What utter… never mind. Let’s move to our next slice of madness:

Haley on getting a photo ID: We’ll pick you up

By Seanna Adcox – Associated Press

COLUMBIA — Gov. Nikki Haley’s invitation Wednesday to voters who lack the photo ID necessary to vote under South Carolina’s new law echoed a rental car slogan.

“We’re picking you up,” she said.

The Department of Motor Vehicles has set aside Wednesday, Sept. 28, for anyone who needs a ride. Voters who lack transportation can call a toll-free number to arrange a pickup from a DMV employee, Haley said…

That one has been mocked by both Will Folks and Rachel Maddow (which is quite a range), and a whole lot of folks in between. And of course, when national TV gets involved, the whole state gets tarred (see video above):

Does the implementation of that law immediately make you think of 19th-century civil rights violations? Two, does the federal government have to step in to protect people’s rights? And three, does the governor have to make a pledge to personally attend to the transportation needs of every single state resident? If you’ve answered yes to any of these questions, you just might be a South Carolinian…

And to dig back a few days, don’t forget this:

Gov. Nikki Haley and State Superintendent of Education Mick Zais repeated Monday they will not seek additional federal money for S.C. schools.

The recently elected Republican leaders emphasized their opposition after education groups said lawmakers should seek the money to save teachers’ jobs and create new education programs.

Just thought I’d check your attitudes on the pattern. If you detect one. If not, what are your thoughts on this “disconnected series of events?”

No, James, you’re not a bit sorry to say it

2 Replies

Yet another of these stir-’em-up fund-raising notes that I get (two or three times a day, it seems) from the Democrats. This one is ostensibly from James Carville:

Brad —

I’m sorry but these Tea Partyin’ fools in Congress have got to go.

They’re trying to gut the New Deal, attack workers, and end Medicare. But when it comes to tax breaks for their billionaire and Big Oil buddies, it’s hands off.

The Republicans may have Karl Rove’s secret donors and the Tea Party ditto-heads on their side but we’ve got committed grassroots folks like you to help get out the truth.

And boy do we need you right now. Democrats’ campaign to kick the Tea Party right outta Congress is just $38,701 short of their $500,000 goal before the August FEC deadline hits in 24 hours.

Contribute $3 or more today and your gift will be matched dollar-for-dollar by a group of House Democrats.

The media and pundits will use our grassroots fundraising totals to judge our will to call out the GOP on their hypocrisy and lies — so I’m asking you to act right now.

Every dollar you give goes right back out the door to help take the fight right to Republicans on their home turf with targeted advertising, grassroots organizing, and rapid response research.

Give today and help Democrats stand strong at this critical deadline.

James Carville

“I’m sorry?” No, James, you’re not a bit sorry. You’re happy to say it, and you’d be thrilled if it turned out to be true. Just as I’d be happy to stop getting so many of these emails.

Kevin Fisher cites our Kathryn. Not sure how she feels about it (you know how touchy liberals are)

3 Replies

Catching up on my e-mail, I finally ran across a message calling my attention to this in Kevin Fisher’s column last week:

Nor was the debut performance of Benjamin-Runyan Marionette Theater hailed in the city’s liberal enclaves. Prominent wine and cheese activist Kathryn Fenner made clear she wanted none of it. Kidding aside about the political climate of the Shandon-University Hill area, Fenner is a woman who is both well informed and highly involved in city matters.

Posting on bradwarthen.com on July 21, Fenner revived concerns about Runyan’s 2008 campaign against Rickenmann, saying she felt Runyan had unfairly criticized both Rickenmann and City Manager Steve Gantt during that race…

Only comment from Kathryn so far is that she finds this categorization “inexplicable.” In my experience, you have to watch it with such comments about liberals. As accurate as it may be.

I once referred in a column to liberals as people you might encounter at a wine and cheese reception at a local art gallery (I forget the exact words) and the resident liberal on the editorial board (long gone now) got offended by it. Which surprised me.

But she was so sensitive. You know how those people are.

Of course, I didn’t change it or anything.

Pelosi picks Clyburn for supercommittee

19 Replies

Apparently, Jim Clyburn is still the former speaker’s go-to guy:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday filled out the final three slots on the joint deficit committee by selecting three members of her leadership team to the panel.

Pelosi (D-Calif.) chose Reps. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), giving the panel the highest-ranking African-American and Latino lawmakers in Congress with Clyburn and Becerra, respectively. Pelosi reiterated her call for Congress to consider “the grand bargain” of major entitlement cuts matched with increased taxes…

I don’t know what all that means, except that it would appear that in recent years it seems to have fallen to Rep. Clyburn to try, singlehandedly, to balance out the rightward tilt of our congressional delegation. For what that’s worth. Which, in South Carolina, as about as much as those T-shirts.

By the way, who started calling it “supercommittee?” And if it’s called that, how come Thor, Green Lantern, the X-men and Captain America aren’t on it?

Yeah, you’d BETTER put this on sale…

6 Replies

… In fact, if you’re trying to get rid if it in South Carolina, you’d better plan on paying people to take it.

This bit of spam email from MyDemocraticStore.com made me laugh when I saw it on my iPhone over lunch.

I suppose there’s someone who would buy it — at a discount.

Oh, wait… you don’t suppose this is an opportunity to get some ad revenue on the blog? Um… my, what a fine-lookin’ bunch o’ products!

Doesn’t like much like a “deal” to me…

66 Replies

Normally, I never see the Sunday morning political talk shows. I have other activities I deem more important at that time of the week: sleeping, making coffee, eating breakfast, and getting ready to go to Mass.

But I got up a little early this morning, and had a few minutes, and was burning with curiosity about this “deal” that was supposedly nearing on the debt insanity in Washington.

First thing I saw was Mitch McConnell. I heard him say some standard partisan “Thank God for us Republicans” rhetoric about how far we’d come since April, when the White House simply wanted the debt ceiling raised with no spending cuts.

So he patted himself on the back for that for a moment — apparently in a bid to pull the Tea crazies along, tell them that even if they don’t get the moon the way they want, they’ve gotten a lot, etc.

Then he briefly described the direction in which negotiators were working. The only part that jumped out at me was, “no job-killing tax increases.”

A moment for translation. We of the UnParty just go ahead and say “tax cuts” or “tax increases,” because they hold no deep-seated emotional baggage for us. They are just options, tools, things you might do or not do. To Democrats and Republicans, these things have profound religious significance, and they have ritual words they have to say along with them. For instance, to Democrats there are no such things as mere “tax cuts;” there are only “tax cuts for the rich,” or, if they are inclined to used what they consider to be curse words, “Bush tax cuts.” For Republicans, there are no secular, matter-of-fact references to be made to the expedient of raising taxes. They must say something like “job-killing tax increases.” You must forgive them. They have to do the verbal equivalent of making a face and spitting on the ground on such occasions. They would explode if they didn’t get it out.

Anyway, modifiers aside, I was just hoping he was lying, or misunderstood. Because if that is really what is being discussed, it’s rather disgusting from an UnParty perspective.

Here’s the thing, folks: No sensible person wants to do either — cut spending drastically, or raise taxes — at a moment when the economy seems to be sliding backwards. But we do need to tame the deficit at some point, and there is a gun at our heads to make us do something about it now: Raising the debt ceiling won’t be enough to preserve the nation’s (and South Carolina’s) credit rating. The ratings agencies have to see progress on the deficit. So we need a nice, neutral, everybody-gives-something deal to do that.

But it’s not much of a deal if the Republicans — who hold the House, and therefore bear some responsibility toward the nation rather than the Tea Party — aren’t bringing anything to the table.

I saw a silly movie the other night, “Couples Retreat.” There’s a seen in it in which a guy drops his trousers. Vince Vaughn, not looking, says something like, “Is his junk out?” When the people around him confirm the fact, he adds, “NOW it’s a party!”

I’ve been trying not to watch this stuff myself, in spite of the morbid fascination. But when somebody tells me that both spending cuts and tax increases are hanging out there, I’m going to say, “NOW it’s a deal!”

Hurrah for the House Republicans — they reject recall

22 Replies

The SC Democratic Party is griping about this:

Columbia, SC — In a vote along party lines, House Republicans refused to take up an amendment that would allow a statewide Recall Bill to be taken up in the House today. The bill, sponsored by Reps. Boyd Brown, Todd Rutherford, Bakari Sellers, James Smith and Leon Stavrinakis, all Democrats, calls for a recall mechanism for all statewide office holders.

In the past weeks, since the Ken Ard scandal began, voters in South Carolina have been calling for recall legislation as a way to hold their elected officials accountable. Today, Lt. Governor Ard announced he would not step aside from his post, giving Democrats an even greater incentive to pass this bill onto the voters of South Carolina.

Rep. Boyd Brown, the author of the bill, release this quote about the legislation refusal.

“Ken Ard’s unwillingness to do what is right is a clear example as to why the people of South Carolina deserve a chance to recall elected officials. If he does not step aside, he should be removed from office. It’s apparent now, that South Carolina Republicans want to protect their own, while they continue their pattern of neglect towards the people of our state.”

The maneuver was blocked by Rep. Philip Lowe, a Republican of Florence, Ard’s hometown.

-###-

For my part, I say “Hurrah for the House GOP,” assuming this report is accurate. Worst idea in a long time.

Going after Huntsman: Harpootlian emits a signal made for Republican ears to hear

21 Replies

Last evening I tried to post on Twitter, and for some reason (probably the fitful Internet connection at my house, which is why I’m about to change providers), it did not transmit. I found it in drafts this morning:

Today’s summary: Pawlenty goes after Bachmann. Harpootlian goes after Huntsman. Huntsman goes after Mitt. And so on…

As you can see from the links (which illustrate an advantage of this medium over Twitter), all of those petty political potshots were fired on Monday.

One of them is out of place. Yes, for some reason, Dick Harpootlian is not content to sit back while Republicans tear each other apart. He is joining in, and attacking one of them in particular.

A couple of weeks ago, I asked Dick why Huntsman? Is it because that’s the Republican he fears the most? The one who might be a threat to Obama in the general election, if he can get past the extremists in his own party? Does he feel a particular responsibility as the Democratic chair in the first-in-the-South primary state to stop him here?

Dick said no. But his actions say otherwise.

Yesterday, I received three separate emails from Dick about Huntsman — the first two telling me, then reminding me, that Dick would have a conference call about Huntsman at 2:30. I missed the call, because I was tied up after the Haley appearance at Rotary. But no fear. Dick summarized his message in this release:

Harpootlian calls Jon Huntsman disloyal and disingenuous.

Columbia, S.C. – South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Dick Harpootilan held a conference call today to welcome Jon Huntsman back to South Carolina.

During the opening of the call, Harpootlian discussed Huntsman’s support for Rep. Paul Ryan’s radical revision to Medicare. In response to Huntsman’s comment on his support, “[If Ryan’s plan is radical] then guilty as charged”, Harpootlian replied:

“He supports a plan that would double the out-of-pocket Medicare expenses to those who are younger than 55, but yet, the taxpayers are paying for the subsides of his private jet, every time he turns it on.”

Finally, when asked if he thought Huntsman was President Obama’s biggest threat on the Republican ticket, Harpootlian responded:

“Here’s a guy who had his lips firmly planted on the president’s butt three months ago, and now is speaking ill out of ’em out of those same lips. Can you trust a guy who turns this quickly? He is somebody who apparently will say whatever it takes to get elected. Huntsman, not only is he disingenuous, he’s disloyal.”

# # #

Of course, that “lips firmly planted on the president’s butt” phrase is classic Dick, but it’s interesting to note that if he can get Republican primary voters to hear it, it will resonate with their Obama Derangement tendencies.

Between the last time Dick went after Huntsman and this time, I don’t recall him going after any other particular Republican candidate so specifically (it’s possible that he did in passing and I missed it in the flow of my IN box, but I know he didn’t go to this much trouble to attack them). It will be interesting to see whether he does so subsequently.

Good column by Warren about Jim Manning

10 Replies

I’ve never been a fan of Jim Manning’s short career as a Richland County councilman. In fact, on the day after the 2008 election, I saw Manning’s election as the biggest disappointment of the night. At the time, I was mostly upset that Manning had replaced an excellent incumbent, despite offering no good reasons as to why he would do a better job.It was a monument to party line voting over merit, the starkest that I saw in the 2008 election.

Mr. Manning is a nice, friendly guy, and I’ve only had pleasant interactions with him. But little that he has done since Election Night has caused me to feel better about his election.

Friday, Warren Bolton had a good column on the subject, inspired most immediately by a shocking action by Richland County Council in June:

IT SHOULDN’T come as a shock that Richland County Councilman Jim Manning insisted on raising property taxes in Richland 2 to the maximum allowed under state law against the school board’s wishes.

It’s the kind of thing for which he’s become known. While Mr. Manning characterizes himself as one who’s willing to make bold proposals and stand by them, at times his efforts are misguided, lack sound judgment and trample the tenets of good stewardship and sound policy making…

Jim Manning

Mr. Manning utterly failed to justify his action. It was apparently based in vague notions that more should be spent on education (without regard to whether there is any sort of plan for spending it). Some of you — Doug, for instance — probably think I would do just what the councilman did. I wouldn’t. Oh, I might fight for the district’s request, if it seemed justified within the context in which it was presented. But I would never dream of saying, “Oh, here’s some more money you didn’t ask for.”

Of course, the really shocking thing here is that the council went along with him on it. We wouldn’t be talking about this at all if he had not. I don’t know all the dynamics of that; I haven’t spoken with the other council members and for some reason I don’t see the minutes of that meeting on the county website. Here are the minutes of the previous meeting, at which the matter was apparently discussed. They are a bit hard to follow. There were procedural votes that split along party lines, but in the end the vote was unanimous. Under such circumstances, I would have to have been there and heard what was said to fully understand the way it unfolded. But as Warren points out, with Mr. Manning, we have a pattern emerging:

This isn’t the first time Mr. Manning has left people scratching their heads.

He led a misguided effort to weaken the county’s smoking ban by allowing any establishment to operate “a portion of its workplace” as a “designated smoking area” if it is separate from the nonsmoking area and has its own outside entrance and a separate heating and air system; that would have required some employees to work in smoking areas. While the change was sold as an attempt to address concerns of a single bingo operator along Decker Boulevard in Mr. Manning’s district, it would have opened the door to all businesses, including bars and restaurants. The council wisely nixed the measure.

Prior to Mr. Manning taking office, County Council — worried about clutter, among other things — had banned new billboards in unincorporated areas. It later reaffirmed that stance by rebuffing attempts to expand the use of electronic billboards, which many worried would distract drivers. Once Mr. Manning joined the council, he teamed with Councilwoman Gwendolyn Kennedy to revive the electronic billboard issue and turn what once was a slim majority against them into a decided majority in favor….

Warren also cited Mr. Manning’s odd feud with County Administrator Milton Pope. He forgot one memorable incident, though — one I wrote about here, when he tried to get a high-stakes bingo on Decker Boulevard, before backing down in the face of strong community opposition (including from his own pastor).

Warren speculated that thanks to what the Council has done at Mr. Manning’s behest, “Even though it’s not at fault, Richland 2 could feel some backlash from the business community.” Oh, I think you can count on it. Since the Legislature in its “wisdom” relieved homeowners entirely from supporting school with their property taxes, the burden of supporting this whimsy falls heavily on business. And “business” in this case includes owners of rental property — which generally means rents going up for those who can’t afford to own a home.

According to Warren, Mr. Manning has a response when people criticize him, because he’s used to it:

“People have been reacting to me like that since I was in kindergarten,” he said.

I recently asked him what he meant by that.

“Kindergarten is the first time that I remember that I had to interact with an organized institution,” he said. “Ever since I’ve had to interact with organized institutions I have not toed the line.”

Set aside that he has been elected to represent real people in an organized institution. As Warren points out in the headline, this isn’t kindergarten. And nobody legitimately expects an elected official to “toe the line.” He’s there to use his best judgment in representing the people who elected him.

The key word there is “judgment.”

Warren’s column accompanied an editorial in which The State said:

Mr. Manning acknowledges that he didn’t scour the district’s budget and find holes that needed to be plugged or valuable programs that needed funding. He said district officials didn’t ask him to intervene. He also said he doesn’t care what the money is spent on; he just wants the district to have the money and is sure it will find something worthwhile to spend it on.

Richland 2 officials said they intend to spend the money forced upon them wisely, but they have gone to great pains to make it clear that they didn’t want the increased budget. Over the years, officials in the largest and fastest growing Midlands district have proven responsible and adept at handling their budget — and at asking for what’s needed to operate schools.

With the economy in the state it’s in and only businesses and automobiles being charged school operating taxes, District 2’s elected board — not unlike other conscientious elected officials — understands that keeping businesses open and people employed is crucial. So the board sought to balance the district’s needs with those of taxpaying constituents. But County Council, in its flawed wisdom and for no defensible or even clearly articulable reason, overruled the district.

Indeed.

Why can’t we let her stay over there? No, really; what would be wrong with that?

20 Replies

Notice how all of my posts the last couple of days are either about Dick Harpootlian or Jon Huntsman? What’s up with that?

Anyway, right when I got back from the Huntsman thing, Dick sends out this video. He’s big on videos. Well, he missed the mark on this one.

It makes two dubious points — the rather painfully populist one about how YOU, the taxpayer, paid for Nikki’s trip to Paris, and his point that the gov should come back and tend to South Carolina business, or as he put it, “the people of South Carolina would rather her worry more about the unemployment rate and the education sector in our state.”

Here are my thoughts on those, in reverse order:

You really think that if she were here, she’d be doing anything for our schools? Anything at all?
She is far more likely to stumble on something of economic use to our state, something to create jobs in SC, over there than she is here. I can far better see her charming some air industry exec who doesn’t know her very well (she makes a great first impression) than I can see her pursuing policies back here that boost our prosperity. After all, the one thing Mark Sanford accomplished in that sphere in 8 years was landing Boeing, and he did that, at least in part, by going to the air show.

A candidate to be taken seriously

36 Replies

I don’t know a whole lot about Jon Huntsman. I mean, I know a few things, but not enough to reach critical mass for a judgment in my own mind.

But I know I’ll be watching him closely, now that he’s announced:

JERSEY CITY, N.J. — Jon M. Huntsman Jr. officially launched his White House bid here Tuesday morning, setting up a campaign for the GOP nomination that, if successful, would lead to a matchup against his former boss.

“I’ve been a governor … I’ve been a businessman and a I’ve been a diplomat. I’m the husband of the love of my life … and the father of seven terrific kids,” Huntsman told a crowd of supporters at Liberty State Park, the Statue of Liberty rising just behind him. “I’m from the American West, where the view of America is limitless with lots of blue sky.”…

I look at it this way: Jon Huntsman has a reference that is almost as good as having the UnParty seal of approval — Barack Obama. The president hired him for a job of considerable responsibility, ambassador to China. You know, that big place across the water that owns all that U.S. debt. The place where all that stuff at Walmart comes from.

So if Obama thought enough of him to hire him, and now he’s turned in his notice in order to run against Obama — well, that’s a guy who might have something to say worth listening to. He might be a credible, informed critic.

So I’m going to listen.

Speaking of listening, I listened in to a conference call Dick Harpootlian had today with media types to talk about Huntsman, after which he put out this release:

Harpootlian welcomes “ambassador, governor, Democrat, Republican Jon Huntsman to South Carolina”

Columbia, S.C. – South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Dick Harpootilan held a conference call today to welcome Jon Huntsman to South Carolina.

While Huntsman travels to our state to kick off his Presidential campaign Harpootlian welcomes him by saying, “we always welcome Obama administration officials in South Carolina.” Harpootlian called Huntsman a political “schizophrenic” who’s “very similar to Mitt Romney” in his flip-flopping on key issues such as the Recovery Act.

“Between Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, we have, actually, four candidates rather than two,” said Harpootlian.

That’s pretty much what he said to us on the phone. Afterwards, I asked him whether he was more worried about Huntsman than he was the other Republicans. He said he wasn’t. But I think he should be.

Yeah, Huntsman has a challenge before him getting the nomination with his party momentarily in the thrall of the Tea Party. But from what little I’ve seen so far, he seems like he could have a better chance in the general if he could get that far.

But as I say, that’s how it looks so far. I’ll keep watching.

There are more of US than there are of Democrats or Republicans

24 Replies

First, take a look at the awesome image that combine Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan into one face, and the one that does the same with Kennedy and Nixon. Cool. There was another that did the same with Obama and Bush, but I can’t seem to locate it as a still image online — oh, there it is.

I got excited when I saw those, and thought the piece, headlined “Death of the Duopoly,” would be a sort of UnParty manifesto. But no. When I want an Unparty Manifesto, I have to write it myself.

Unfortunately, this was one of those pieces that saw the WSJ’s sort of libertarianism as the natural successor to the two parties, going on about how the American people, in their supposed wisdom, are turned against the drug war, and toward paying people to abandon public schools. Ho-hum, the usual. Nothing paradigm-breaking at all.

But the pictures were cool. And while the author of this piece may be confused as to the implications, these data were at least confusing:

Perhaps the most important long-term trend in U.S. politics is the four-decade leak in market share by the country’s two dominant parties. In 1970, the Harris Poll asked Americans, “Regardless of how you may vote, what do you usually consider yourself—a Republican, a Democrat, an independent or some other party?”

Fully 49% of respondents chose Democrat, and 31% called themselves Republicans. Those figures are now 35% for Democrats and 28% for Republicans. While the numbers have fluctuated over the years, the only real growth market in politics is voters who decline affiliation, with independents increasing from 20% of respondents to 28%.

These findings are consistent with other surveys. In January, Gallup reported that the Democrats were near their lowest point in 22 years (31%), while the GOP remained stuck below the one-third mark at 29%. The affiliation with the highest marks? Independent, at 38% and growing. In a survey released in May, the Pew Research Center found that the percentage of independents rose from 29% in 2000 to 37% in 2011…

Yes, there are now more of us than there are of either Democrats or Republicans (at least, according to Gallup and apparently Pew). Maybe when we grow to exceed all the partisans combined, we’ll get somewhere. But at least we’re on our way.

Are we starting to see a geologic shift between left and right on national security?

32 Replies

This is something I’ve been thinking about the last few days, and I haven’t written about it because it’s complicated and I haven’t had time to do something pulling all the threads together. But when I saw this development, I decided I’d better go ahead and throw out the general idea and get the discussion started:

Obama Says War Powers Act Doesn’t Apply to Libya Mission

White House maintains that the president doesn’t need lawmakers’ permission for U.S. role in NATO-led effort.

The White House on Wednesday told skeptical lawmakers that President Obama doesn’t need their permission to continue the nation’s involvement in the NATO-led mission in Libya because U.S. forces are playing only a supporting role there.

Administration lawyers made their case as part of a larger report sent to Congress responding to complaints that the president had yet to provide a sufficient rationale for continuing the Libya campaign, the New York Times reports.

“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” State Department lawyer Harold Koh told the paper. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”…

OK, digest that. Here’s the NYT version, and here’s the WashPost. And then consider some of the other things I’ve been noticing lately:

The fact that, in the GOP debate the other night, we heard some Republicans moving more toward the “get out of Afghanistan ASAP” line. Ron Paul, treated as an outcast for saying such things four years ago, got cheered by the Fox News crowd.
The bold way Obama decided to go in and GET bin Laden, without any of that multilateral consult-the-allies (as in, tell the Pakistanis we’re attacking in the heart of their country) touchy-feely stuff. No fooling around.
The way the administration is playing on having stunned the world with the bin Laden thing to get its way elsewhere. That prompted me to write that the difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush was Sonny, while Obama is the far-deadlier (that is, more effective) Michael.
The way Obama is taking advantage of chaos in Yemen to just GO AFTER terrorists there, without asking Congress or the UN, or presenting arguments about the War Powers Act, or anything like that. Read this, and this.

This has been building ever since the election, with a lot of Obama’s antiwar base feeling pretty disoriented (wait — is this who we elected?), and people like me being reassured by his steady pragmatism.

But lately, the process has seemed to be accelerating. Obama still talks a good war-as-last-resort, multilateral, we-don’t-want-to-be-a-bully line for the base… but watch what happens. (And how about the way he threw everybody off-balance on Libya, letting the FRENCH of all people take the lead, while still managing to get in there and go after the bad guys? That enabled him to have it both ways. The allies couldn’t do it without us, but it came across looking like we were a reluctant junior partner, which bought Obama some support for the move among liberals.)

And I find myself wondering, is anyone else noticing? I mean, while the Republicans get more timid about the U.S. role abroad (in some ways) and obsess more and more about domestic issues (because that’s what the Tea Party cares about), Obama is out there going all JFK and LBJ. He’s going Old School. He’s defining Democratic presidential leadership back to where it was before Vietnam.

Are the parties moving toward switching places?

This is a fascinating development. I think it has the potential to completely realign the country politically, and on more than national security.

Anybody else noticing this?

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits