Category Archives: Democrats

Bob Inglis and others who broke ranks deserve our attention

8 Replies

There was  no question that Joe Wilson should have apologized to the House for violating its rules and just generally for conduct unbecoming a gentleman (and unbecoming Joe Wilson, if you know him — he’s generally a gentle man). Barack Obama was not the only person insulted by “You lie!” If you insult a guest at a social occasion, you apologize to your host as well as the insulted guest.

But as soon as it became something that the Nancy Pelosis of the world were trying to MAKE Joe do, all question of right action went out the window. It became a matter of which side is going to win? That’s what everything boils down to these days in our nation’s hyperpartisan capital. Thought doesn’t go any deeper than the playground equation of whether one can be compelled to say “uncle.” And once a crowd had assembled, and members of his own gang were assembled around him urging him not to give in (and sending him $1.6 million), Joe wasn’t about to give in.

Silly and contemptible, but that’s party politics for you.

So I don’t attach much importance to the vote yesterday to express weak “disapproval” of Joe’s outburst. The outcome was predictable. Republicans voted against, and Democrats voted for, and since there are more Democrats than Republicans, Joe got “punished” — punished in a manner so insubstantial that it put me in mind of what Huck Finn said about Aunt Sally’s attempts to discipline him: “I didn’t mind the lickings, because they didn’t amount to nothing…”

I guess we all tend to choose up sides, but for my part, I tend to lump all the partisans of both parties on one side, and myself on the other. To me,  they all act alike. Not only that, but their actions so perfectly complement and support each other that it’s almost as though they were colluding. Think about it: It would have been impossible for the House Democrats to make such a production over the matter, with a formal vote of official disapproval, if Joe hadn’t cooperated with them so beautifully by childishly refusing to apologize to them. Everyone played his assigned part to perfection. Or almost everyone.

In fact, I’d ignore the whole affair, except for the fact that the vote wasn’t entirely along party lines. For instance, South Carolina Republican Bob Inglis voted for the “disapproval” resolution. Because he did that, because he thought for himself and did something that might cost him the support of many in his tribe, what Bob Inglis has to say about the subject actually matters. Unfortunately, I didn’t see much about what he had to say on the subject in the paper — just the usual ritual pronouncements from the people who voted along party lines, and you knew what they would say.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a statement on his decision to vote as he did on his Web site. But I did find his statement from the other night about the president’s speech. (That’s the video version of it above. Note his fundamentally respectful way of disagreeing with the president — something that shouldn’t be noteworthy, but is.) And because he stood up for decorum and had the courage to vote against his own party, I paid more attention to what he had to say about health care than I otherwise would have. By the way, here’s what he had to say at the time — before it had been inflated into another meaningless contest between the parties — about Joe’s outburst:

OBAMA: “The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” One congressman, South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, shouted “You lie!” from his seat in the House chamber when Obama made this assertion.

THE FACTS: The facts back up Obama. The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, but wouldn’t get tax subsidies to help them. Still, Republicans say there are not sufficient citizenship verification requirements to ensure illegal immigrants are excluded from benefits they are not due.

Bob Inglis has always been a thoughtful guy who stands up for what he thinks is right, regardless of the dictates of the tribe. I’ve always appreciated that about him, even when I think he’s wrong — such as when he opposed the troop “surge” in Iraq. His iconoclasm causes me to care about what he says, which puts him in a lonely category in the U.S. House. A man who’s willing to pay a political price for his views deserves to be heard.

I would also like to know more about the thinking of those Democrats (Arcuri, Delahunt, Giffords, Hinchey, Hodes, Kucinich, Maffei, Massa, McDermott, Moore, Taylor and Teague) who voted against the mild “disapproval” resolution. I haven’t seen anything from any of them, but if any of my readers would kindly provide a link, I’d like to read what they had to say. It interests me far more than the ritual pronouncements of party orthodoxy…

Sorry, but calling the president a ‘liar’ is out of bounds for BOTH parties

45 Replies

Sigh. I really don’t want to have this argument with friends, especially not on the anniversary of 9/11, but I can’t let what Kathryn said over on Facebook stand without responding.

It was in reply to this post back here, in which I asserted that Democrats drag themselves down to Joe Wilson’s level when they respond to him by saying, “Bush lied.” I had thought it would be a teachable moment, in which I could say, See how bad y’all sounded over the past four years? See what it’s like when someone refuses to respect the president for partisan causes, declaring him and all he says illegitimate?

My good friend Kathryn responded:

Wait–Bush did lie, and got us into a war, and Obama didn’t lie last night at all–quite the contrary, and Wilson knew it according to the papers. Wilson was out of line and Democrats’ saying things today doesn’t put us on the level of a tantrum during the President’s speech either. Sorry.

To that, another friend, Randy Ewart, added:

I concur with Fenner – well said!

You know, I’d hoped we’d put this behind us when Bush went home to Texas. I certainly heaved a sigh of relief. I never liked the guy. I always resented the fact that he was president, when it should have been John McCain. (Remember how South Carolina ill-served the nation back in 2000?)

But the eight years of hatred that Democrats spewed at the guy, starting from the very beginning, with the Long Count in Florida, was an ugly thing to behold. And yes, it started that early. I remember a couple of conversations I had with Mike Fitts back in the summer of 2001, asking if he could explain the vitriol to me. It was obvious that Dems didn’t just disagree with the guy; they hated him. Which wasn’t good for the country. Yes, I had seen and decried the venom that Republicans had directed at Bill Clinton well before he’d had a chance to do anything to deserve it, too — I particularly recall the bumper stickers saying “Don’t Blame Me — I Voted for Bush” that cropped up on cars before his 1993 inauguration. But the reaction to Bush seemed to go even a step farther — and this was well before the “sins” that Democrats usually list when explaining their distaste for the man.

Oh, and I don’t recall Bush lying. Yes, I realize it’s an article of faith among y’all that he DID (what was it again — the WMD that he and everyone else firmly believed were there in Iraq, seeing as how he had actually USED some of them — or something else?), just as it is an article of faith among Republicans such as Joe Wilson that this president is lying when he tries to set the record straight. It is so important to them to conflate their twin bugaboos — “socialized medicine” and illegal immigration — that it is heresy for anyone (particularly the Chief Heretic) to suggest otherwise, heresy so foul that it wrings furious cries from their lips at inopportune moments.

(Just an aside: Isn’t it ironic that two men who have grabbed national attention by calling these two presidents liars are both named Joe Wilson? Oh, and that other Joe Wilson was wrong, too — the intel he brought back from Niger did NOT conclusively refute the yellowcake reports, according to the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report.)

And I’m not even going to get into that “got us into a war” stuff, except to say that we were already IN a war. Argue whether we should have reopened the front in Iraq when we did, fine. But we were already in a war.

I know y’all mean what you say, but I’m sorry — I see an obvious symmetry between Joe calling this president a liar and y’all calling the last one the same.Y’all have your perspective as Democrats, and Joe has his as a Republican. And I have mine as founder of the UnParty, so consider the source.

Trying to think like a businessman

4 Replies

I already posted this once this morning and it disappeared; let’s see if I can recreate it…

This morning I ran into Dwight Drake, who was breaking his fast with some newspaper folk, including my former publisher and Bill Rogers of the state press association.

I asked Dwight whether he was wooing the press, but he said it was the other way around: They were trying to sell him some ads.

Well, good luck to them, said I as I moved back toward my table — newspapers certainly need the revenue, and maybe if Dwight broke with the conventional wisdom and invested significantly in print, some of his competitors would, too.

Only later did I realize I should have told Dwight that I’m planning on taking ads on my blog, once I work out the technical issues, and so if he wants to spend money, he could do so with me. But I always forget stuff like that. Maybe I’m not cut out to be a Mad Man after all (please don’t tell Joan Holloway) …

I chatted with Dwight a bit more after his meeting broke up, and he told me that before he would approve the “500 Days of Sanford” video spoof, he had to go see the movie. Wanting to seem hip, I didn’t ask “What movie?,” although that’s what I was thinking. Oh, now I see. Dwight says it was OK, but no “Gone With The Wind.” I can believe that. At any rate, I found the video amusing without getting the allusion.

Then, after I left, I realized I’d missed yet another selling opportunity, because I could have told Dwight I can run video on my blog. Of course, I already did run his video, for free.

I’ve really got to get a handle on this thinking like a businessman thing…

Rex lets the first shoe drop

5 Replies

Don’t know if you saw this on Jim Rex’s Facebook page:

Statement by Jim Rex
Thursday, September 3, 2009

“I have decided that I will not seek re-election to the Office of State Superintendent of Education in 2010, regardless of whether or not I decide to run for Governor. It is clear from my time in this office that there is a limit to what we can accomplish to move South Carolina’s schools and our state forward so long as we do not have someone in the Governor’s office who is making education, jobs, and economic development the top priorities of this state. I am in the final stages of making a decision about whether or not to offer myself to South Carolinians to be that kind of Governor – a “turnaround” Governor – or whether to return to the private sector and continue to work to make a difference there. Sue and I appreciate the support and encouragement we have received as we have moved around the state in these last few weeks, and I look forward to a final decision very soon.”

So that’s one shoe. He said at Bud’s house that if the other shoe’s gonna drop, it will be this week or next.

So if he does get into it, what does that do to the race for governor? I was intrigued that Wes Wolfe suggested Rex would be in third place behind Vincent Sheheen and Dwight Drake. I asked Wes why he thought that, to which he responded:

The money and connections Drake has are pretty powerful. Plus, Rex’s only claim to fame was beating Karen Floyd by 455 votes. Also, Rex’s fundraising operation, at least so far, has been woefully inadequate compared to Drake and Sheheen. I think he could pull third, but he’d have to show me something special to prove that he can get into the runoff.

My own thought is that Rex has more name recognition than Vincent, and lacks the controversy that attaches to Dwight as a result of his lobbying clients. In a Democratic primary, that is. For many Republican voters (those of the Sanford ilk), Rex brings baggage just from being associated with public education, which they despise. And there are enough of that sort of voter to be a factor in a general election. But that’s not a factor in a Democratic race.

I don’t know for sure which of those three ought to get the nomination, but if I were to predict I’d say Rex would start out with an advantage, whether he should or not. But of course, no one really knows; we’re making educated guesses.

Harry Ott stays out of it, backs Sheheen

4 Replies

Well, the rumors I was hearing at the Jim Rex event last week turned out to be untrue — Harry Ott is not running for governor. Instead, he’s backing Vincent Sheheen:

OTT BACKS SHEHEEN IN RACE FOR GOVERNOR

“I believe it’s time we elect a governor we can all be proud of…

Vincent Sheheen is that person.”

St. Matthews, SC – Following his announcement over the weekend that he would not run for governor, House Minority Leader Harry Ott announced today that he is endorsing state Senator Vincent Sheheen in the race for governor.

“South Carolinians are yearning for a trustworthy, hard-working governor – one who can build the coalitions and provide the leadership necessary to address the challenges we face,” said Ott. “On the issues that will define the success or failure of our next governor – particularly creating good jobs and revitalizing our public schools – Vincent Sheheen is the candidate with the independence, experience and vision to move South Carolina forward.”

Ott and Sheheen served together in the South Carolina House from 2001 – 2004. Since 2004, Sheheen has served in the state Senate, where he represents Chesterfield, Kershaw and Lancaster counties.

“I have had the pleasure of knowing Vincent over the last decade and I believe, without a doubt, that he and I share a common vision of what South Carolina can be with the right person at the helm,” Ott continued. “Vincent has a longstanding reputation for forging partnerships and getting results. And perhaps most importantly, he believes deeply, as I do, in the value of our public schools and knows that they are the cornerstone for economic development and job creation.”

“South Carolina is at a pivotal juncture,” Ott said. “I believe it’s time we elect a governor we can all be proud of – one who has the character and integrity to help this great state find its way again. Vincent Sheheen is that person. I am excited to endorse Vincent Sheheen for governor of South Carolina, and I will work to help him get elected.”

This seems a good call on Rep. Ott’s part. The field was crowded enough, and he didn’t want it badly enough to claw through all that, from what I could tell at the one campaign event I heard him speak at.

This is good news for Sheheen, as Harry Ott is the sort of Democrat who pulls toward the center, and whoever gets the nomination will need that kind of appeal in November 2010. (Of course, the big question is always whether primary voters will have the sense to appreciate that.)

Bud’s get-together for Jim Rex

35 Replies
jim-rex-event-003

I converted this to black and white as a cheap and easy way to eliminate red-eye (note the otherwordly gleam in Bud's eye as he introduces Rex).

Tuesday was so eventful in the contest for the Democratic nomination for governor in 2010 that I didn’t have time to write about everything that happened.

I wrote about Dwight Drake’s candidacy (I talked to Dwight today, and he likes it that I called him the “anti-Sanford”), and about Vincent Sheheen’s relatively aggressive reaction to that. Then, that night, I went to a fundraiser for Jim Rex at Bud Ferillo’s house, and by the time I got home I was blogged out. Not to mention sweaty.

Not much to report. Rex says he’ll decide whether to run for governor either the first or second week in September, but of course, he was sounding very much like a candidate. If he gets in, he’ll run hard and Bud will no doubt help him do so, although it won’t be end-all and be-all for him. As his wife, Sue, noted to me, Rex has had a full career or two. He came out of retirement to run for superintendent (his first elective office), and while he gives it his all, he could always go back to retirement with a sense of fulfillment.

Consequently, don’t expect him to come out swinging against anybody the way that Vincent did in reaction to Dwight (or the way someone with apparent links to Mullins McLeod has done more indirectly, but more forcefully). He’s low-key, and prefers to stay away from such stuff. As he made a point of saying, “People are sick and tired of partisan, negative politics.” Not that I would put what Vincent did in that category; I think it was perfectly within the bounds. So does Dwight, for that matter — “He’s got to do that,” he said of Vincent today. But Rex probably won’t.

What else can I tell you, aside from how muggy it was? Well, I could tell you who was there. A partial list: Hayes Mizell, Rep. James Smith, Chris Vlahoplus, Charlotte Berry, Joe Berry, Barbara Rackes, Mike Mann, Raúl Fernandez-Carreras, Sally Huguley, Ted Riley…

… but don’t attach too much significance to any of those names; they weren’t all there because they’re supporting Rex. James Smith, for instance, is a Vincent Sheheen man all the way. There are few allies closer that those two and Joel Lourie. But as James had told me previously, he wrote a check for Rex — and wrote on the check that it was for his re-election campaign as superintendent. And he reiterated that upon his arrival at Bud’s. He and his lovely wife Kirkland had come to be sociable (and, in a sociable sort of way I suppose, check out the opposition).

While I did see at least one couple drop an envelope into the bin set by the front door, I think a lot of folks were there just to see what was happening. And to talk politics (there were rumors that yet another Democrat might run for governor, but I haven’t had a chance to check that out yet. If true, it would surprise me — although not as much as Dwight did.)

I, of course, was there in my usual mode of disinterested observer — which I always have to point out to people these days. Although I didn’t have to tell Zeke Stokes. When someone asked a question that he thought bore a little too intimately upon the not-yet campaign’s strategy, he begged off by saying “Brad Warthen is here,” so he at least still sees me as a journalist.

Best quote of the night, in response to a question about whether he would appeal to moderate Republicans and independents (which Rex noted he did already in winning in 2006): “I have become the darling of the NRA.” I believe that was intentionally ironic; he was just saying he hopes for diverse support (and that he agrees with the NRA that kids need to get into the outdoors more).

That’s about all, except to say this continues to be very interesting…

Vincent comes out swinging against Dwight on Day One

11 Replies

Vincent Sheheen hasn’t wasted any time pointing out new contestant Dwight Drake’s vulnerabilities. Dwight did a conference call with journalists at 1 p.m., and at 3:24 Vincent sent out this:

Sheheen’s Statement on Democratic Primary

Camden, SC – State Senator and Democratic candidate for governor Vincent Sheheen today issued the following statement regarding the Democratic primary for governor:Which candidate can return trust to the governor’s office?  That is the ultimate question that South Carolina voters must decide.

“In the South Carolina Senate, I have focused on fighting the special interests and insider politics that too often control our government in Columbia at the expense of the people. Whether it be predatory lenders, big tobacco companies, or environmental polluters, I have been willing to stand up to them — and stand up FOR hard-working South Carolinians and our families.

Next year, we have the opportunity to end business as usual and elect a new governor who will put the people of this state first.  South Carolinians deserve a state government that will reward their faith and hard work with good jobs and strong public schools.

Democrats in South Carolina must make a statement about the values of our party and of our state. The future of the Democratic Party and the quality of our state government in South Carolina is at stake.

In this election, Democrats must carefully choose a candidate who represents our values and the values of South Carolina.  We must make a new start, with a new direction and vision to rebuild our state. This is our chance and we cannot afford to miss it.”

###

I told you this was going to be interesting, and it already is.

Dwight Drake’s running! What an election this is shaping up to be…

21 Replies

What an election year 2010 is turning out to be!

You know the wild rumors that led to me being asked whether I was running for governor, at the behest of Jim Hodges and Dick Harpootlian? Apparently, the candidate that rumor was really about was Dwight Drake. (UPDATE: Jim Hodges just told me he’s not backing Dwight or any other gubernatorial candidate — yet.) This is not as shocking an idea as it being ME, but it’s still pretty wild and surprising. Dwight’s done well — very well — working the corridors of power without being the front man, so this is quite a step for him.

Dwight dealt with the Legislature for Dick Riley, and has been doing the same for clients, ranging from Big Tobacco to the high school girl who sued over the stimulus (in that latter case, the aforementioned Dick H. was his co-counsel), ever since.

In fact, if you drew a spectrum of political figures in terms of their effectiveness with lawmakers and put Mark Sanford on one end, Dwight would be on the other. He’s the anti-Mark Sanford, whether you see that as good or bad.

FYI, here’s his bio from the official Nelson Mullins Web site:

Dwight F. Drake is a partner of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP in Columbia where his practice focuses on government relations, legislative issues, and disputes involving government contracts. Maintaining an active litigation practice, Mr. Drake regularly argues before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Since joining the firm in 1983, Mr. Drake has been at the forefront of every significant issue considered by the South Carolina General Assembly — from tort reform to the Economic Development Bond Act. Additionally, he has held numerous positions in firm leadership and management.

In 1981, Mr. Drake was named Lawyer of the Year in Government by American Lawyer, and he is widely recognized for his prominent role in governmental and political arenas. Mr. Drake has twice received The Order of the Palmetto, the highest honor bestowed by a Governor of South Carolina. Mr. Drake’s successful litigation practice led to his selection as a permanent member of the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference, and his advocacy skills are valued by legislative and litigation clients alike.

Mr. Drake served as a member of the Hodges for Governor Transition Committee. Prior to joining the firm, he served as Executive Assistant for Legislative and Political Affairs for South Carolina Governor Richard W. Riley. Mr. Drake served as legal counsel to South Carolina Governor John C. West.

In 1972, Mr. Drake earned a Juris Doctor from the University of South Carolina School of Law where he was president of the Student Bar Association and held membership in Phi Delta Phi and the National Moot Court Team. Mr. Drake earned a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Georgia in 1967.

Later today, I’m going to a fund-raiser for Jim Rex, and see what’s going on there. But it’s clear that this election is shaping up as the opposite of 2006 for Democrats. Then, no viable candidate stepped forward, and that party ended up with Tommy Moore. This year, you have have a statewide name in Rex, an idealistic young reformer in Sheheen, and the ultimate get-it-done guy Drake. Meanwhile, the party is keeping up a steady pounding on the likely GOP candidates, hitting them with Sanford like battleships softening up the beach with artillery before an amphibious landing.

2010 is going to be very different for South Carolina.

Oh, and just so you have all the details, here’s Dwight’s announcement:

Dwight Drake Announces Run for Governor to Get South Carolina Working Again

Drake Led Efforts to Bring BMW to State and Protect Public School Funding,
Will Keep Working for Jobs and Education as Governor

COLUMBIA – Dwight Drake, an attorney and experienced public servant with a long record of fighting for job creation and improved public education, announced today that he will run for Governor of South Carolina as a Democrat in the 2010 election. Drake announced his candidacy in a video emailed to voters across the state and posted at http://www.DwightDrake.com.  [NOTE FOR TV PRODUCERS: Broadcast-quality versions of the video are available for digital download at http://www.box.net/DrakeAnnouncement .]

“We need to get South Carolina working again,” said Drake. “The past eight years have been wasted, and South Carolina is now first in unemployment in the South.  Mark Sanford made a lot of news when he disappeared this year, but he’s been AWOL on jobs since the day he took office.

“I know from my experience working with two Governors who made education and jobs their priorities – John West and Dick Riley – and working to bring BMW to South Carolina, what it takes to create good-paying jobs in our state.”

Drake has been a tireless advocate on behalf of education and job creation in South Carolina.  He headed up the successful, bipartisan effort to attract BMW to locate in South Carolina and later to expand their operations in the state, resulting in more than 15,000 new jobs for South Carolinians.

Drake also helped lead Choose Children First, a coalition of business leaders, lawmakers, and supporters of public education who came together to defeat Governor Mark Sanford’s attempt to drain money away from public schools with a voucher program.

Most recently, Drake represented South Carolina students Casey Edwards and Justin Williams in their legal fight to force Governor Sanford to accept federal funds for economic recovery and to put that funding to work for South Carolina’s public schools.  Both students appear in Drake’s announcement video and speak about the work he did to make their victory possible.

Drake’s years in public service include serving as legal counsel to former Governor John West and as former Governor Dick Riley’s top legislative aide, where he helped pass landmark legislation, including the Education Improvement Act, as well as efforts supporting early childhood development and state government reform.

Drake’s first priority as Governor will be bringing jobs to the state, after years of neglect by Governor Sanford.

“The first thing a Governor should do when he wakes up in the morning is think, ‘What can I do today to bring good jobs to South Carolina?'” said Drake.  “And the last thing he should do at night is ask himself, ‘Did I do enough today on jobs?’

“My mother and father taught me always to tell the truth and do my best.  Well, the truth is we’re not doing our best in South Carolina.  That’s why I’ve decided to run for Governor.”

Dwight Drake is a native of Spartanburg County, where his father worked in the mills and Drake joined him to help pay for his college education.  He is a U.S. Army veteran who served in Vietnam, and he earned his law degree from the University of South Carolina.  Drake lives in Columbia with his wife Beth, a federal prosecutor, and their two daughters, Marshall, 12, and Eliza, 9.

Drake will hold a press conference call at 1:00pm TODAY to discuss the announcement of his candidacy for Governor.

Biden swears in Inez

5 Replies

inez-sworn-in

Here’s a photo of the ceremony Wednesday night in which Inez Tenenbaum was sworn in as chair of the Consumer Products Safety Commission. The photo was taken by Scott Wolfson, a self-professed photographic amateur who works for CPSC (and follows me on Twitter, so hello, Scott). The guy who is not Joe Biden is Samuel, of course.

Scott reports that Veep Biden had the following remarks:

On Wednesday evening, Chairman Tenenbaum had the honor of being ceremonially sworn-in by Vice President Joe Biden at the White House.  The Vice President remarked that the agency plays a vital role in keeping children and grandchildren safe and giving parents confidence in the safety of the consumer products they purchase.

So congratulations again, Inez!

No public schedule for YOU!

8 Replies

A working journalist friend has been forwarding me the governor’s public schedule, and she’s tired of doing it, and says I should just ask Joel (Sawyer, the gov’s press guy) to send them straight to me, and I haven’t asked him yet. Do you think he’ll send me one? Am I, as a blogger, sufficiently legit? We’ll see. When I get around to it. I’m kinda busy job-hunting and stuff.

But if he’s going to refuse to send one to anybody, it will be the folks over at the state Democratic Party. I mean, the poor guy tries to take a few days with the wife (he just sent out a new schedule postponing the rest of the week’s appointments so he can have some time with Jenny) under extremely trying circumstances, and they get all over his case:

SC Dems Outraged By Sanford Second Summer Vacation

Columbia, SC – South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler released the following statement today in response to Governor Mark Sanford taking another vacation after being back on the job for less than a month. Sanford canceled pending work for the rest of the week.

“A good many South Carolina families with out-of-work breadwinners had been hoping their governor would stick around and look for ways to bring more jobs to the state.  He’s essentially been off the job for a month, and now he’s off again for a week’s vacation.

“Of course, unlike most South Carolinians, Mark Sanford gets paid whether he shows up for work or not.  Once again it’s clear that there is one set of rules for Sanford and another set of rules for everyone else,” said Fowler.

Now, you see, Sanford’s thinking about now, this is why I didn’t put out public schedules before now…

I strongly suspect that — apart from when he was doing his executive budgets, which he was very obsessive about, and I mean that in a good way — one reason the gov never put out schedules before was because they would have looked kinda thin. I don’t know that; I just infer it from all the complaints I got from people who said this governor wouldn’t meet with them, unlike previous governors. Such as the folks over at Employment Security, who can be seen complaining about that very thing on this video.

So unless the governor starts doing a lot of gubernatorial stuff he didn’t used to do, his public schedules are going to give his critics lots of ammo. Which is why South Carolina’s Democrats are so thrilled that he keeps saying he’s not going to resign. They really, really want this state of affairs to continue through the 2010 election. It’s like Christmas every day for them.

Mullins hasn’t gotten a hit yet

13 Replies

Sorry not to have blogged in the last few days; I worked all weekend on a consulting project, and I’m still finishing it. But as I waited for someone to send me back something related to that, I checked my e-mail, and found this at the top:

June 30, 2009
News Release – For Immediate Release

Today, Democratic candidate for Governor Mullins McLeod made the following statement regarding the latest developments in the deepening Governor Mark Sanford scandal.

“Let’s not forget that the most important crisis we have right now remains our 12% jobless rate. The sad and disturbing Mark Sanford crisis is another order entirely. Our politicians in Columbia are busy tearing themselves apart with this scandal, focusing on their own political ambitions, while too many South Carolinians are losing their jobs. The hard working families of this state deserve better than this circus.”
###

Nothing particularly wrong about this release, except that it tries yet again to strike that “I’m the guy who cares about what the Real People care about” tone, and again fails to connect. I don’t know; maybe y’all think its fine. But it strikes me that of the three at-bats I’ve noticed Mullins having in this ball game, he’s yet to get a hit.

If you’re only going to put out a press release every once in a while, it seems like you’d wait until you have something clear and useful to say. But his statements so far seem to be, I don’t know, muddy. If he were putting out several a day, this one wouldn’t strike me as odd, but when I get this after a silence of days or weeks, and it’s so blah, I wonder why he bothered.

For instance, when he says, “The sad and disturbing Mark Sanford crisis is another order entirely,” what does he mean? Does it mean it’s worth talking about whether Mark Sanford should continue to serve as governor or not? He seems to suggest not, but he’s not clear. Note that he sent this out about an hour or so after AP reported that the governor got together with his girlfriend five times in the past year, not three, and that he’s “crossed lines” with other women, but not gone, you know, all the way. So is Mullins reacting to that, and saying we shouldn’t be talking any more about such salacious stuff? Or was he unaware of those developments, and just saying we shouldn’t talk about Sanford at all? Or what? “Another order entirely” doesn’t tell me anything.

He also seems to be suggesting (but nothing clearer than suggesting) we should be talking about unemployment instead of Mark Sanford. Which, come to think of it, is the same message Andre Bauer’s putting out — saying that if the governor quits and he takes his place, he’ll focus on “jobs, jobs and jobs.”

Andre went on to say other things that sound oddly like what Mullins is saying:

“My thought is that we’ve got to take politics out of it. We have got to move it forward as a state. Somebody’s got to show some leadership…”

Maybe Mullins has a different position from Andre’s, but I can’t tell. I can’t even tell if he means to hold Gov. Sanford responsible for the high unemployment, which would explain why he juxtaposes the two concepts. But he doesn’t say.

Like I say, there’s nothing really wrong with this release, but there’s nothing right about it either. And I’ve pretty much gotten that same impression from this campaign’s previous efforts. His releases seem to be generic, boilerplate, stuff politicians (whether they’re Andre or Mullins or whoever) say all the time. They don’t say ANYthing about why we should be interested in Mullins McLeod and what he has to say specifically. And this strikes me as odd.

The Republican version of McLeod seems to be Gresham Barrett, who after weeks of trying to get an interview with him really didn’t have any reasons to offer why he, in particular, was running.

Here’s hoping Mullins has more to say next time he makes an announcement. And that we start hearing more worth hearing from all the candidates. We need some substance here, people.

Is this the best parties can do?

The S.C. Democratic Party put out this release today in reaction to the governor’s disappearance, which, let’s face it, is pretty silly:

Columbia, SC- In anticipation of Governor Mark Sanford’s return to the state, the South Carolina Democratic Party will host a virtual town hall meeting today. The meeting is open to all residents who wish to ask questions to the governor who has been out of town (and out of touch) since last week.

“South Carolinians have been very concerned about Governor Sanford’s actions over the last eight months. They have a right to ask the Governor about our state’s unemployment rate, the stimulus and his reasons for abandoning the state.  This virtual town hall meeting will give these concerned citizens a real opportunity to ask these questions,” said SCDP Chair Carol Fowler.

The town hall meeting, which will be held on the SCDP website, begins today at 4 p.m. and will end when Sanford responds to the questions.  Residents wishing to participate in the SCDP meeting should visit http://www.scdp.org/governor/.

Tell you what, Democrats: Concentrate your energies on nominating someone better for governor in 2010. And Republicans, you do the same. THAT would be worthwhile. Stuff like this is not.

“Good tired”

This evening, I dropped by another one of those events like this one. It was a fund-raiser for Anton Gunn over at the Inn at USC.

Anyway, I did the usual thing of chatting with several folks (Bud and Julia Ferillo, Trip King, Ann Timberlake) and then ducking out. But as I was leaving something hit me. I saw Bud walking out ahead of me and I called to him and said, “Uh… did you see Anton in there?” No, he hadn’t. But he said that was because the House was still in session. This was coming up on 6:30 p.m.

I thought about that for a second and observed to Bud that overriding all those Mark Sanford vetoes can be tiring work. Bud said he supposed so, but he bet it was “a good tired.”

Indeed. If lawmakers get that done, and get us the stimulus money and so forth, it will be a good day’s work.

So how should I act now?

Sunday afternoon, I dropped by a fund-raising reception for Vincent Sheheen‘s gubernatorial campaign, just to check it out the way I always do.

It was at the Hunter-Gatherer. Kevin Varner from that establishment was my fellow guest on “Whad’Ya Know?” several weeks ago, and I told him then that I’d never been to the place but intended to do so sometime. This seemed like a good chance to follow through on that.

So I did what I usually do at such events — breeze by the sign-in table and start chatting with the guests, without signing in, and without making a contribution. Because I’m press. That is, I WAS press, for my whole adult life until very recently. Now, the closest thing I am to “press” is that I’m a blogger. But it feels natural to keep going to events such as this one for various candidates so I can keep up with what’s going on. After all, over the four years since I started blogging, I’ve gone to such events primarily as a blogger, not as an editorial page editor. So what’s different now?

I don’t know, but I recognize the potential for awkwardness. For instance, the next day I saw Boyd Summers at Rotary, and he mentioned seeing me at the Sheheen thing, and said isn’t it great that now that I’m not an editor, I can “do things like that.” Obviously, he thought I was there to be involved, that I was declaring my support for Vincent by being there. Which I wasn’t, so I set him straight on that. (Incidentally, I also saw Boyd at the “tea party” protest recently, and he didn’t assume I was supporting that, so what’s the diff? I was reminded of that yesterday when someone on Facebook called my attention to this picture of me and Boyd at that event. If you follow that link you’ll see that someone mistakenly identified Boyd as Mark Quinn from ETV.)

Anyway, I had a nice time for the half hour I was there (and yes, you CAN have a nice time even if you’re actually working). Had a pleasant chat with Vincent’s wife, Amy. We talked about the pope and other Catholic stuff for awhile. Then I excused myself, explaining that I was going to see “Star Trek” with my younger son, and she totally understood, because she and Vincent went to see “Star Trek” for their anniversary.

Anyway, others who were there included James Smith, Joel Lourie, Vincent’s dad Fred and others whom you would expect to find there. Maybe 30 people. I don’t know if there were speeches, because I left so soon.

But I had to wonder — did anyone else there make the mistake Boyd made? And how can I prevent that? Should I wear a sign that says, “I’m Just Blogging,” in letters big enough to be seen across the room? Or should I simply not go to political events? If so, how do I write about them? How do I have those critical casual conversations with people, the kind where you find out what’s really going on (as opposed to those stiff, “I’m calling you up to interview you” conversations)? Do I have to rely entirely on running into them by chance at Starbucks? I don’t mind, but as a strategy, that seem iffy.

Anyway, I’m still figuring out this “I used to be a newspaperman, but not any more” thing.

“Star Trek” was really good, by the way.

When Obama and Graham agree, so do I

For some time, I’ve had a sort of axiom I’ve more or less lived by: If John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman are for it, I probably am, too. If I find myself disagreeing with those three guys (not that I ever do, but theoretically), I need to look at the issue a little harder.

Admittedly, getting McCain and Graham to agree is not much of a standard to meet. They’re sort of joined at the hip, policywise. But if Lieberman is on board, you’ve met a higher test. Mind you, if it’s just one or the other, I might not be on board. For instance, I don’t think Joe agreed with McCain about picking Sarah Palin, so bad call there. And I don’t agree with Lieberman on abortion. But if they agree, it’s probably a good call.

And now I’ve got a corollary to that: If Graham and Obama agree, so do I. I sort of indicated that in a column back just after the election (and went into more detail about it on my old blog). And here’s a fresh instance of the phenomenon:

Graham Applauds President Obama’s Decision to Use Military Commissions to Try Terror Suspects

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement on the decision by President Obama to use military commissions to try terror suspects.

“I support President Obama’s decision to seek a further stay of military commission trials.  Today’s action will afford us the opportunity to reform the military commission system and produce a comprehensive policy regarding present and future detainees.

“In my first meeting with then President-elect Obama in Chicago in December 2008, we discussed a path forward for Guantanamo detainees.  I appreciated the opportunity to meet with him and focus on the types of reforms that would protect our national security interests and help repair the damage done to our nation’s image.  I continue to believe it is in our own national security interests to separate ourselves from the past problems of Guantanamo.

“Since that initial meeting I have personally met with the President on two occasions and with his staff numerous times to discuss detention policy.  Our meetings have covered a wide range of topics including the various ways we could improve the military commission system to ideas on establishing a proper and appropriate oversight role for the federal courts.

“I have had extensive discussions with military commanders and other Department of Defense officials about the overall benefit to the war effort of reforming our nation’s detainee policies.  The commanders believe a reformed system would be beneficial to the war effort as long as such a system is national security-centric.

“Detainee policy is very complex.  The President wants to collaborate with Congress to reform detainee policy and we should use this additional time to come up with a sensible national security policy regarding terror suspects.

“I believe a comprehensive plan should be in place before Guantanamo is closed.

“I also believe that no detainees should be released into the United States.  Detainees determined by the military or a federal judge to no longer be held as enemy combatants should be transferred to the custody of the Department of Homeland Security pending their transfer to another country.

“I agree with the President and our military commanders that now is the time to start over and strengthen our detention policies. I applaud the President’s actions.”

######

Good call there, fellas. I agree.

Down with early voting

Walt McLeod’s nephew the gubernatorial candidate took aim at populist sentiment among Democrats with this release a few moments ago:

McLeod Pushes Election Reform:

Vows to Fight for Early Voting in SC

Today, Democratic candidate for Governor Mullins McLeod pushed to reform our election laws by making it easier for South Carolinians to exercise their fundamental right to vote.  McLeod vowed to fight for early voting in South Carolina and pledged to veto any legislation that would reduce a voter’s access to early or absentee voting.

McLeod’s statement came after published reports revealed that the legislature’s attempts to pass early voting are not only failing, but that Republicans have passed legislation in the House that would prevent most in-person absentee voting.

“The current crop of career politicians in Columbia aren’t getting the job done,” McLeod said. “When I’m Governor we will have early voting in South Carolina just like so many states do now. And if the legislative Republicans keep trying to make it difficult for our citizens to vote, they’ll feel the full power of the Governor’s office come down on them. Just like people who live in North Carolina and Georgia, South Carolinians deserve the ability to vote and make their voice heard in an efficient and convenient way that fits in with their busy schedules,” McLeod added.

McLeod said that the entire debate on this issue demonstrates the culture of misplaced priorities that keep South Carolina near the bottom. “We should have early voting, that’s a no brainer. There shouldn’t even be a debate. Instead of fighting over this, we need to be working to create jobs and improve our schools. That’s what people expect from their elected officials. Once again career politicians in Columbia have failed us.”

###

Sorry, Mullins, but I still don’t hold with it. To avoid retyping what I said before, here’s an excerpt from one of my last columns at The State (the one in which I dismissed both sides on the photo ID debate):

While I’m at it, I might as well abuse a related idea: early voting.

We’ve had a number of debates about that here on the editorial board, and I’ve been told that my reasons for opposing early voting are vague and sentimental. Perhaps they are, but I cling to them nonetheless.

While Democrats and Republicans have their ideological reasons to fight over this idea, too, it’s a communitarian thing for me. I actually get all warm and fuzzy, a la Frank Capra, about the fact that on Election Day, my neighbors and I — sometimes folks I haven’t seen in years — take time out from our daily routine and get together and stand in line (actually allowing ourselves to be, gasp, inconvenienced) and act as citizens in a community to make important decisions.

I’ve written columns celebrating that very experience, such as one in 1998 that quoted a recent naturalized citizen proudly standing in line at my polling place, who said, “On my way here this morning, I felt the solemnity of the occasion.”

I believe in relating to my country, my state, my community as a citizen, not as a consumer. That calls for an entirely different sort of interaction. If you relate to public life as a consumer, well then by all means do it at your precious convenience. Mail or phone or text it in — what’s the difference? It’s all about you and your prerogatives, right? You as a consumer.

Something different is required of a citizen, and that requirement is best satisfied by everyone getting out and voting on Election Day.

With or without photo IDs.

Now I’m sure young Mr. McLeod is perfectly serious and sincere in advocating early voting. Set aside the canned, trite, generic populist language that seems to plague his releases (“The current crop of career politicians in Columbia;” yadda-yadda — all that’s missing is a reference to “good ol’ boys”). He means it, as do most Democrats.

I had a conversation about this with Capt. James Smith at a fund-raiser that Doug Jennings and Joel Lourie had for him at the erstwhile Townhouse last week, the same day that his op-ed on the subject ran in The State.

I explained my communitarian opposition to the idea, and he said what about older folks who have trouble waiting in line? I said they can vote early now; my parents always do. He said they won’t be able to do so in the future, with the Republicans now limiting the absentee voting that already occurs. And I said “Aw, the Republicans just did that because you provoked ’em.” And he laughed. Then he acknowledged I was probably right that what the GOP members had done probably would not stand — where would Republicans be with all the old white people mad at them? But in the meantime, he seemed resolved to take what advantage he could from their tactical error. (Finally, I told James that at least the remaining editors on the editorial board of The State saw things his way — I was the holdout on early voting.)

Anyway, I hear what James and Mullins and the rest are saying, but I am unpersuaded. They point to the long lines back in November, and I say so what? I celebrate the long lines as signs of a vigorous representative democracy. I ran across this chart the other day (let me know if you have better ones) that show that in the ’08 election, S.C. went from 50th to 41st in voter turnout, with a 9.8 percent increase over 2004. This is the Obama effect that Democrats celebrate, and they want to present it as a symptom of something that needs fixing? Sorry, that doesn’t add up for me. If participation were on a downward slide, they might have an argument. As things stand, they don’t.

Congrats to Inez!

Well, I think the president made a good choice in picking Inez Tenenbaum to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission. So do a lot of other people.

I got a release from the S.C. Democratic Party saying Carol Fowler and Jim Hodges and John Land were pleased, but you sort of expected that, right? More to the point, Lindsey Graham, and, even more than that to the point, ex-rival Jim DeMint both issued supportive statements.

So with no one to say her nay, I’m guessing Inez is in. And that’s good news for America’s consumers. I think she would have been a fine Education Secretary, but I know Inez will do a great job at this as well. She’s that smart, and that hard-working.

We need the right kind of politics to become usual

By the way, on the subject of Dems running for governor, I got this release today from Mullins McLeod, which says in part:

In order to clamp down on politics-as-usual in the governor’s office, Mullins McLeod has made the following pledge to the people of South Carolina.

(1) No PAC Money. Corporations and special interests use PAC money to buy influence. Mullins McLeod will ban PAC money from his campaign.

(2) No Future Run for Office. Our current governor spends all his energies focused on his own political advancement. Mullins McLeod will change that by swearing to return to the private sector once his time in office is done.

(3) A Ban on Lobbying by Administration Members. When citizens volunteer to serve in office, it shouldn’t be for the future hope of making money from influence-peddling. Mullins McLeod will require senior staff members to forswear any future employment as a lobbyist while he remains in the Governor’s office.

(4) Honesty and Transparency. Our governor spends too much valuable time bickering over whether economic development and jobless numbers are correct. Mullins McLeod will cut through this impasse by bringing in outside accountants and non-government experts to produce honest figures – which will allow all sides to come together and focus on creating jobs to tackle our record high unemployment rate.

You know what? Not to criticize Mullins, but hasn’t it sort of become “politics as usual” for politicians to promise no more “politics as usual?”

And is “politics as usual” our problem? Actually, I don’t think so. I think one of our problems is that since 2002 we’ve had extremely unusual politics in the form of Gov. Mark Sanford, and it hasn’t served SC very well. He practices a sort of anti-politics, a negation of the practice of working with other human beings to try to find solutions to common problems.

Today at my Rotary meeting, Joel Lourie spoke. He said a lot of things, but one of the last thing he said was this:

Unfortunately, “politics” can be a bad word.

I view politics through the eyes of my parents. They taught me that politics can be a way of bringing people together to find commonsense solutions to our problems.

And I pledge to you to continue to do that…

What we need is for the kind of politics that Joel Lourie believes in to become “politics as usual.”

Another possible candidate: Harry Ott

Friday afternoon, two declared candidates for governor and a third who MAY seek the office in 2010 spoke to “New Democrats” over at The Inn at USC. (The difference between a “new” Democrat and and “old” Democrat seemed slight at the gathering. Rather than coming across as a sort of Third Way alternative, Phil Noble’s forum featured party chairwoman Carol Fowler as moderator, and most of the questions she posed were perfectly orthodox, partisan, us-vs.-them boilerplate, along the lines of asking the candidates to explain why South Carolina must reject those wicked Republicans and elect a Democrat. The candidates all did their best to oblige, which meant none of them was showing his best side, from my Unparty perspective.)

You’ve read at least a little bit here (and on my former blog) about Vincent Sheheen and Mullins McLeod. I thought I’d devote this post to a portion of what the third man, House Minority Leader Harry Ott, had to say.

Harry’s vision of how to run was more old Democrat than new — and by “old” in this instance I mean, pre-1968 Southern.

“Some of you may totally disagree with what I’m gonna say,” he warned, then went on to explain what he thinks a Democrat must do to become governor:

  1. “Number One… we’e got to have somebody who has really good family values,” by which he meant someone comfortable talking about his faith. “You’ve got to have somebody of faith, who’s willing to go to the Upstate and say, ‘I’m a Christian.'”
  2. The candidate must also be “somebody that relates to the value that South Carolinians put on guns.” Noting that he was raised around guns down on the farm, he added, “Don’t throw any rocks at me, but I’m an NRA member, and I’m proud of it. People in South Carolina like their guns.”
  3. “You’ve got to be a strong supporter of public education,” but you have to be able to tell the SCEA that you have no stomach for defending the status quo. “We can’t sit back and say what we have is good enough.” He cited particularly the need to reduce the dropout rate.

As far as the family values are concerned, “I’ve been married 32 years, I’ve raised two sons and have two grandsons; I believe I measure up.” He believes he measures up on the other standards as well.

Anyway, that’s a small taste of the approach of Harry Ott, who adamantly insists he is NOT a candidate yet… but could become one.