Category Archives: Parties

Familiar names crop up as potential Graham opponents

45 Replies

The Twitterverse is still buzzing over Lindsey Graham’s criticism of Rand Paul’s filibuster last week, as the über-libertarian wing of the GOP desperately seeks a Great Right Hope to oppose him in next year’s primary.

How desperate are they? Well, they were floating Lee Bright‘s name last week.

Since then, other names have emerged. Tom Davis — again — and Nancy Mace. You’ll know Nancy as the first woman to have graduated from The Citadel, and more recently as a PR and web design consultant, and Will Folk’s partner in his well-read blog (Will handles content; Nancy handles the technical side).

Buzzfeed initially reported the news about Nancy:

WASHINGTON — The first woman to ever graduate from the Citadel — who is also the co-owner of a controversial South Carolina political blog — is weighing a primary challenge to Senator Lindsey Graham in 2014, two Republican sources suggested Saturday.

Mace, Nancy

Nancy Mace

Conservatives have long mulled a challenge to Graham, seen in some circles as too establishmentarian for the state’s conservative grassroots, and allies of Senator Rand Paul — whose filibuster last week Graham denounced — hope State Senator Tom Davis, who backed Paul for president, will enter the race. But another conservative candidate could be Nancy Mace, best known in local political circles as the partial owner of FITSNews, whose name is short for “Faith In The Sound” after a George Michael lyric and which has for several years served as the center ring of the state’s sometimes hallucinatory political circus.

“She’s got an inspirational personal narrative, a gorgeous young family, the right ideological mooring and all sorts of political connections. Oh, and her name fits nicely on a 4X8,” FITSNews founding editor Will Folks said in an email. “Obviously I’m a little biased, but there’s a lot to like about her as a potential candidate in the event Tom Davis decides to stay out of it.”

In a separate email, Mace didn’t rule out a run, though she downplayed its likelihood…

Meanwhile, Will had reported that his former fellow Sanford staffer, Sen. Davis, was rethinking his decision not to run.

Between the two possibilities, the one that seems more likely is that Tom would run, and Nancy would help run his campaign — since the senator is one of her clients.

Vincent Sheheen kicks off 2014 campaign, apparently…

23 Replies

sheheen book

This came in about an hour ago:

Sheheen Kicks Off “Back on Track” Tour
State Senator will discuss ideas for moving South Carolina forward and his new book “The Right Way” in three-week statewide tour
Rock Hill, SC. – Today, state Sen. Vincent Sheheen kicks off the Palmetto State “Back on Track” tour at Sun City in Rock Hill to rollout his new book “The Right Way” and discuss his ideas for how to move South Carolina forward with local residents and leaders around the state.
“This short book is not meant to propose solutions to all of our state’s problems. It’s a revolt against the status quo. This book proposes ideas for us to consider and debate to try to get our state back on the right footing and shed the inanities of the past few years,” said Sen. Vincent Sheheen. “More than anything, this book of ideas is an attempt to promote more rational political discussion and policy making. Ultimately, we will still need committed citizens and leadership on many fronts to make it so. I look forward to meeting these leaders in the coming weeks and discussing how we will all move forward together.”
The Back on Track Tour will run from March 11th through March 30th holding lectures at universities, listening sessions with local families and leaders, and press conferences and discussions with media about the vision laid out in his book for creating jobs, improving education, restructuring the government, and creating a more prosperous future for the people and businesses of the Palmetto state. The tour kicks off today at noon in Rock Hill, before making stops in Conway, Myrtle Beach, Florence, Columbia, Aiken, Charleston, Fairfield, Beaufort, Greenville, and Spartanburg throughout the next three weeks.
Sen. Sheheen’s book is free and available online here, or as a hard copy at each of the event stops on the Back on Track tour.
Below is a selection of key quotes from Sen. Sheheen’s book, “The Right Way: Getting the Palmetto State Back on Track.”
We must do better for South Carolina… the right way
“This book is not about me. It’s about our South Carolina—a South Carolina we know can exist if we join together in a common vision with leaders who actually care about our state. We are better than what our government has looked like in recent history. We have been better before. We deserve better now. It’s up to us to engage and change. We must do it again…the right way.” — p. 110
“Somehow, however, we have let the naysayers gain the upper hand over the last couple of decades in South Carolina. You know who I am talking about—the people who tell us what we can’t do instead of what we can do. These are folks who believe nothing will ever get better and that things just are what they are. I am not one of these people. I do not believe that the South Carolina I know is made up of people like that either. From Camden to Charleston, Aiken to Horry and Due West to Denmark, the people I know and meet in South Carolina believe we can do better than what we have experienced in South Carolina’s recent government. In fact, we must.” — p. 108
“But we also need more than just ideas. We need ACTION—action that turns the status quo of the negativists on their heads. It is almost too late. But together, we still have time. If we don’t quickly get South Carolina moving again, our children and grandchildren will pay the price for decades to come.” — p. 109
Total change needed
“We have suffered embarrassment after embarrassment caused by our leaders’ unethical behavior and boneheaded statements and we have become the butt of late night television jokes all too frequently.  This downward spiral in our government should surprise no one. Why? Because we have elected leaders who proclaim a belief that government is always part of the problem. Once elected, they prove their theory correct by making our state’s government a dysfunctional embarrassment that is incapable of efficiently meeting the demands of core government functions.”  — pp. 1-2
“Future success for South Carolina’s workers—as well as the entire state—requires more education, not less.  Unfortunately, South Carolina’s recent leaders don’t have a good record in making smart investments in education to ensure that our children will have the training they need to get the better-paying jobs of the future. I believe it’s time we turn that abysmal record on its head.  Simply put: How can the students of today expect to hold the jobs of tomorrow if they don’t have enough knowledge? — p. 8
“Accountability in South Carolina’s government has been missing for more than a decade. In the end, a government can be successful and accountable regardless of deficiencies in its structure if it has strong, responsible and effective leaders.  However in South Carolina, a combination of ineffective leaders and confusing structure has led to our government being ranked one of the most dysfunctional and unaccountable in the nation.” — p. 27
“I am not opposed to healing our government incrementally.  I am, however, skeptical that our current leaders will finish the job with that approach. I believe that when a government has reached such a level of dysfunction and disintegration as South Carolina’s, it is time to return the power to the people.” — p. 48
“Through weak leadership in recent times and a governmental system confusing to virtually everyone, South Carolina’s government has arrived at a low point. We have a choice:  To continue with the same poor leadership and same poor system, or break with the past and make dramatic change.  We can’t afford to wait on current crop of political leaders to make the changes our state needs and deserves. We must take things into our own hands and force change. Either through incremental or dramatic change, we must alter the trajectory of South Carolina’s future. My children and yours deserve our best efforts.” — p. 50
Forward, to a path to prosperity
“One of the greatest obstacles to robust economic growth in South Carolina is our state’s broken and dysfunctional tax system. Furthermore, a special-interest-controlled tax code means that general taxpayers will end up with fewer core services that they say they want. Sure, in good times of budget surpluses, politicians will spread the wealth to make all appear rosy. But all they’ll be doing is bandaging a broken system, which will unravel once again when they cut what they recently added during downturns. It’s a seesaw system of government that leaves us all up in the air.” — p. 54
“The goal of tax reform should not be to raise taxes. To achieve true economic success, our state must reform how it taxes goods so that it can reduce the rate for everyone. That’s something we should all be for.” — p. 67
“Like most South Carolinians, I believe in hard work. I believe we should expect everyone who is physically able to have a job. I don’t believe in handouts. But I also expect that our state government will do all it can to ensure that opportunities exist for our citizens to find a job. It’s in all of our interests for the state to provide a hand-up in the form of job training, economic development, good education and support for small businesses.” — p. 85
“What is excluded from most local economic development offices’ services is support to startup companies and entrepreneurs.  This reflects, in part, a lack of expertise in the area but also recognition that the failure rate of these types of companies is high. A handful of groups around the state provide services to startups and entrepreneurs, but they are the exception rather than the rule. The S.C. Department of Commerce has a department that provides access to resources for small businesses, but there is little affirmative effort by the state to assist small business.” — p. 98
“Our state needs a multipronged approach to saving our rural areas and small towns. Failure to meet this challenge will doom many communities to a low standard of living and even non-existence. North Carolina has met this challenge head-on and invested heavily in the strategies and infrastructure for its rural areas. We should do the same.” — p. 102
“Our leaders are pricing the middle class out of a college education. The alternative has become hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt incurred by our future workforce. This is a dumb policy. We should dedicate a decent portion of future budget growth to stabilizing college tuition. And when the state funds higher education in a reasonable manner, colleges and universities should be required to keep tuition increases low.” — p. 106
###

From SCDP: A roundup of objections to Haley’s Medicaid stance

1 Reply

There seems to be a new communications director over at the SC Democratic Party — Kristin Sosanie — and she put out a release today that is somewhat more substantive and detailed than the emotional, nyah-nyah stuff we usually get from political parties.

I found it interesting, and relevant, enough to pass on in its entirety:

March 7, 2013

 

To: Interested Parties

From: Kristin Sosanie, SCDP Communications Director

RE: Governor Haley at odds with rising tide of public opinion on Medicaid expansion

 

As the debate over Medicaid expansion continues, support for bringing tax dollars back home is echoing around South Carolina and Governor Haley is on the defensive trying desperately to explain her choice to put partisanship ahead of the best interests of the people of the state.

 

 

Let’s review: In the past week alone, members of the public, hospital leaders, businesses, state leaders and editorial boards have all spoken out in support of the expansion:

 

Survey finds majority in SC support Medicaid expansion. “More than half of older adults in the state disagree with Gov. Nikki Haley’s plan to turn down Medicaid expansion, according to a survey by the AARP. The survey found that 54 percent of the respondents support expanding Medicaid to cover low-income adults.” [The State, 03/06/13]

 

Head of S.C. hospital group says politics blocking Medicaid expansion. “There is a lot of ideology and politics in this debate — it is not just a financial question,” said Thornton Kirby, the state hospital association’s president and chief executive officer. He said South Carolina and other Republican-leaning states “don’t want anything to do” with a federal health-care reform initiative championed by President Barack Obama. [Independent Mail, 03/04/13]

 

Charleston Chamber to Gov. Haley: accept Medicaid expansion. “There are two options,” said Bryan Derreberry, president and CEO of the local Chamber. “South Carolina can accept the Medicaid expansion and receive 90 percent of costs from the federal government, or reject the plan and absorb 100 percent of the costs and lose revenue from Washington, D.C.” [The Examiner, 03/07/13]

 

Editorial: Expanding Medicaid in SC. “The only conceivable reason to reject the expansion of Medicaid would be to make a hollow political statement in opposition to Obamacare. But that is political grandstanding at the cost of losing billions of federal dollars to other states and denying health care coverage to hundreds of thousands of uninsured South Carolinians. And that, we think, would be impossible to justify.” [Rock Hill Herald, 03/02/13]

 

Sheheen: SC lawmakers should put ideology aside, accept Medicaid expansion money. “I call on Gov. (Nikki) Haley and every Democrat and every Republican to heed the example of other states and provide leadership that will mean more tax dollars in South Carolina that belong to South Carolinians,” the Camden Democrat said. [Associated Press, 03/07/13]

 

Also remember: Governor Haley is out on a ledge as Republican governors around the country (many of whom have been staunch opponents of Obamacare) have put partisanship aside and decided to act in the best interests of the people of their states by opting-in:

 

Florida Governor Rick Scott: “I Cannot In Good Conscience Deny Floridians That Needed Access To Health Care.” “‘While the federal government is committed to paying 100 percent of the cost, I cannot in good conscience deny Floridians that needed access to health care,’ Mr. Scott said at a news conference. ‘We will support a three-year expansion of the Medicaid program under the new health care law as long as the federal government meets their commitment to pay 100 percent of the cost during that time.’” [New York Times, 2/20/13]

 

Ohio Governor John Kasich: “Ohio Taxpayer Dollars Are Coming Back To Ohio.” “Kasich has said his proposed Medicaid expansion would save the state $235 million over the next two years, free about $100 million in local funds for mental-health and addiction services, and ‘Ohio taxpayer dollars are coming back to Ohio to support a significant need we have which is the insurance, the health coverage of poor, working Ohioans.’” [Columbus Dispatch, 2/12/13]

 

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie: “We Are Putting People First” – Not Expanding Medicaid Would Send Taxpayer Dollars Elsewhere. “‘[R]efusing these federal dollars would not mean that they wouldn’t be spent. It just means that they will be used to expand health-care access in New York, Connecticut, Ohio or somewhere else. … It’s simple. We’re putting people first.’” [NPR, Political Junkie, 3/4/13]

 

Finally: Governor Haley’s chief points of opposition have been debunked by researchers at the University of South Carolina’s Moore School of Business, who found that the economic benefit of bringing taxpayers’ dollars back in-state would create 44,000 jobs in South Carolina.

 

Medicaid Expansion in South Carolina: The economic impact of the ACA. “By 2020, the total annual economic impact of the increase in federal funding due to the ACA Medicaid expansion on the state of South Carolina will total approximately $3.3 billion in economic output, $1.5 billion in labor income, and support nearly 44,000 new jobs for South Carolinians. Approximately one – third of these jobs (15,000) are projected to occur outside of the health care industry due to the economic multiplier effect.” [USC Moore School of Business Report December 2012, accessed 03/07/13]

 

So, in the face of such widespread support, two questions remain: How long will Governor Haley continue to make decisions based on ideology? And what will she say to South Carolinians who lose their jobs because of her Tea Party allegiance?

Is Graham helping or hurting himself for 2014?

6 Replies

Of course, that depends on which of his many actions you choose to focus on. As I noted in my last post, our senior senator went back and forth between hugging and slapping Barack Obama yesterday.

National Journal asserted yesterday that “Lindsey Graham Isn’t Acting Like a Worried Man,” citing “demographics and a tea-party fade:”

At the height of tea-party fever in spring 2010, Sen. Lindsey Graham walked out of talks on a bipartisan climate-change bill, saying he was angry about Democratic plans to move first on comprehensive immigration reform. It almost seemed like he was anticipating a hypothetical, hyperconservative primary challenger more than four years before his reelection race.

But now the South Carolina Republican is in the thick of bipartisan talks on immigration reforms that include a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants; making overtures on a fiscal “grand bargain” that would include higher taxes along with entitlement trims; and praising President Obama for reaching out to him and others in his party. On Wednesday, Graham held a press conference to announce a bipartisan bill to strengthen mental-health provisions in gun background checks. He also attended Obama’s dinner party with Republicans at a Washington hotel. In fact, Graham drew up the guest list…

In 2010, Graham’s pal John McCain tacked hard right to fend off a tea-party challenger in Arizona. In 2012, Orrin Hatch did the same to survive in Utah. Graham could eventually back away from some of his bipartisan projects, and some skeptical Democrats expect he will. But for now he is gambling that changing times and his own political skills will keep him safe in 2014. And for now he is in a commanding position in his party. Among self-identified Republicans and GOP-leaning independents in a Winthrop University poll last month, he was at 71.6 percent approval.

Not surprisingly, no strong primary challenger to Graham has emerged. The antitax Club for Growth is keeping an eye on the race and will consider getting involved if a viable candidate surfaces, says spokesman Barney Keller. Graham scored 72 percent in the Club’s 2011 report card, close to what the group considers a “bottom-of-the-barrel” Republican. But he did better in 2012 and “obviously you can’t beat someone with no one,” Keller says. GOP consultants in the state predict Graham will have an opponent, but probably a weak one.

That reckoned, however, without the reaction to Graham and John McCain criticizing Rand Paul’s filibuster, which Politico says led to “Lindsey Graham’s very bad day on Twitter:”

Laced throughout the thousands of tweets cheering on the filbustering Kentucky Republican was a vicious, visceral anger aimed squarely at the South Carolinian up for reelection next year.

The rallying cry hashtag: #PrimaryGraham.

Of course, a couple of things stand in the way of Graham being in serious trouble: First, there’s the lack of an opponent, since Tom Davis said he wouldn’t run. Then, there’s that $6 million Lindsey’s sitting on. Politico quoted Wesley Donehue about that:

One name that surfaces regularly as a likely primary challenger is state Sen. Lee Bright of Spartanburg. His name was floated again by callers on Glenn Beck’s radio show Thursday, and although he’s undeclared, sources say he already has a campaign manager in place.

What may be holding him back is money. Graham has a war chest in excess of $6 million, which South Carolina-based GOP digital strategist Wesley Donehue said “goes a long way in our cheap media markets.” Donehue doubts the anti-Graham flare-up over Paul’s filibuster will last long because “there is no one for the pissed-off Internet crowd to give money to.”

Lee Bright? Really?

It’s about time these people started sitting down together

13 Replies

Lindsey Graham had a busy day yesterday in his complicated relationship with Barack Obama. He complained about the administration’s plans to try Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law in federal court, called the expansion of Medicaid “disastrous,” trashed Rand Paul and defended the president’s drone warfare, and complimented the president on a nice dinner the previous evening.

I had heard Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., say on the radio that he and other GOP senators had a good discussion, and a good dinner, at the White House Wednesday night. Graham elaborated on that in a release:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made the following statement after meeting with the President:

 

“Last night’s dinner with President Obama and my Republican colleagues was productive and substantive.  I hope it will serve as the beginning of a new, long-overdue paradigm where people in elected office actually begin talking to each other about meaningful issues.

 

“The discussions with the President about our long-term budget problems were candid and differences in philosophy were apparent.  However, also apparent was common ground on how to move forward.

 

“One thing I am certain of — the perpetual campaign will not solve the nation’s problems.

 

“Finally, I shared with my colleagues there is no dishonor in trying and failing to solve big problems.  The long-term budgetary problems we discussed last night have defied bipartisan solutions for far too long.  I’m ready to try to solve the serious, long-term budget problems our country faces and can accept failure as an outcome.  But I cannot accept not trying.”

 

#####

Then, on Thursday, the president had Paul Ryan over for lunch.

You know what? It’s about time. What I’d like to know is, why weren’t these kinds of meetings going on long before now? Graham was right to say that it’s sad that something like this makes news.

MedicAID, Larry, not MedicARE. There’s a difference…

10 Replies

Note: After this post was published, the Grooms campaign sent out two corrections. The first did not  correct the “Medicare” mistake. The second, at 4:52 p.m., did. The original release moved at 4:18 p.m.

Just got this, about 14 minutes ago, from Larry Grooms’ campaign for the GOP nomination in the 1st Congressional District:

LARRY GROOMS ISSUED A STATEMENT ABOUT DEMOCRAT VINCE SHEHEEN’S FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE DEMAND TO EXPAND MEDICARE

Charleston, SC – Republican State Senator and Candidate for Congress Larry Grooms issued the following statement today about State Senator Vincent Sheheen’s desire to expand Medicare in South Carolina:

State Senator and Candidate for Congress Larry Grooms issued the following statement:

“There is no question the federal governments desire to expand Medicare is a horrible idea for South Carolina and this nation.  I stand firm with Governor Nikki Haley on this issue and will continue to fight against this massive federal government overreach.

I was deeply concerned to see Senator Sheheen’s comments today about his desire to expand Medicare – but I wasn’t surprised.  What he and President Obama can’t seem to grasp is that we are on a path to bankrupting this state and nation. In fact, if Sen. Sheheen and Barack Obama have their way, in three years South Carolinians will owe almost 2 Billion dollars to the federal government.   This is a deplorable and quite frankly, immoral thing to do to the people of this state.

I, for one, will stand firm with Gov. Haley and will continue to push my colleagues in the South Carolina Senate to do the same. If elected to Congress, you better believe I’ll take the fight for fiscal sanity to Washington so that Governors like Nikki Haley will never be faced with such a ridiculously harmful proposition.”

-30-

I added the boldface on the “Medicares.”

Um, Larry — I just checked. Sheheen hasn’t said anything about expanding Medicare. Perhaps you’re thinking of Medicaid. I’m not aware that the governor has taken any particular stand on Medicare lately, either. But she is standing against expanding Medicaid…

To help you out, Larry, here’s a story from Adam Beam about what Sheheen did say today, headlined “Sheheen endorses expanding Medicaid.”

Hoffman: Another TV ad from the 1st District

6 Replies

Looked at from this distance, the contest for the 1st Congressional District GOP nomination has looked like a case of Sanford sitting atop the name-recognition hill, and Larry Grooms exerting the most energy trying to take it from him.

A third candidate I keep hearing from (and let me remind you that my perspective is skewed by the fact that I keep hearing from this guy and Grooms; others could be running just as hard but not making the effort to let me know about it) is Jonathan Hoffman.

No, I hadn’t heard of him, either, so of course he’s running a standard “I’m not a politician” campaign. To the extent that is appealing, he certainly has an advantage over Sanford and Grooms.

But this new TV ad tells me next to nothing. It shows him in uniform, and I thank him for his service. It shows him with the last Republican president. He uses the word “conservative” only once in 30 seconds, which by Republican primary standards shows extraordinary restraint. Of course, he uses other phrases that suggest such values to the base, such as “small business owner.”

And he makes the usual dubious claims that Republicans in SC tend to believe as gospel, such as:

  • He wants to be elected “to take on out-of-control spending and the growth of government.” Compared to what absolute measure, I find myself wondering. It’s interesting to contrast this belief to what I read this morning in the libertarian Economist, which, after asserting that “By most measures Mr Obama’s positions have been rather moderate,” notes that the public now is in a more conservative mood: “The conservative idea that spending must be cut is taken for granted, even though government spending is already lower in America than in most advanced economies.” Did you catch that? Looked at from outside, the U.S. government is not some out-of-control behemoth. It is only that to people who choose to believe it is.
  • Then there’s this chestnut: “let’s get back to constitutionally limited government.” Something that, of course, we’ve never left. He doesn’t have to explain what he means because no on in the GOP base would challenge him on it. Me, I want details. Back during the Bush administration, Democrats would say this very same silly thing. They were usually referring to the Patriot Act and other post-9/11 measures that Democrats as well as Republicans voted for and legally passed, under lawmaking provisions of our, ahem, Constitution. Now, Republicans generally mean something like Obamacare. Which, according to the GOP-appointed Chief Justice and a majority on the Supreme Court, is constitutional. Or is he referring to killing U.S. citizens with drones and without the benefit of due process? If so, I’d like to hear him square that with is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush in fighting the Global War on Terror, which the current president is only guilty of pursuing a tad more aggressively than his predecessor, casting drones far and wide and putting boots on the ground in the very heart of Pakistan.

Mind you, I’m not being critical of Mr. Hoffman. He’s not doing a thing that pols of both parties don’t do in this ridiculously facile medium, the 30-second ad. It would be practically impossible for him to answer the questions he raises in my mind within that format.

But these ads aren’t meant to answer questions. They are meant to communicate, in the most minimalist, Gestalten flicker, a set of emotions along the lines of “he’s like me,” or “I trust that man.” So they deal not in facts, but in presumptions, ones that are shared, even if they fly in the face of reality.

Grooms’ ads are the same. Sanford’s go a bit farther, because so much is known about him, and some of what is known is problematic and has to be addressed. But it is of course addressed in the most emotional, simplistic kind of way, merely communicating, “You must not hold it against him.” Why? Because “I trust that man, despite all.”

But it is on these extremely thin, grossly inadequate bases that we decide elections in this country.

hoffman

Legislative view from a House Democrat

10 Replies

Bernstein

The other day I gave y’all the Senate GOP’s report on last week’s activities. For another view, here is what one House Democrat, Beth Bernstein, sent out to her constitutuents:

Dear Friends and Neighbors:

Here is my Legislative Update for the month of February.  The House made progress on a number of important issues this month.  Here are some highlights.  As always, I am interested in hearing your thoughts and concerns on the issues.

Thank you for the honor and privilege of serving you in the South Carolina House of Representatives.

Best regards,
Beth

HOUSE WEEK IN REVIEW
February 8, 2013

Investing in Cyber-Security
A bill, H.3528, was introduced that would establish a new state agency, the Department of Information Security, to provide a comprehensive framework for ensuring the effectiveness of information security controls over information resources that support state operations and assets. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Shortening Legislative Session
A bill, H.3340, that shortens the South Carolina General Assembly’s legislative session passed the House. Under this law, instead of beginning the second Tuesday in January, session would begin the second Tuesday in February. It would also require the General Assembly to adjourn Sine Die no later than the first Thursday in May. The bill was sent to the Senate.

Clarifying Role of Solicitors
A bill, H.3247, clarifies the role of the circuit solicitors in the administration of the General Sessions court docket and provides that this ability to administer the docket shall not interfere with the court’s ability to protect a litigant’s rights. The bill passed the House and was sent to the Senate.

Protecting a Child’s Due Process Rights
A bill, H.3520, was introduced that prohibits a child’s parent or guardian from waiving the child’s right to counsel when the Family Court proceeding may result in the detention or confinement of the child. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

HOUSE WEEK IN REVIEW
February 11, 2013 –  FURLOUGH

HOUSE WEEK IN REVIEW
February 22, 2013

Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of the Mentally Ill
A bill, H.3560, was introduced to require South Carolina to report people adjudicated by the courts for mental illness to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System in order to prohibit them from obtaining a firearm legally. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Privatizing the State Lottery
A bill, H.3555, was introduced to streamline state government and save taxpayer dollars by hiring a private contractor to organize and conduct the South Carolina Education Lottery. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Government Restructuring
A bill, H.3541, was introduced to amend the South Carolina Constitution in order to make the office of Adjutant General an appointed position by the Governor, instead of being popularly elected by the voters. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Hate Crimes Legislation
A bill, H.3589, was introduced that provides a penalty for anyone convicted of a crime with the intent to assault, intimidate, or threaten a person based on their race, gender, religion, age, national origin, or sexual orientation. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 

HOUSE WEEK IN REVIEW
February 25, 2013

The business of the House continued during this week with a few noteworthy events, and a great deal of committee and subcommittee work.  

Closing out Black History Month with Activism:
On the State House grounds Tuesday, The South Carolina NAACP held its 2013 Legislative Day, including a press conference voicing support for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires any changes in voting laws in certain states to be pre-cleared by the United States Justice Department. The Voting Rights Act is currently being reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.

Increasing Flexibility in the Budget:
This week, the House approved and sent the Senate H.3501, a joint resolution that suspends the statutory requirement for including 4.5% of the previous year’s state General Fund in the Local Government Fund for the next two budget years.  Under this measure, counties would be authorized to transfer among appropriated state revenues, as needed, to ensure the delivery of services.  Democrats opposed the measure due to the fact that it would shift a revenue burden onto local governments and municipalities.

Making Infrastructure Investments:
A bill, H.3412, that requires all revenue produced by car taxes in South Carolina must be credited to the state non-federal aid highway fund for road projects, passed the House.

Restructuring the Department of Insurance:
A bill, H.3642, was introduced to popularly elect the Director of the Department on Insurance in South Carolina. Currently, the Governor appoints the Director. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Ensuring Healthy School Lunches:
A bill, H.3726, was introduced to ban certain junk foods from public school lunch programs and vending machines. The bill was referred to the Education and Public Works Committee.

Of COURSE Sanford wanted Jenny to run his campaign…

44 Replies

Jenny

The quirks of SC politics continue to fascinate national media.

The most recent edition of Slatest leads with Mark Sanford having wanted Jenny to run his congressional campaign.

Personally, when I heard that a week or two ago, I really didn’t think much of it. I was like, Of course he wanted her to run it; he has no clue how to run for office without her telling him what to do.

Jenny was always the brains in that outfit. Here’s my favorite anecdote illustrating that, which I’ve  probably already told here before…

Early in the process of running for governor — probably in late 2001 or early 2002 — Sanford asked to come see the editorial board and tell us about his economic proposals (in a nutshell — reduce or eliminate the state income tax). Fine, we said. So when he came, Jenny came with him. I went down to greet them in the lobby, and Jenny handed me a basketful of cookies (message: I’m not Hillary). I was sufficiently nonplussed that I thanked her, then handed them back to her. Which wasn’t very gracious of me; I just wasn’t prepared to be presented with cookies (to which I’m allergic, anyway).

So I led them upstairs, Jenny still carrying the cookies. When we got to the boardroom and sat down and started the meeting, Mark said something like, “Jenny’s going to make the presentation; this is her plan, after all.” And she, having ditched the cookies somewhere along the line, proceeded to run us through a Powerpoint presentation.

Another anecdote, illustrating the way she ran his campaigns with an iron hand… I forget who told me this; it was probably either Tom Davis or Kevin Hall…

Anyway, they were running that same campaign out of the Sanfords’ Sullivan Island house. Whenever Jenny was mad at someone in the campaign and wanted to have a private chat to unburden her mind on the subject, she would have that campaign staffer meet her in a secluded part of the house. I think it was near the backdoor or something. Anyway, there was a rack for multiple hats on the wall in that location, loaded with the boys’ baseball caps and such.

Thus, when one campaign worker told another he’d been “taken to the hats,” it was understood that he was in the doghouse for the moment.

Anyway, it’s hard to imagine a Sanford campaign without Jenny, so his request is understandable on one level. The other thing to understand is what Josh Voorhees of The Slatest intuited: “that Mark Sanford still hasn’t figured out how personal relationships work.”

Anyway, the subject was brought up by this profile of Sanford in New York magazine, if you’d like to go read it.

The weekly update from SC Senate Republicans

5 Replies

Wesley Donehue sends out these reports on behalf of the SC Senate Republicans every week:

It was an eventful week in the Senate. Here are some things you may have missed:
A bill that will enforce tougher DUI laws was passed this week. The bill will require drivers convicted of a first-offense DUI with a blood alcohol level of .12 or above to install ignition interlocks on their cars.
The budget subcommittees started work this week, hearing from agencies, as we begin crafting a budget.
The Finance Committee discussed a bill, S.163, that will increase the incentives for motion pictures made in South Carolina. They also discussed a bill, S.237, that will require the lowering of flags atop the State Capitol Building when a military serviceman is killed in the line of duty. The bill will ensure that the state honors our servicemen and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice in a dignified manner.
###

If y’all would like me to, I could start passing them on to y’all regularly. Sure, it’s from a partisan point of view, but it does provide a way of keeping up with some of what’s going on over there. And the links to the bills are handy…

Don’t count Joe Wilson among those wanting the sequester

13 Replies

Joe Wilson put out this release today:

At midnight tonight, the Department of Defense and other government agencies will fall victim to the President’s sequester. Every American family will be affected by the shifting of funds. In the South Carolina’s Second Congressional District, which I am grateful to represent, the Army’s base at Fort Jackson in Columbia is expected to lose approximately $75 million dollars. Additionally, the Savannah River Site in Aiken and Barnwell will be forced to furlough thousands of hardworking employees and stall critical national missions due to a possible $200 million budget cut. Both of these shifts will endanger our national security. The President and the Senate have refused to negotiate with House Republicans on a possible solution until today. House Republicans have voted twice to avoid sequestration. Our nation has a spending problem and we must address these issues before it is too late and our debt spirals out of control. The President should change course and begin working with both Houses of Congress to tackle the nation debt, which threatens American families. In conclusion, God Bless our troops and we will never forget September 11th in the Global War on Terrorism.

I’m glad that on this, Joe is going the traditional Republican strong-on-defense route, rather than the Tea Party way, as voiced by Mick Mulvaney:
When pressed about the defense cuts, Mulvaney said, “an 11 percent across the board reduction is probably not the best way to run a military. And

I do worry about a hollowed out military – a military that looks the same, but it not capable of performing the missions that we want it to perform. That’s what frightens me.”

But the second term Republican added, “I was the one who offered the amendment to freeze defense spending. I offered a 1 percent across theboard cut to help pay for (Hurricane) Sandy. I’m not one of those Republicans who thinks that defense spending is off the table.

“And that’s why I’ve supported previous efforts to replace those reductions with other reductions. But again, that being said, the only thing worse than those military cuts would be no cuts at all.”

When asked about cuts to other programs, including Homeland Security, education, and owelfare programs, Mulvaney was even more blunt.

“If we have to accept reducing spending in a less than perfect way, then I’ll except reducing spending in a less than perfect way. And keep in mind – this would be the only real spending cuts we’ve actually seen since I got to congress.”

8DCBDF95-9F0E-433C-A46A-6F1FE0E4D5CA copy

Congratulations to Sen. Lindsey Graham for civility award

24 Replies

Congratulations to Lindsey Graham — and Dianne Feinstein, too — for receiving the Allegheny College Prize for Civility in Public Life.

It’s certainly well-deserved in Graham’s case (yes, there’s the occasional lapse, but we’re all human, right?).

From the release about the prize:

“As they join in accepting the Allegheny Prize, they stand opposed on one of the most significant and polarizing issues of our time – that of gun control,” said [Allegheny College] President [James H.] Mullen. “And yet, they stand together, not only in receiving this Prize, but in their shared commitment to engage that issue with passion, deep conviction and respect for each other.”

“The one thing about being civil is, it doesn’t mean you don’t have passion,” said Graham. “But I never hesitate about calling Dianne because she is a problem solver by nature.”

“Do Americans want a United States Senate and a House of Representatives that can really do their business or do they want one that is so full of themselves, so polarized and so twisted with partisanship, that their ratings are in single digits?” asked Feinstein. “We have a big job on our hands to be able to restore civility.”…

As y’all know, I regard the lack of civility in public life today as serious threat to our project of self-government — this blog is one place where I try, however feebly, to combat the trend. So I’m proud that a South Carolinian was singled out for this honor.

The State quoted Graham as saying, in response to protestations by Sen. Feinstein that she didn’t deserve the award, “Dianne, I don’t deserve it either, but I don’t deserve most of the crap I get, either, so I’ll take it.”

Stephen Colbert, promoting his sister’s candidacy

Leave a reply

With 16 — count ’em, sixteen — Republicans running to replace Tim Scott, each trying to shout the word “conservative!” louder and more often than the others, it’s easy to forget that there’s a Democratic primary as well.

Here’s video of Stephen Colbert — you probably know him as the guy who gets all his SC news from this blog — speaking on behalf of his sister, Elizabeth Colbert-Busch, who is generally regarded as the front-runner over on the Democratic side.

Is that Joe Riley standing up on the steps behind him? If so, Hey, Mayor!

Grooms running hard to catch Sanford in 1st District

9 Replies

From where I sit, up here in Columbia (admittedly not the best vantage point), the person who seems to be running the hardest to catch Mark Sanford in the 1st Congressional District GOP primary is state Sen. Larry Grooms.

A day doesn’t pass that Hogan Gidley — last seen in these parts acting as spokesman for Rick Santorum — doesn’t send me a release or two on his behalf. Several in recent days have boasted about Tea Party congressmen Mick Mulvaney and Jeff Duncan endorsing him.

And this is the second TV ad for Grooms I’ve seen. Here’s the first.

Of course, it doesn’t really say anything to distinguish Grooms from anyone else (typical line from the ad: “I’m a pro-life Christian conservative who knows DC spends too much”), but when’s the last time you saw originality in one of these things?

Common Cause lauds Courson for ethics stance

7 Replies

Common-Cause-Award-2.21.131

I initially missed this release when it came in yesterday.

Back during the recent election, some in the blogosphere tried to paint John Courson as ethically challenged, citing an instance of alleged nepotism.

It seems that the watchdog group Common Cause doesn’t agree with that assessment:

Common Cause Award Presented to Senator John Courson
Columbia, SC – February 22, 2013 – President Pro Tempore John Courson was yesterday presented with an award from Common Cause for “Outstanding Career Leadership in Promoting Ethics Reform in the SC Senate.”
The prestigious award was given to Senator Courson by John Crangle, Director of the SC Chapter of Common Cause, Kenneth W. Gaines, State Chairman of Common Cause, and former Congressman Bob Edgar, President and CEO of Common Cause.
“I am tremendously honored to receive this recognition of my longtime support of ethics reform in South Carolina,” Senator Courson said.
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John Gardner as a vehicle for citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest.
To view photo, click here.

###

NPR’s take on Lindsey Graham’s political situation

1 Reply

I notice there was another SC story on Weekend Edition this morning, aside from my interview about Mark Sanford. It was their take on why Lindsey Graham’s been posturing so furiously on issues that endear him to the right, in the wake of his risky stepping out on immigration again:

It seems Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham has done his best in recent weeks to get as much ink as possible, talking about things that play well with the conservatives in his home state of South Carolina, like Benghazi and gun rights.

Graham also held up the nomination of Chuck Hagel as defense secretary to get more answers about what happened in Benghazi, even as he admitted Hagel had nothing to do with it. But his opposition might have more to do with home state politics than the nomination itself.

Republican senators who have shown moderate leanings have been hit with primary challenges from the right recently, and while no serious challenger has emerged yet in South Carolina, there are a whole lot of people hoping one does.

“There are some legitimate concerns to be asked about Benghazi … [and] Chuck Hagel,” says Tom Davis, a Republican state senator in South Carolina. “That being said, I do think it is fair to say that there has been a conscious effort on the part of Sen. Graham to elevate his role in those debates.”…

Don Gonyea didn’t ask me about this one in my interview, but if he had I would have said the obvious: That Tom Davis, whom they quote, was the threat from the right that everyone had expected, but that he says he’s not running.

But Graham’s still not taking any chances. After all, as we saw in 2010, especially in the 4th Congressional District, these days a successful challenge to a Republican incumbent can come out of nowhere.

House of Cards: A political fantasy in which a South Carolina congressional district is represented by a white Democrat

8 Replies

Underwood

That — what I said in my headline — is what struck me first about the American version of “House of Cards.” Kevin Spacey’s character is a powerful congressman who represents South Carolina’s 5th District. At least, he’s from Gaffney, and that’s in the 5th District. (The Peachoid features prominently in episode 3.)

Indeed, that district was represented by a senior white Democrat, John Spratt, just a couple of years back. But that was before the Tea Party, before the Republican Party cemented its hold on the entire delegation — except for Jim Clyburn, whose district is secure because the GOP doesn’t want those black voters in their six districts.

Have you seen the series? It’s the first original series on Netflix, and in keeping with the new national watching habit that that service helped foster, they’ve given us the entire first series all at once. I appreciate that. That is, I would appreciate it if the series had proven to be as addictive as “Breaking Bad,” or “Homeland,” or “The Walking Dead.”

But it didn’t. Netflix had hoped it would, that the series would give it the kind of cred as a content producer (because it is such a hassle negotiating with others to use their content) that “The Sopranos” gave HBO. But this is no “Sopranos.” Nor is it a “Mad Men.”

First, it’s not original. It’s based on the 22-year-old British series of the same name, starring Ian Richardson, whom I will always think of as Bill Haydon in the original BBC production of le Carre’s “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.” The first season co-stars the lovely Susannah Harker, who five years later played Miss Jane Bennet in the definitive production of “Pride and Prejudice” (the one with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. (Hey, did y’all recognize her in “Zero Dark Thirty”? Jennifer Ehle, I mean. I knew I knew her, but I didn’t realize who she was, with her hair down and all, until the credits. And can you tell my caffeine is starting to kick in? I’m writing this at Barnes and Noble, with a cuppa the black stuff from the Starbucks across the parking lot — I prefer it to the “proudly served” version served here — and since I don’t drink it much since my ear thing started, I’m feeling it. Sorry about the digressions…)

Let’s focus in on Ms. Harker’s character, because I think it will help define why I don’t like the new American series as much. Oh, the production values are better; you can tell more money was probably spent making it look good, and the technology’s just better now than it was in 1990. But it’s not as engaging. My wife and I watched two episodes a night for two nights, then stopped. Last night, I proposed going back to it, and my wife OK, but as I called it up, said with disappointment, “Oh, you mean the American one…?” So we watched the last of the first season of the original.

But back to Ms. Harker’s character. She’s much, much more engaging than the extremely irritating little girl (which I mean both literally, in the sense of stature, and in the sense that our governor uses the phrase) played by Kate Mara in the Netflix version. She’s also more believable. It is far more credible that this is a person who would be able to keep a job. OK, so she eventually gets fired, but she kept the job for awhile.

MaraYeah, I get it. Mara’s supposed to be the brash “new wave” of electronic journalism, sweeping aside the conventions established by the old-timey ink-stained wretches. And maybe that offends me because I’m pretty sure I’m as adept at blogging and social media as her character is, and even if I’m not a grownup, I know how to act like one. Obnoxious is obnoxious. Then there’s the fact that we’re asked to believe that Spacey’s character — who has Robin Wright waiting at home, and no end of young lovelies walking the halls of Congress — would be attracted to her. She was cute in “Shooter” several years ago, in a waiflike sort of way, but both physically and in terms of personality, is about as cuddly as a hedgehog in this.

By contrast, Susanna Harker’s character in the original series, which debuted when she was 25, draws you in. Even though, or perhaps because, her tragic fascination with Richardson’s character makes me think of the refrain of Elvis Costello’s “You Little Fool,” you can’t help caring about her. You see why, for instance, her editor loves her hopelessly. Oh, and for any young people who think, “Well that was made in the olden days before women were set free and allowed to have sharp edges,” I’ll point out that it was 20 years after the leading edge of the movement that produced today’s allegedly liberated generation. (Sorry, but y’all didn’t invent independence and assertiveness.) Harker made her soft and vulnerable, but she also made her real. I found myself wishing she were a little more cynical and tough-minded, to keep her out of trouble, but at least she doesn’t come across as cheesy and contrived.harker

Why is this difference important? Well, because the main problem with the new American series is the utter lack of a sympathetic character. Everyone is horrible. It doesn’t have to be a soft, vulnerable young woman — any sympathetic character would do. This sort of thing doesn’t bother everyone. And indeed, a really excellent series can get overcome that flaw, as I think “Breaking Bad” does — I keep watching in horrified fascination. But normally, the lack of a likable character will ruin any work of fiction for me. As much as I enjoy Tom Wolfe’s old New Journalism — especially Acid Test and The Right Stuff (his only book in which one could detect a hint of admiration of his subjects) — I hated Bonfire of the Vanities. Brilliant writing, interesting Tory social commentary, but everyone in it was so contemptible, like loathsome little bugs being fried under Wolfe’s magnifying glass.

Eventually, I’ll watch the rest of the new version, if only to see if it ever does anything interesting with the supposed South Carolina connection. But so far, I’ll have to say that it doesn’t live up to the ambitions that Netflix had for it.

peachoid

Sixteen (that’s 16) candidates in one Republican primary

15 Replies

1stdistrict screen

While Mark Sanford is getting all the attention — NPR wants to talk to me about him tomorrow — he is actually but one of 16 candidates officially seeking the GOP nomination in the 1st Congressional District.

I’m thinking that’s gotta be a record, at least in a special election, and at least in South Carolina. Lord knows our cup runneth over with Republicans these days, and it’s no biggie for six or seven of them to go chasing after a choice situation on the public payroll, but sixteen?

Only four of whom I really know anything at all about. In descending order of what I know about them, they are Sanford, Larry Grooms, Chip Limehouse and Elizabeth Moffly. After Sanford, though, my knowledge drops off extremely. All I remember, without looking back in my blog, about Larry Grooms is that he wanted Fred Thompson to run for president in 2008, and I saw him at Rick Perry’s announcement in 2011 (after supporting Perry, he later very publicly urged him to drop out). I know that Elizabeth Moffly ran for state superintendent once, so I interviewed her, and she later wrote me an angry note that sort of puzzled me at the time.

With Limehouse — well, I knew I had read and even written about him in the past, but I had to go back and search my archive to remember particulars. I found that he supported Rick Perry. He pushed for creation of a special SC license plate that commemorated “Big Red,” the flag under which Citadel students fired on the Star of the West, which was trying to resupply Fort Sumter, in the most extreme, inexcusable, violent incidence of student unrest in U.S. history. He was endorsed by the Club for Growth. He sponsored a bill to make the Marsh Tacky the official South Carolina Heritage horse.

Anyway…

What else do I know about this field? Well, I saw a remarkable picture that ran Feb. 10 in the Post and Courier that showed 15 of the 16 standing together (screenshot above — here’s the original). I saw that all were white (in a race to replace Tim Scott) and Elizabeth Moffly was the only woman. That’s about all I could tell.

Here, according to Wikipedia, are the 16:

I assume that’s accurate and inclusive. I haven’t found a complete list in the MSM. Mind you, there were 16 others who were talked about as candidates, but who declined to run. That included Jenny Sanford, Tom Davis, Jim Merrill, Carroll Campbell III, Thomas Ravenel and Chip Campsen. That’s actually a better-known bunch than most of the people who actually filed.

What about the Democrats? Well, scuttlebutt tells me that Stephen Colbert’s sister, Elizabeth Colbert-Busch, is going to win that over a perennial candidate, Ben Frasier.

And what happens after that? Well, normally in that district, the Republican wins. That’s been the case since Tommy Hartnett in 1980. Which is why so many are seeking the nomination of that party, I suppose. Of course, a Democrat came within a couple of points in 2008, with Obama’s coattails. There aren’t going to be any Obama coattails this time.

Sanford, of course, has the advantage in the GOP contest, by far. Not only does common sense dictate that, but every poll I’ve seen reported. Here’s one. But right now, I’m putting more stock in the common sense thing.

The primary’s next month, and the special election is in May.

One thing Graham definitely is NOT is dumb…

15 Replies

salon graham

Say what you want about the increasingly ubiquitous Lindsey Graham, Salon was way off the mark today when its header featured an unflattering photo of our senior senator next to the teaser hed, “Hagel’s dumbest enemies.”

Of course, as is often the case with such hyperbolic come-ons, the actual headline that the teaser linked to took it down a notch: “The increasingly ridiculous Hagel opposition.” The subhed, situated atop huge mugs of Graham and John McCain, begins, “Republicans block a vote for no reason…”

The very first paragraph of the body copy then refutes that (boldface added):

Sen. Graham and his best friend John McCain have been blocking the confirmation of Chuck Hagel as Defense secretary, because they want to know whether President Obama called the president of Libya the night of the Benghazi attack. While that’s not a very good reason to filibuster a Cabinet nominee, it is at least “a reason.” The White House has complied, giving Graham and McCain what they want. Graham’s response: Now he is just going to pointlessly delay the Hagel vote, because it will make him feel good. As always, with Lindsey Graham, being a senator is all about feelings.

Disagree with Graham — and McCain — all you want, but making him the poster boy of the “dumbest” is, well, pretty stupid.

I find a lot of the indignation on the left about delaying the Hagel nomination a few days a little on the disingenuous, even absurd, side. My least favorite manifestation of this is when I hear a Democrat express absolute mystification that these Republicans could possibly be objecting to Hagel, since he’s a Republican. There is no mystery as to why this is a Republican Democrats love. and Republicans have problems with him for the same reasons.

There are actual substantive reasons to question this nomination. We could start with his having been completely wrong on the Iraq surge. Which is kinda relevant in a candidate for SecDef. But then, of course, we’d have a whole other argument that we’ve had too many times before…

So never mind all that. I don’t call the president “dumb” for wanting a guy who looked at Iraq the way he did. I have more respect for the president than that.

But there’s a bigger reason I wouldn’t call Barack Obama dumb: I’ve heard him speak. And the same goes for Lindsey Graham.

I was speaking to a class at Lexington High School yesterday, and I let slip a comment that always makes me sound arrogant when I say it, but it’s true: It’s pretty unusual for me to interview a political officeholder in South Carolina who makes me think to myself, “This guy’s smarter than I am.” But I’ve had that thought more than once when talking with Lindsey Graham.

And I may have a host of faults — correction, I do have a host of faults — but being dumb isn’t one of them.

Graham and Senate GOP block Dems’ attempt to push Hagel vote

9 Replies

At least, I think that’s accurate. This WashPost story doesn’t actually mention Lindsey Graham, which surprised me:

Senate Republicans blocked a vote on Chuck Hagel’s nomination as secretary of defense on Thursday, launching a filibuster whild demanding more information and more time to study their former colleague’s speeches and finances after he left the Senate in late 2008.

Falling one vote shy of the 60 needed to move forward on the nomination, the Hagel filibuster brought stark condemnations from President Obama and Senate Democrats for its precedent-setting nature — the first time a defense secretary nominee had been filibustered. The setback came during what many believe is a critical period for the Pentagon as it winds down troops from Afghanistan and implements costly budget cuts.

Republicans predicted they would relent to a simple majority vote, guaranteeing confirmation, later this month — but only if they see more information about Hagel’s post-Senate foreign policy speeches and his work in private investment groups. Senior Republicans initially scoffed at those demands, first raised by freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), as unnecessary, but now party leaders hold them up as the main cause for delay…

But it made it clear that all Republicans except for three — and none of the three (no surprise here) is Graham — are standing against an early vote on the Hagel nomination. And a WashPost blog post earlier in the day — when it was believed the vote would not come on Friday, before the Democrats made the tactical mistake of trying to move it up — had made clear what I was pretty sure I already knew about Graham’s central role in the delay-Hagel movement:

At  the center of this drama are Graham and McCain. McCain is likely to support his “amigo” Graham if Graham feels he is still getting stiffed by the White House. Graham has every reason to hold out for the information and to further endear himself to conservatives whose support he will need in his reelection bid. Once we see how Graham and McCain are leaning, we’ll know which way the vote is going to go on Friday.

Anyway, we have a bit of an impasse here. Democrats are understandably upset, although their claims that this delay puts the nation’s security in danger are a bit overwrought. When Harry Reid said:

“This isn’t high school, getting ready for a football game or some play that’s being produced at high school,” Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said during an angry floor speech Thursday morning. “This is – we’re trying to confirm somebody to run the defense of our country, the military of our country.”

I thought, Exactly. And if one has sincere doubts about the nominee’s fitness — which I believe Graham and McCain do — it’s not responsible to rush into confirming him.

Yeah, I know, a lot of my friends here on the blog are sick of Graham and McCain and all their doings. Well, to them I say that it’s not like they are alone on this. Moderate Republicans who are less likely to preen on the national talk shows on this subject are also reluctant to be rushed on this. Such as my old Tennessee source Lamar Alexander:

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) told reporters that cutting off debate is “premature.”

“When we come back from the recess 10 days from now, senators should have had sufficient time to consider Senator Hagel’s nomination, and I will vote to have an up-or-down vote,” Alexander said. “I know of many of my colleagues who think that’s enough time. It would be better for the institution and the country if we had enough time to consider Senator Hagel and then have an up-or-down vote, so we don’t get into a habit of making it look like we’re suing the filibuster to block Cabinet nominees. That’s not the case here.”

Anyway, I think a delay is worthwhile. For the very reason that, as Sen. Reid says, this decision is crucial to the nation’s security, I don’t think we need to be doing this on a party-line vote, when by waiting a few days we might get something closer to consensus. What do y’all think?