Category Archives: Parties

Everything that is wrong with our politics, in state & nation

Haley Palin

OK, so maybe it’s not everything — there’s personal pettiness, and anti-intellectualism, and an appalling willingness on the parts of too many to stoop to the lowest common public impulses for advantage — but it’s something that runs through it all, and ruins everything it touches. And besides, those things are more or less related to this thing.

It was on display in this story today about the campaign “warchest” — oh, let’s not forget that another thing that is wrong with our politics is that we pretend that it is war, with all that attendant “fighting for you” trash — that Nikki Haley has assembled for an as-yet-undeclared re-election campaign.

I’m not talking about Nikki Haley in particular here. I’m talking about something that is all too much a part of modern politics, and she just provides us with a good example, because she’s a particularly avid practitioner of what I’m talking about. The relevant passage:

Haley had six fundraisers last quarter, half of them out of state, in California, New York and Florida.

Donations from S.C.-based businesses and residents accounted for less than 60 percent of the total she raised during the quarter. Florida donations were next at 10 percent, followed by New Yorkers at nearly 6 percent.

Californians’ 51 donations ranked second in number behind the 418 reported from South Carolina, but their combined $21,000 ranked fifth in total amount, at 4 percent.

“It’s a strong showing,” Pearson said. “It shows that people in and outside the state want her to be re-elected gov

Haley had six fundraisers last quarter, half of them out of state, in California, New York and Florida.

Donations from S.C.-based businesses and residents accounted for less than 60 percent of the total she raised during the quarter. Florida donations were next at 10 percent, followed by New Yorkers at nearly 6 percent.

Californians’ 51 donations ranked second in number behind the 418 reported from South Carolina, but their combined $21,000 ranked fifth in total amount, at 4 percent.

“It’s a strong showing,” Pearson said. “It shows that people in and outside the state want her to be re-elected governor if she runs.”

And no, I’m not saying it’s awful that she goes after money where she can get it, or anything like that. The thing that I am saying is a problem is the fact that it is possible for a governor, any governor, to go outside his or her state to raise campaign money. It’s the fact that those outsiders will give, when asked the right way, that is the problem of which I speak.

Reading that story, I tried putting myself in Nikki Haley’s place. I tried imagining that I was running for governor, and I was on a fund-raising trip to New York or Florida or California or wherever, and I was standing in front of a well-heeled group of people with checkbooks in their pockets, and I thought:

What on Earth would I say to those people to get them to give money to me for my campaign for governor of South Carolina?

And I couldn’t think of a thing. I mean, I think about the reasons I would run for governor if I did, and they are many. I refer you to my last column at the paper for just a tiny few of those reasons. But not one of the reasons that could ever conceivably motivate me to run could ever possibly motivate someone who does not live in South Carolina and has no stake in South Carolina to give me money.

I would have nothing to say to them. Nothing that would be relevant to them, in any case.

But Nikki Haley, and other politicians who do what she does, have no problem in that regard. That’s because pretty much everything they say, and think, as political creatures is cookie-cutter stuff, the kind of stuff the national talking heads constantly spew out of the Beltway via 24/7 TV “news.” You can’t tell one from another.

That’s why it’s so easy and comfortable for someone like Sarah Palin to campaign alongside Nikki Haley, which they did with such aplomb and comfort in one another’s company during our governor’s first campaign. That’s because, even though they are from very different states with different issues and different needs, they think the same thoughts and say the same things. Henry Ford’s methods of mass production have been applied to politics, so that parts are interchangeable.

This is made possible by the fact that all these folks talk about is ideology — pure, simple, lowest-common-denominator ideology, unsullied by the specifics of reality, which is understood everywhere because of modern communications.

Their words and their thoughts have nothing to do with the messy, organic, ad hoc, practical, idiosyncratic business of governing — which to an honest person who engages it with an open and critical mind practically never meshes with the neat constructs of ideology.

And that’s what’s wrong. That’s what that story made me think about.

Mia keeps up a steady fire on election fiasco

7 Replies

We discussed this briefly on a previous post, but I thought I’d call attention to it more directly. Read this blog post from Mia McLeod:

Dumb and Dumber…

That’s obviously what they think you are. Otherwise, the Old Guard (a.k.a. “OG”) wouldn’t be brazen enough to “demote” and “promote” incompetence in the same breath. And all on your dime, too.

Let’s see…a newly created $75,000 taxpayer-funded position with a new title, less responsibility, same oversight (aren’t absentee ballots part of what got us here in the first place?) and absolutely no regard for your rights — particularly when it comes to restoring your confidence in our electoral process.

Even Attorney Hamm’s Investigative Report is of no consequence because it only confirms what we already knew. The election day disaster was directly caused by the Director’s actions, inactions and failure to lead. Those are the facts. But let’s not allow a few facts to get in the way, right?

Here’s the deal…the OG and our Governor have something in common. They’ll stop at nothing and spare no expense to get what they want. One of my previous e-blasts was entitled, “BAMN” or “by any means necessary.” It applied to our Governor’s actions then, and it certainly applies to the OG’s actions now.

And just in case you, like many others, mistakenly assumed that either of the former Director’s resignations might actually offer some semblance of accountability, albeit late…think again.

This sweet backroom deal has been in the works for weeks, but the OG needed a little more time to execute it. That’s why Rep. Rutherford messed up the original plan when he “outed” the first resignation before the OG was ready. After all, it takes time to appoint an interim OG director for the primary purpose of rehiring the former OG director. I know…it’s a hard job, but somebody has to do it. And neither the delegation nor the Elections Board has the legal authority.

Now that an interim director has been named and handsomely paid to rehire the former Director, the deal is almost complete. But to ensure that those of us who disagree are unable to dismantle their “master plan,” a few more things still need to happen:

The OG has to replace the vacated and/or expiring Elections Board seats with more OG members.

The OG has to also make sure one of their own remains in the position of Elections Director (on an interim or permanent basis).

The OG has to hold on to the position of Delegation Chair, so that the elections board appointments, as well as the director and (newly created) deputy director positions remain in tact.

So here’s where you come in. Since you’ve already been thrown into “the game,” it might be helpful for you to at least become familiar with the rules:

Rule #1 – The OG can make and change the rules at any time, for any reason.

Rule #2 – Actually, there’s no need for Rule #2 because you’ll rarely make it past Rule #1.

Obviously, you’ve elected us to represent your interests and your tax dollars are footing the bill for these expensive and unnecessary games we keep playing, but let’s not get too bogged down in those pesky little details, right?

The reality is…the OG cares much more about winning “the game” than they do about your rights, your representation or whether your confidence in the integrity of the process is restored. And why shouldn’t they? Earning your trust and respect really isn’t necessary, since you give it so freely anyway.

After all, “the game” protects their power. They’re the players who make the rules. Andyou…well, you’re the enablers who preserve their positions. Thanks to your unwavering support, they’ve been able to preserve and protect their own interests for all these years. Now that’s teamwork at its best. You pay.They play.

Oops…almost forgot. There’s one more rule, and it’s a doozie:

Rule # 3 – Voters…I mean enablers, get to change the players and the game every 2-4 years.

So in 2014, you can either cast a game-changing vote or leave Richland County’s future in the hands of the OG.

It’ll soon be game-day again. Next time, make it count…

Tavis said Mia was starting to lose him on this. Even though, had I been advising her, I might have recommended that she dial the tone down a bit, I’m not where Tavis is. I’m still prepared to give her credit for having the guts to take a stronger stand, by far, than anyone else in the Richland delegation. Maybe it’s because Mia and I are from Bennettsville. My uncle was visiting from there yesterday, and when Mia’s name came up, all he had to say was “You go, girl.” Nothing like B’ville pride.

Sure, the folks she categorizes as the OG probably think she’s just a grandstander trying to get political mileage out of all the folks out there saying “You go, girl.” But when she’s right and they’re wrong, I’m inclined to say she deserves whatever political boost she can get. There’s a point when you go, wait a minute — and my first stirrings of doubt about Nikki Haley came when she was doing her Joan of Arc routine in the House over roll-call voting. But Mia’s not there yet. Not with me, anyway.

Of course, her Twitter handle is “MiaforSC.” As opposed to “miafordistrict79” or something. Which would seem to speak of greater ambition.

Speaking of which, she has become perhaps the one Democrat in the Legislature most worth following, joining such GOP stalwarts as Harvey Peeler and Nathan Ballentine, and inheriting the mantle abandoned by Boyd Brown.

Tom Davis at the ‘nullification rally’

23 Replies

This morning, I saw this on Twitter from Tom Davis:

Thanks, Ed Eichelberger, for this video of my speech at Tuesday’s nullification rally at the S. C. State House. http://fb.me/1eyP5zmGG

“Nullification rally?” Is that what was going on when I passed by on Tuesday.? Wait, let me go check. No, I was right: This is 2013, and not 1832…

I didn’t have time to look at the video until tonight. Before I wrap up for today, I want to take note of it here. We must all remember this when Tom runs against Lindsey Graham next year. If he does. Or when he runs for anything in the future.

I have always liked Tom Davis personally, and I have been very disturbed to see his steady descent into fringe extremism.

In case you don’t have time to watch it all, some lowlights:

“Lee Bright’s absolutely right.“
Launching on a history lesson — neoConfederates are big on condescendingly explaining their version of history to the rest of us, and Tom is picking up their habits — he says that George Washington was president in 1800. No, Tom, he wasn’t. Kind of makes you want to double-check all the other stuff he says. In case you didn’t already know to do that.
He says, with fierce, defensive passion, that as a South Carolinian he is “proud of John C. Calhoun,” whom he characterizes as “a great man who has been maligned far too long.”
“You have the intellectual high ground here.” This to the assembled nullificationists.
“I can’t do anything right now up in Congress…” As opposed to later, I guess.
“This state has a proud tradition of leaders stepping up and holding aloft the candle of liberty at a time when things were darkest.” Really? I would like to have heard an elaboration on that, with names and dates, so I can understand how Tom is defining “liberty” these days.

Peeler, Sheheen work together on highway reform

5 Replies

Well, here’s a positive development. You know how, a couple of days ago, the SC Senate Republican Caucus, led by Harvey Peeler, put out an agenda that included the following?

Transportation Reform – The Caucus will support structural and funding changes to our state’s infrastructure maintenance and construction process to make sure every dollar is maximized and allocated based on merit. The Caucus will explore mechanisms for increasing funding to meet growing infrastructure needs without raising taxes.

I knew that was something Harvey particularly cared about. Remember this op-ed he wrote on the subject, “Force-feeding asphalt to Charleston while the rest of S.C. starves“?

Well, anyway, instead of doing what a lot of party leaders do — trying to push through their agendas along party lines — Harvey is teaming up with a leading Democrat on this one:

Peeler, Sheheen introduce bipartisan highway reform bill

Columbia, SC – January 10, 2013 – Senators Harvey Peeler (R-Cherokee) and Vincent Sheheen (D-Kershaw) today introduced a bipartisan transportation reform bill, aimed at restructuring the state’s transportation agencies, better coordinating the highway construction process, and ending irresponsible over-borrowing.

Peeler

The bill, S.209, would eliminate the State Infrastructure Bank, and fold its functions into the state Department of Transportation. It would also prevent the DOT from borrowing for construction projects above and beyond its bonding capacity.

The bill arose from years of State Infrastructure Bank projects being awarded based on political decisions rather than merit, and after it was recently revealed that the SIB approved borrowing for the I-526 extension in Charleston above the established bonding capacity.

Peeler said the bill was needed to make sure road funding was a merit based and need based process.

“The SIB has been force feeding asphalt to the coast, while the Upstate and many rural areas starve,” Peeler said. “It just doesn’t make sense to have one state agency building expensive new roads when we can’t even keep up with our current maintenance needs. I’m pleased to have bi-partisan support on a much-needed reform that will help get the politics out of road building.”

Sheheen said “we must give priority to fixing our existing roads and bringing accountability to our government.”

Looks like Harvey’s seeking a consensus solution — at least among non-coastal senators. Here’s hoping something good comes out of the effort. With both of these guys invested in reform, there seems a better-than-usual chance of that.

Sanford vs. Sanford: Start your day with Ariail

5 Replies

aria130109_cmyk.byat61xdtndf4skg80ckks4c8.6uwurhykn3a1q8w88k040cs08.th

I’m not going to have a lot of time for blogging today, but I thought I’d share this with you, from my good friend Robert Ariail.

It ran a couple of days ago, but I just now saw it. As you see, it’s on the same subject that Gail Collins was having fun with last week.

Joe Wilson accused of disaster hypocrisy

18 Replies

… or at the very least, inconsistency.

I’m not going to quote the whole thing because of the language that he used, but here’s part of what someone named Jonathan Valania had to say about Joe Wilson’s vote against Sandy relief last week:

… this despite the fact that South Carolina has had 13 major disaster declarations and two emergency declarations in the last 30 years, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The worst storm to ever hit the Palmetto State, Hurricane Hugo back in 1989, caused over $13 billion in damage and left nearly 60,000 people homeless.

Guess who picked up the tab?

And back in 2003 when the South Carolina suffered through a severe drought, all 46 counties in the Palmetto State were declared federal disaster zones at Wilson’s urging. In 2005, he voted for a $10.5 billion Katrina relief package.

“The compassion, generosity, and solidarity of the American people during difficult times are one of our most cherished blessings as citizens of our great nation,” Wilson said after the Katrina relief bill passed the House. “As we now face the severity of this historic natural disaster, Americans must do what we do best: help each other.”...

That was then and this is now.

Indeed. That was before the Tea Party, and before Joe decided he must do its will. And this is now, after Joe has followed the Four Freshman (OK, so now it’s Three Sophomores) through the looking glass.

Why have BOTH parties wasted our money on Voter ID?

65 Replies

This just in from Lindsey Graham and Trey Gowdy:

Graham, Gowdy Defend South Carolina Voter ID Law

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and U.S. Congressman Trey Gowdy (South Carolina-4) today sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder renewing their request for documents pertaining to the Justice Department’s costly opposition to South Carolina’s Voter ID law.

Last Friday, the Washington, D.C. District Court issued a unanimous decision awarding South Carolina certain litigation costs incurred while defending its Voter ID law against a Justice Department challenge. The case cost the State of South Carolina an estimated $3.5 million.

“Not only do we strongly support the Court’s decision to award costs, we request follow up on our previous letter regarding the reasons why this costly litigation occurred in the first place,” wrote Graham and Gowdy. “If some, or all, of the costs associated with these actions could have been avoided by following the recommendation of career Voting Section experts, then we would like to know the reason why they were overruled.”…

Good question. Of course, it would be just as good a question to demand that our governor and legislative majority why they have insisted on passing and then defending in court a completely useless Voter ID bill.

As I’ve said so many times before, I remain completely unconvinced by either Republicans’ claim that there is a need for such a law, or by Democrats’ claim that it constitutes an intolerable burden. Every taxpayer dollar that either party has caused to be spent on the bill has been a waste, in my book.

Rutherford replaces Ott as SC House minority leader

2 Replies

This just in (OK, so it was an hour ago) from Tyler Jones on behalf of the House Democrats:

House Democrats Elect Todd Rutherford New Minority Leader

Columbia, SC – Members of the House Democratic Caucus met on Tuesday and elected Rep. Todd Rutherford to be its new leader. Former Minority Leader Rep. Harry Ott announced on Saturday he would not be seeking re-election to the leadership post.

Newly-elected Minority Leader Rep. Rutherford released the following statement in response to his election:

“I am honored to be chosen by my colleagues to lead House Democrats in a new, and hopefully more successful direction. I want to personally thank Representative Harry Ott for his many years of service to this caucus. Rep. Ott has done an outstanding job as our leader and will remain an integral part of our decision making process. I look forward to getting down to work to expand our numbers and elect more Democrats to the House.”

House Democrats also elected Reps. Walt McLeod as Assistant Minority Leader, James Smith as Deputy Leader, Laurie Funderburk as Treasurer, David Weeks as Parliamentarian, and Kenneth Hodges as Chaplain.

####

Headline writers across the state will undoubtedly miss Harry Ott. First Ard, now this… Why don’t more people with extremely short names run for office?

Sheheen to attend fellowship for thoughtful emerging leaders

10 Replies

Had lunch with Vincent Sheheen yesterday, and he mentioned this. When I got back, there was a release from Phil Bailey:

Sheheen Named Rodel Fellow by Aspen Institute

Camden, SC – State Senator Vincent Sheheen has been nominated to be part of the Rodel Fellowship in Public Leadership Program at the Aspen Institute. The Camden senator will join 24 other elected officials from around the country who have been recognized as “America’s emerging political leaders with reputations for intellect, thoughtfulness, and a commitment to civil dialogue.” Fellows include mayors, state representatives and senators and state-wide elected officials.

“I’m honored to be joining this distinguished group of public servants. The Rodel Fellowship is a unique group that brings together leaders to exchange ideas and discuss how to make government work better for the people on a bipartisan basis,” said Sheheen.

The Aspen Institute-Rodel Fellowships in Public Leadership program seeks to enhance our democracy by identifying and bringing together the nation’s most promising young political leaders to explore,

through study and conversation, the underlying values and principles of western democracy, the relationship between individuals and their community, and the responsibilities of public leadership; to support and inspire political leaders committed to sustaining the vision of a political system based on thoughtful and civil bipartisan dialogue; and to help America’s brightest young leaders achieve their fullest potential in public service.

Past Rodel Fellows include: Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, and Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives Jase Bolger.

For more information on the Aspen Institute’s Rodel

Fellowship Program: http://www.aspeninstitute.org/leadership-programs/aspen-institute-rodel-fellowships-public-le-/about-rodel-fellowship-program

Just to draw the distinction here: National media have celebrated Nikki Haley as an “emerging leader” in the GOP. Or at least they used to, before her endorsement of Mitt Romney went over like such a dud with SC primary voters. You don’t hear as much about it now.

Anyway, by contrast, this group is recognizing Vincent Sheheen as one of the nation’s emerging leaders “with reputations for intellect, thoughtfulness, and a commitment to civil dialogue.”

See the difference?

Everybody’s got an agenda these days

11 Replies

Remember how I mentioned the other day, with unbated breath, that Joe Wilson was going to unveil his agenda for this session of Congress? Well, here it is:

Wilson’s Agenda for 2013:

Create Jobs Through Economic Growth: Cut excessive red tape and regulations to help small businesses grow; Work with county, regional and state agencies to attract businesses to South Carolina; Protect South Carolina’s “Right to Work” laws; Defund the Government Healthcare Takeover Bill

Reducing Washington’s Out of Control Spending: Require a vote on Congressional pay; Make the government more accountable by sponsoring legislation calling for biennial appropriations; Support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution; Efficiencies within federal government agencies

Energy Independence and Efficiency: Promote construction of Keystone XL Pipeline; Fight to ensure South Carolina does not become our nation’s dumping ground for Spent Nuclear Fuel; Work to promote clean energy across our state via Energy Saving Performance Contracts

And right next to that in my Inbox, I see that the the Republican caucus in our state Senate have an agenda, too:

Senate Republican Caucus unveils jobs and reform agenda

Columbia, SC – January 8, 2013 – The Senate Republican Caucus today announced a six-point legislative agenda, centered on growing the economy and reforming government.

Jobs and the Economy:

Transportation Reform – The Caucus will support structural and funding changes to our state’s infrastructure maintenance and construction process to make sure every dollar is maximized and allocated based on merit. The Caucus will explore mechanisms for increasing funding to meet growing infrastructure needs without raising taxes.

Spending Caps – Congress’ recent inability to deal effectively with the Fiscal Cliff could have paralyzed the country’s economy. South Carolina needs a real spending cap to provide for sustainable and predictable growth in state spending. Doing so protects taxpayers, businesses and those served by government by helping guard against unexpected tax increases or cuts to services.

Cyber Security – It’s critical that taxpayers and businesses know their information is secure when they interact with government. The Caucus will make it a priority to enhance cyber security so that people can conduct business in South Carolina with confidence.

Government reform:

Ethics Reform – The Senate, the House, and the Governor’s Office are all in the process of reviewing our state’s antiquated Ethics laws and making recommendations to modernize them for the 21st Century. The Senate Caucus believes strongly that voters need more transparency and information about the people representing them in order to hold their elected leaders accountable for their decisions.

Ballot Reform – The Senate Caucus will act quickly to fix state law in regards to ballot access, to make sure candidates are not again denied access to the ballot as hundreds were this year. In addition, the Caucus plans to correct the disparity in filing requirements between incumbents and challengers.

Department of Administration – Last year, the Senate passed the first bill by either legislative chamber to completely eliminate the Budget and Control Board and create a Department of Administration. The Caucus believes that we need clear lines of accountability in state government.

Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler noted that with a one-seat GOP pickup in the Caucus that the agenda stands a good chance for passage this year:

“These are issues that all conservatives should be able to agree on, and they’re issues that the people of South Carolina clearly want us to move forward with,” Peeler said. “I am committed to making sure these items remain a priority throughout the session, and that we work with the House to move these bills to the Governor’s desk.”

In addition to announcing its agenda, the Caucus also re-elected Senator Peeler to the post of Senate Majority Leader. Peeler named Senators Danny Verdin and Shane Massey as Majority Whips.

On the Web: http://www.scsenategop.com/2013-agenda/

###

Agendas, it seems, are like opinions (or something): Everybody’s got one. Except yours truly, of course.

So which is it, Peggy? Is Obama’s situation unique, or what?

10 Replies

Sometimes, pundits are at their best when the party they oppose is in power. Not necessarily so with Peggy Noonan. I’ve long admired her style, but her drip, drip, drip of condescending disdain for Barack Obama wore thin some time ago.

And her column over the weekend, “There’s No ‘I’ in ‘Kumbaya’,” particularly bugged me because she wanted it both ways. First, she wrote:

Mr. Obama’s supporters always give him an out by saying, “But the president can’t work with them, they made it clear from the beginning their agenda was to do him in.” That’s true enough. But it’s true with every American president now—the other side is always trying to do him in, or at least the other side’s big mouths are always braying they’ll take him down. They tried to capsize Clinton, they tried to do in Reagan, calling him an amiable dunce and vowing to defeat his wicked ideology.

We live in a polarized age. We have for a while. One of the odd things about the Obama White House is that they are traumatized by the normal.

A lot of the president’s staffers were new to national politics when they came in, and they seem to have concluded that the partisan bitterness they faced was unique to him, and uniquely sinister. It’s just politics, or the ugly way we do politics now.

In other words, these rubes just need to put their Big Boy pants on and recognize that there’s nothing unique about the calumny heaped on their guy; it’s politics as usual, as regrettable as that may be.

Then, five paragraphs later, she writes of the president:

He is a uniquely polarizing figure. A moderate U.S. senator said the other day: “One thing not said enough is he is the most divisive president in modern history. He doesn’t just divide the Congress, he divides the country.” The senator thinks Mr. Obama has “two whisperers in his head.” “The political whisperer says ‘Don’t compromise a bit, make Republicans look weak and bad.’ Another whisperer is not political, it’s, ‘Let’s do the right thing, work together and begin to right the ship.’ ” The president doesn’t listen much to the second whisperer.

So… which is it? Is this politics as usual, or is the polarization Obama inspires “unique?”

She would probably defend her inconsistency by saying that the unique part is all Obama’s fault, that the animus aimed at him would be politics as usual, except for the way he deliberately rachets it up.

Which would probably be persuasive to a partisan Republican. Not so much to the rest of us along the spectrum. Not to this independent, anyway.

The polarization that characterizes the president’s relationship with his political opponents is indeed unique. Yes, it exists on a political timeline in which we have seen continuing, rising polarization dating back, I would say, to the early 1980s (from my perspective, about 1982, when Robin Beard ran a startlingly negative Senate campaign against Jim Sasser in the state where I was, while in SC, a young man named Lee Atwater was moving from dirty local campaigns toward national prominence), and becoming overt to the point of completely poisoning presidents’ relationships with their not-so-loyal oppositions starting in about January 1993.

But there’s a unique flavor to the animus toward Obama, and has been since the beginning. That’s not an excuse for him not to work in good faith with the opposition, to the extent that they will let him. But it’s a fact.

Graham’s on Hagel’s case (and he’s not alone)

31 Replies

As Washington media gather the soundbites on the Obama administration’s nomination of Republican Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense, one of the first gathered is Lindsey Graham’s:

“This is an in-your-face nomination by the president. And it looks like the second term of Barack Obama is going to be an in-your-face term.”

Of course, that quote is distinctly lacking in substance. Here’s what Graham said further on CNN’s “State of the Union”:

“Chuck Hagel, if confirmed to be the secretary of defense, would be the most antagonistic secretary of defense toward the state of Israel in our nation’s history,” Graham said. “Not only has he said you should directly negotiate with Iran, sanctions won’t work, that Israel should directly negotiate with the Hamas organization, a terrorist group that lobs thousands of rockets into Israel. He also was one of 12 senators who refused to sign a letter to the European Union that Hezbollah should be designated as a terrorist organization.”

Beyond Graham, those Republican senators vocalizing opposition to Hagel include Roger Wicker of Mississippi, John Cornyn of Texas, Ted Cruz of Texas, David Vitter of Louisiana, and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Chuck_Hagel_official_photo

In the plus column are Democrats Carl Levin of Michigan, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Dianne Feinstein of California, and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.

That’s all according to The Washington Post.

Much of the animus toward Hagel dates from his opposition to U.S. involvement in Iraq. Then there’s his opposition to Iran sanctions. Then there’s his “Jewish lobby” quote. And gay rights advocates are still mad about something he said in 1998.

Evidently, the Susan Rice experience didn’t diminish the president’s willingness to engage in a nomination fight as his second term begins…

SC had two of the 10 most-mentioned senators

3 Replies

There was an interesting tidbit in the Smart Politics piece that I mentioned in my last post:

For although DeMint was simply 1 of 100 in the senate, he was also an unofficial voice of the Tea Party, one of the most vocal critics of Barack Obama, and among the Top 10 most mentioned senators in broadcast media reports.

That made me think, Yeah, but I’ll bet Lindsay Graham is mentioned even more.

Sure enough, when I followed that link, Graham was at No. 6, and DeMint was ninth. (John McCain came in first, followed by Marco Rubio. Only two Democrats, Harry Reid and John Kerry, made the Top Ten.)

These two young fellas have made quite a mark, even though they are newcomers by our accustomed Thurmond/Hollings standard.

Tim Scott will have a lot to live up to.

Gail Collins on SC politics

2 Replies

This ran a couple of days ago, but was only brought to my attention today:

Tea Party favorite Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina has departed, too, even though his term was only half over, to answer the siren call of a seven-figure job at the helm of the Heritage Foundation.

Thanks to the blog Smart Politics, I am able to report that this is normal behavior in South Carolina: one-third of all U.S. senators from South Carolina have resigned over the course of our history. (South Carolina is also the state that gave us the guy with the cane back in 1856.) DeMint was replaced by Representative Tim Scott, whose seat will be filled in a special election this spring. Right now one of the possible candidates is Mark Sanford, the governor who we all remember for flying to Argentina for an assignation with his lover while his staff claimed he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail.

Another much-discussed potential contender is Jenny Sanford, former wife of the above. People, while you are praying for a safe, sane and peaceful new year, I want you to make a small exception and pray that Jenny and Mark Sanford run against each other…

The “guy with the cane” thing was a reference to Preston Brooks, who practically beat Charles Sumner to death on the Senate floor — which made him wonderfully popular back home (northerners, not understanding the ways of Southern gentlemen, were outraged). Which is kind of SC politics in a nutshell.

I found the piece over at Smart Politics interesting — the one about how a third of SC senators have resigned (The last was Strom Thurmond, who promptly ran again and was elected back to his seat). Even though, of course, we’ve only known four senators in the past 46 years. No wait, five counting Tim Scott now.

Joe Wilson release satirizes itself

4 Replies

joe release

This happened a couple of weeks ago, and I haven’t figured out why it happened either time.

The first time, Joe Wilson sent me a release via email with a headline and an introduction to a statement from Joe, but no statement.

This time, there was the headline — “Wilson to Unveil Legislative Agenda for 2013” — followed by nothing but this:

Normal 0

Which sort of read like a joke at Joe’s expense: The usual. Nothing.

Just as last time, way down on the email, there was a link where I could go read the actual release, which basically said Joe is having press conferences tomorrow in West Columbia, Aiken and North Augusta. Where he’ll talk about his agenda.

Mulvaney among those Republicans flipping off Boehner

75 Replies

As much as all of the Four Tea Party Freshman in the SC congressional delegation (I guess after yesterday, they are technically sophomores) like to dis the GOP leadership in the House, with Joe Wilson tagging along behind them, only one of them refused to vote for John Boehner for another term as speaker.

That was Mick Mulvaney. Why? Well, he’s not talking about it:

WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Mick Mulvaney declined Thursday to support giving U.S. Rep. John Boehner a second term as House speaker, joining 11 other Republican lawmakers who protested the Ohioan’s leadership…

Nine Republican lawmakers voted for someone other than Boehner, three of them backing his deputy, Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia.

Mulvaney, by contrast, declined to vote for anyone despite being present in the House chamber. Raul Labrador of Idaho, like Mulvaney a tea party favorite who first gained election in 2010, chose the same tactic…

Mulvaney, who represents South Carolina’s 5th Congressional District, later declined to respond to subsequent requests for comment from reporters.

“Mick won’t be available to speak,” his press secretary, Stephanie Faile, told McClatchy. “He is spending the rest of the day with his family.”…

I wonder whether he sat up the night before this, thinking, What would be even more petulant and pouty than declining to vote for speaker? I know! Declining to vote, then refusing to say why!

I guess it beats pulling Boehner’s pants down and shoving him into the ladies’ room…

I guess they just love having Boehner to kick around

3 Replies

Note that the House Republicans, who have abused, undermined and humiliated the guy every which way over the last couple of years, have given John Boehner another term as speaker:

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) on Thursday formally won reelection to a second term overseeing a chamber that has proved difficult to manage, just days after several insurrections from rank-and-file Republicans left him in a less powerful position heading into critical negotiations this year.

Boehner survived the defections of a handful of Republicans from the most conservative wing of his party, winning the final vote tally 220 to 192 over House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) received three votes.

I guess they just love kicking that guy around. He must like it, too.

I didn’t really see the above SNL skit from a few weeks ago as all that much of an exaggeration.

SC delegation as useless as ever on ‘cliff’ vote

35 Replies

To the extent that anyone is inclined to congratulate the Congress for voting at the 13th hour to avert the “fiscal cliff,” they should carefully avoid directing any positive vibes at the SC delegation.

They were predictably petulant, recalcitrant and useless. Far be it from them to be part of anything that might be construed by anyone as getting anything done.

As you can see on this nifty interactive map provided by The New York Times, Joe Wilson and the Four Freshmen all voted “nay.” One would be tempted to pat Jim Clyburn on the back for being the grownup in the room, but the fact is that he is as wedded to his own rigid partisan attitudes as they are to theirs, so his vote was just as predictable.

But at least he voted to do something.

Here, by the way, is what Clyburn had to say about the vote last night:

Mr. Speaker, it is tempting to say it’s about time the House put aside extreme partisanship and work together on compromise to address the nation’s most pressing issues. But in reality, it is far past time that we put aside its extreme partisanship. Throughout the entirety of the 112^th Congress, the Republican Leadership repeatedly put its own narrow political interests ahead of the public interest.

So here we are on New Year’s night, with the clock running out on the very existence of this Congress, finally considering bipartisan legislation to provide middle class tax cuts, require the wealthiest to once again pay their fair share so we can grow the economy, create jobs and protect the most vulnerable in our society. It is indeed well past time we got about the people’s business.

Mr. Speaker, in 2011, I served on the Biden group of both Republican and Democratic Representatives and Senators who worked with the Vice President on our nation’s fiscal issues. We made good progress in those talks until our Republican friends walked away, fearing the wrath of the Tea Party Caucus here in the House.

I also served on the bipartisan Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, the so-called supercommittee that spent countless hours discussing these issues in detail. It was very clear that the elements of a fair and balanced fiscal plan were achievable. But at the end of the process, the Republican leaders refused to compromise and the supercommittee failed.

So here we are. While this bill is not perfect, and I have serious concerns about some of the cuts it contains, it does contain the element of fairness. This bill protects the middle class and working people with a more progressive tax code than we’ve had in a very long time. And this bill prevents the meat axe approach of budget cuts that could do severe damage to our national defense and important domestic priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the partisanship of the 112^th Congress will end this week with the end of the 112^th Congress. And I am hopeful that the 113^th Congress can work together toward honorable compromises that get the people’s business done. I urge a Yes vote.

-30-

I have not yet received any releases on the subject from the GOP members.

Here we go over the cliff, y’all!

6 Replies

This just came over the wire a few minutes ago:

WASHINGTON (AP) – The House will miss the midnight Monday deadline lawmakers set for voting to avoid the “fiscal cliff.”

House Republicans notified lawmakers that the chamber will vote Monday evening on other bills. They say that will be their only votes of the day.

President Barack Obama and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Monday they are near a deal to avoid wide-ranging tax increases and spending cuts – the fiscal cliff – that take effect with the new year.

Both men said they were still bargaining over whether – and how – to avoid $109 billion in cuts to defense and domestic programs that take effect on Wednesday…

OK, so there could still be a deal by Wednesday. And truth be told, the “cliff” is more like a steep incline, with various painful measures being enacted as we move into the new year. There is time, even after tonight, to undo much that the cliff entails.

But still. They’ve known this was coming a year and several months. Pretty much everyone wanted to avoid it. But Washington is so pathetic, they couldn’t get it done.

These are the times we live in.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits