Category Archives: Parties

Should Santorum skip N.H., head straight here?

5 Replies

That was the buzz at the Big Round Table at the Capital City Club this morning, fed by Preston Grisham, lobbyist and veteran of SC GOP campaigns. This is where the more fertile ground is, and maybe he could get up and running fast enough here, whereas there’s no time left in New Hampshire, with the primary six days off.

It makes sense.

Interestingly, the Republican Grisham was thinking along the same lines as progressive columnist E.J. Dionne, who was already speculating yesterday morning that a win in Iowa positioned Santorum particularly well in South Carolina.

Of course, mix into that the fact that Gingrich is preparing for a serious stand here, and you’ve got a battle.

Also… and I probably need to deal with this in a separate post… I’ve got the feeling that Romney might sew it up here. I need to give Warren Tompkins a call…

What IS going on today, indeed?

12 Replies

Wesley Donehue, who yesterday was as harried as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs, seemed to have suddenly downshifted this morning, Tweeting at 8:35 a.m.:

So, what’s going today?

As it happened, I was wondering the same thing myself.

Wesley, you see, is working with the Michele Bachmann campaign, at least for the moment.

Rep. Bachmann has scheduled a press conference in Des Moines for 11 our time, and speculation is that she will drop out of the race — seeing as how Iowa was a place where she really needed to do well (remember the hometown bit?), and she came in 6th. A distant 6th, with only 5 percent of the vote.

She’s already cancelled a planned trip to SC, which I was asking Wesley about yesterday.

Meanwhile, Rick Perry is also reassessing. And the tone in which he said so pretty much said “loser,” precluding his proceeding onward with any of the necessary fire that his campaign has not had since, what, August?

Anyway, I wish the best to Wesley, whatever happens next.

Huntsman ad: “We are getting screwed…”

9 Replies

Kudos to Jon Huntsman for being the first GOP candidate to break out of the prison of the trite and poorly worded, and give us an ad that says something, and does it with a bit of a bite.

And I’m not just saying that because he uses the word “screwed” in mixed company.

I’m saying it because he actually tells you something about himself in a way that you might take note, and remember.

I don’t know if I’d go so far as Henry McMaster in praising it:

I miss Ronald Reagan.  I served as his first US Attorney.

We all wish he would appear out of the cornfield in a “Field of Dreams” and be our nominee for President.

But right now – there is only one true Reagan Republican in the race, a leader who worked for Ronald Reagan and has proven himself over the years to be a strong, consistent conservative, with the best record as a chief executive creating jobs, cutting taxes and balancing budgets at the state level.

That is my good friend Jon Huntsman.

I hope you’ll take a moment to watch Jon’s latest TV ad. It truly is a wake up call for America.

Our nation is deep in debt.  And we’ve lost trust in government to solve problems.

I believe Jon Huntsman is the leader we need to repair both the economic deficit and the deficit of trust that has afflicted our country.

Jon has never been a flip-flopper or an opportunist.  He has always been consistently pro-life and pro-family.  As Governor of Utah, he led the nation in creating jobs, cutting taxes and stimulating real economic growth.

Jon Huntsman is the most extraordinary Governor I’ve seen since Carroll Campbell. And he’s also the only one in the presidential race with foreign policy experience as a United States Ambassador to both Singapore and China.  The world we live in is far too dangerous to pick another president with no foreign policy experience.

I ask you as a friend, as a South Carolinian, a father and an American to join me in restoring trust, dignity, and integrity in Washington, DC by supporting Jon Huntsman for President.

Peggy and I wish you and your family a very happy, healthy and blessed 2012.

Sincerely,
Henry McMaster

I’m not sure this is a “wake-up call for America.” It’s more like a “get up briefly and let the dog out” call. But at least you don’t sleep soundly through it, and that’s something.

Compared to what it’s up against, this ad deserves brief applause, at the minimum.

And now, a few words from the Grownup Party

4 Replies

The ATV discussion caused me to invoke the Grownup Party (which was my third effort to start my own party, after the UnParty and the Energy Party), which caused me to go back and reread the party’s founding document, and I think this passage is always good to keep in mind:

Which brings us to something else about Grownups — they understand that in America, the government is us, rather than being some menacing thing out there, and that we’re very fortunate to live in this country at this time rather than in Russia under the czars — or under Vladimir Putin, for that matter. And we’re especially fortunate not to live in a place where there is no government, such as Somalia under the warlords.
When the government does something we don’t like — which is pretty often, political immaturity being rampant — we don’t stamp our feet and talk about taking our ball (or  taxes, or whatever) and going home. Instead, we take responsibility for it, and try to bring it along. Yes, it’s a thankless task, like picking up after one’s children, or explaining to them why they can’t stay out late with their friends. But someone has to do it.
The task may seem hopeless as well — but only to the sort who gives up. Grownups know they don’t have that option, so they keep putting forth ideas that make sense, day after day, just like Daddy  going to work…

Amen to that. The Founder of the Grownup Party knows what he’s on about…

In the views of some of my cartoonist friends…

1 Reply

When I received the above cartoon from Bill Day, it caused me to go look for Robert Ariail‘s latest on the subject (more or less).

There’s an interesting area of agreement there — interesting because, given their political predilections, Bill would welcome the idea of the GOP being led into obsolescence, while the idea of Obama being the beneficiary would be distressing to Robert.

Politics aside, I hope this New Year will be a great one for both of these guys. Which reminds me: It’s past time Robert and I got together again at Yesterday’s. I need to find out when he’ll be in town…

Apparently there’s ennui in Iowa, as well

3 Replies

Over the last couple of months, I’ve mentioned on numerous occasions that I’m perceiving a certain… lack of enthusiasm… over the GOP presidential nominating process in South Carolina this year.

Today, at the very height of hoopla in that neck of the woods, I see an indication that there is a similar dearth of excitement in Iowa (thanks to Andrew Sullivan for bringing this Philip Klein piece to my attention):

Those following the Iowa caucuses from home, hearing a steady stream of reports such as this about “packed rooms” that are “standing room only” with people still waiting outside, may be getting the impression that there’s a groundswell of enthusiasm for this year’s candidates that will drive turnout for the caucuses to stratospheric levels.

But don’t be fooled. The truth is that the venues candidates are holding events at this year are much smaller than in 2008, back when some candidates were filling large ballrooms or even small arenas. When going into a Barack Obama event in 2008, it wouldn’t be unusual have to get there early and still park a five or 10 minute walk away from the actual rally site, only to come into a massive venue where crowds in the thousands were going wild. Even on the Republican side, Mike Huckabee was filling larger venues.

Yet yesterday, reporters, photograhers and a few actual patrons were packed into a tiny diner at a Mitt Romney event in Atlantic, Iowa. True, later that evening, he attracted hundreds to a town hall-style building in Council Bluffs, but it was still a relatively small venue.

On Saturday, Newt Gingrich squeezed people into a diner in Council Bluffs and a small corner of a Coca Cola bottling factory in Atlantic.

At the same time, the audiences seem a lot more subdued than in 2008 — less shouting and sign waving….

Clever of the candidates’ handlers to make it look like they’re in demand by shrinking the venues. But I’m grateful to hear that this certain lack of vitality is not just a South Carolina phenomenon — and even more importantly, not in my imagination.

The causes? I haven’t sorted that out entirely, but among the causes I suspect are lack of enchantment with the field, an ongoing identity crisis in the GOP (are they about fiscal libertarianism? or is it values? and what happened to a muscular foreign policy?) and a general gut feeling, fairly broadly held, that the incumbent will win in the end.

The table is open to entertain other theories — as well as evidence to the contrary regarding this diminution of enthusiasm.

Now, Santorum is a target worth shooting at

2 Replies

Funny how a guy who was previously unnoticed all of a sudden gets a lot of attention. Rick Perry’s campaign has sent out a release making sure that we don’t miss this Politico piece:

Rick Santorum’s financial disclosure form reveals his income for “legislative policy consulting services” from American Continental Group, a government affairs (also known as “lobbying”) firm in Washington with a range of clients.


ACG’s website shows their client roster – a lengthy list that features groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Pfizer, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania – has also included the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign, and Reform Immigration for America, which advocates on its website for a “humane” approach to revamping the nation’s laws.


A Santorum spokesman didn’t respond to an email about whether he worked with either HRC or the immigration group.


Santorum is, as we noted last night, a 1990s-era culture warrior and among the most stridently anti-gay rights and anti-abortion candidates in the race. He has also been a hard-liner on immigration…

Hey, similar attacks on Gingrich when he dared to surge to the front of the pack seem to have worked — in Iowa, anyway…

What will happen in Iowa? And do we care?

3 Replies

So now it’s Mitt Romney (the guy who, over the holidays, was spoken of increasingly as inevitable), Ron Paul (the guy everyone knows will never be the nominee, much less president) and Rick Santorum (the guy from the back of the pack who lost his last election in his home state) running neck-and-neck in Iowa:

Months of campaigning came down to a few final hours Monday as GOP hopefuls made their final argument to an unpredictable Iowa electorate, with polls showing tightly bunched leaders on the eve of the all-important caucuses.

In a two-day tracking poll from Public Policy Polling released late Sunday night, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum were in a virtual dead heat. The numbers: Paul is at 20 percent, Romney at 19 percent, Santorum at 18 percent, Newt Gingrich at 14 percent, Rick Perry at 10 percent and Michele Bachmann at 8 percent…

And again, I find myself wondering, to what extent should we even care what happens in Iowa? Remember, Mike Huckabee won here last time.

What fools the calendar doth make of us, even when we know better.

N.H. paper says ‘Ron Paul is a dangerous man’

24 Replies

This just in from The Slatest:

Things are going well for Ron Paul in Iowa, but the GOP hopeful may not get as warm of welcome in New Hampshire – at least if one of the state’s more influential newspapers gets its way.

The New Hampshire Union Leader ran on op-ed Thursday from its publisher trashing Paul for his “warped” views on national security and foreign policy and calling him the “favored candidate of the lunatic fringe,” which includes “white supremacists, anti-Semites, [and] truthers.”

“Ron Paul is a dangerous man,” the anti-endorsement begins. It ends: “His defenders say they admire Ron Paul’s ‘consistency.’ It is true, Paul has been consistently spouting this nonsense. It is about time New Hampshire voters showed him the door.”

The paper endorsed Newt Gingrich back in November. You can read the Paul piece here.

Of course, the Union-Leader isn’t exactly known for toeing the mildest of lines itself.

But what about that really out there stuff that appeared in Paul’s newsletters over the years? I’d be curious to know how Doug Ross and other Paulistas around here react to that stuff.

Man the barricades; run out the guns! Never mind: It’s just another hyperbolic rant from the SC GOP

28 Replies

For a brief moment there, when I saw the headline on the release, I had the light of battle in my eye and was calling for my sword… but then I realized it was just more hyperbolic, apocalyptic silliness from the South Carolina GOP:

South Carolina is Under Attack

Over the past few months we have endured the full effects of the federal government’s war against South Carolina. While we try to deal with problems on a state level, they federal government has tried to block our actions multiple times.

For example, the federal government has trampled over our right to hold fair and free elections by striking down Voter ID, taken away our ability to secure our state from illegal immigration while leaving Americas borders unsecured, and nearly derailed the ability of Boeing to create jobs in Charleston thanks to the NLRB.

As our state attempts to monitor our borders, recruit industry, and secure our elections, the federal government’s efforts cripple our ability to improve our state.

Ultimately, the federal government is putting our state’s future in jeopardy, and we have tried to limit ourselves on relying on Washington and the 16 trillion dollars of debt Congress has accrued.

And we will not give up the fight. The federal government will continue to suggest that we can’t secure our own future but the S.C. Senate Republican Caucus will continue the fight against this every step of the way.

-Wesley Donehue
[Senate Republican] Caucus Spokesman

Maybe the folks who make those excruciatingly boring ads — such as this one and this one — for the presidential candidates should get my Pub Politics friend Wesley to write some stuff for them, spice things up a bit. Maybe we’ll see some real fire in a Bachmann ad, since Wesley’s working with her…

I don’t blame Wesley for the nonsense in that message; I have little doubt that his assertions reflect well the views of many of the Republican state senators he works for. They believe this stuff.

The irony here is that, with the exception of the completely uncalled-for (and recently abandoned) outrage of the NLRB business, none of these are cases of the federal government getting aggressive with the state of South Carolina. Quite the opposite. Voter ID was a completely uncalled-for attempt to address a largely imaginary problem in a way that invited invocation of the Voting Rights Act. As for South Carolina’s attempt to completely usurp one of the few functions that is clearly federal, the control of the nation’s borders, well I should smile, as Mark Twain would have said.

And the NLRB thing didn’t turn out to be much of an “attack,” did it?

As satirists viewing us from afar well know, the only entity “crippling” South Carolina’s ability to improve itself is South Carolina. Most of our wounds are self-inflicted.

Even NEWT does mind-numbingly trite ads

4 Replies

You would think, as idiosyncratic as the guy is, as much of loose cannon as he is, that at least Newt Gingrich could produce ads that don’t seem like they started out vanilla, but then got any trace of any sort of original flavor filtered out of them through a multi-step process.

But he can be just as trite as the king himself, Rick Perry. Triter, even.

That’s disappointing, somehow. I’d like to see a little edginess from this guy, at least. Something that stands up and says, “I’m Newt, and I refuse to be boring!”

No such luck, though. He’s gotten all plain and careful since his numbers went up.

You went the wrong way, King Obama

13 Replies

Whaddya gonna do with this Romney guy, huh? Dig the latest:

Reporting from West Des Moines, Iowa –—

Speaking to supporters at a chilly outdoor rally, Mitt Romney on Friday sought to cast President Obama as out of touch with the economic pain being felt by average Americans.

“He’s in Hawaii right now. We’re in the cold, in the rain, in the wind because we care about America,” Romney said, speaking in the parking lot of a grocery store. “He just finished his 90th round of golf. We have 25 million Americans who are out of work, stopped looking for work or are underemployed. Home values have come down. The median income in America in the last four years has dropped by 10%.”

He dismissed the Obama administration’s contention that they stopped the recession from getting worse.

“The other day President Obama said, you know, it could be worse,” Romney said. “Sounds like Marie Antoinette, ‘Let them eat cake.’ ”…

This from the guy who, when challenged, immediately offers to bet $10,000.

One thing Mitt’s got is nerve.

But I want to thank him for reminding me of the old Allan Sherman song above. Enjoy.

Unless you’re a kid, you remember Allan Sherman. He’s the “Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah” guy.

Newt answers flag question as I would

3 Replies

Our friend Michael Rodgers brings this to my attention:

Brad,

Have you seen this video with Newt in Charleston?

The reactions of the crowd are revolting.  Why would they cheer so
much?  After all, the people of South Carolina want the flag down.
Our will is being thwarted by our legislature.  That’s where we are
today.  This issue is just one example of far too many issues where
partisan politics and legislative dominance trample over what’s
clearly right.

BTW, the Republican presidential primary in SC is just a few days
after MLK day.  It’s Saturday the 21st, when MLK day is Monday the
16th.  Should be an interesting week.

Regards,

Mike

Well, I have to say first that Newt answered the question about the way I would — although perhaps for different reasons, since he’s running for the GOP nomination here. Of course what we South Carolinians fly on the State House grounds is our business and no one else’s. And if I were a presidential candidate passing through from elsewhere, if asked, I would say, “That’s your problem, not mine.”

If someone from elsewhere could somehow coerce South Carolina into removing the flag, nothing would be accomplished. The only way that anything is accomplished by furling the flag is if South Carolina grows up enough to decide, on its own, through our elected representatives, to take that step.

That step is long, long overdue. Every day that we leave it there is an insult to our ancestors as well as to ourselves and our neighbors today. We’re not hurting anyone in the world but South Carolina by flying it, and it’s incumbent on us to decide we’ve engaged in far more than enough nonsense, and put the thing away. A banner designed to be taken into battle in a war we lost 146 years ago should be under glass in a museum (and we have one for that purpose), or represented with a modest bronze plaque, not flying as though it and what it stands for is alive.

It’s no one else’s concern. Of course, it helps them decide what they think of us. But so far, we’ve been satisfied to let them think what they like. Which is fine, in a way. Because in the end, we need to get rid of the flag because we understand that it’s wrong, that it’s something we need to put behind us. If we did it simply because of what others thought, and still wanted, deep-down, to fly it, nothing would be accomplished. We would not have grown as a people.

Everything I’ve ever written about the flag has been aimed at persuading my fellow South Carolinians who are not yet convinced that we need to go ahead and take it down. It’s about us, the people of this state. Always has been.

Perry ads amazingly trite, yet revelatory

6 Replies

I continue to be fascinated by Rick Perry’s TV ads, largely because they are so startlingly lacking in anything that might ordinarily fascinate an active mind.

They are so formulaic, so trite, so astoundingly lacking in originality, that it is truly remarkable.

And on top of that, they are badly executed — which is also surprising, since you would think that anyone would at least be able to present such simplistic messages without tripping over his laces. Take this bit of the script of the ad above:

The fox guarding the henhouse is like asking a Congressman to fix Washington: bad idea.

Obviously, what is meant here is, “asking a Congressman to fix Washington is like the fox guarding the henhouse.” The idea being criticized, being held up as a bad idea, is asking a congressman to fix Washington, and the universally understood cliche to which it is being compared is the fox guarding the henhouse. But the announcer gets it completely backward. Even if you told me that the script writer’s first language wasn’t English, it wouldn’t excuse this, because logic knows no language.

But, as bad as these ads are, they do reveal things about Perry, and with great economy of language.

Once again, what we learn about him (as we did back here) is that he assumes — or should I say, presumes — that the president of the United States is an absolute monarch who rules by fiat, with the other branches being completely subject to his will.

In this case, he plays on populist resentment of people who make more money than the voter (and he’s a Republican, right?) to endear the voter to his plan to emasculate and hobble the legislative branch. Elect me, he is saying, and I will wave my scepter and this thing you resent, this Congress, will become a poor, feeble thing, unable to wield any power any more (and unable to be a check on my power), too busy trying to scratch out a living back home to be an obstacle to the new King.

I say all this as someone who — as my readers well know — is a longtime champion of executive power here in South Carolina (a governor in control of the whole executive branch, a strong mayor in Columbia). But that’s because on the state and local levels here, the executive is so weak as to be unable to perform its proper function in a healthy government. That is not the case in Washington, and in any case, Perry overreaches to an extent that is shocking, and would be under any circumstance. Yes, he does so out of deep ignorance of the rule of law under our constitution, but that doesn’t make the (fortunately remote) prospect of him being president less chilling.

There’s a deeper irony here. In reality, the only way to bring about this poor shadow of the present Congress is, of course, to ask Congress to do it. No president could bring that about unilaterally. And as he says, asking Congress to “fix” Washington (according to his notion of “fixing”) is indeed like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. Or the other way around. Whatever.

Caucuses are, indeed, no way to pick a president

4 Replies

Samuel Tenenbaum brings this piece to my attention:

No way to pick a president

By , Wednesday, December 28, 11:50 AM

As the breathless, panting political class turns its eager eyes to Iowa, every sane American needs to step back and ask the obvious question: Is this any way to pick a president?

Our country is essentially coming to a halt to watch what 120,000 idiosyncratic voters in an idiosyncratic state do….

Absolutely, Matt Miller. I’ve said the same myself, four years ago:

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain,” said the great and powerful Oz. But I say it’s the guy voting in the privacy of a booth that we should heed. It’s the Iowa caucuses we should ignore.
As I write this [we’re talking Thursday afternoon, folks], I don’t know who won last night, and don’t care. I’ve got my eye on New Hampshire — and, of course, South Carolina.
The Washington Post’s David Broder had it right in his Thursday column when he called the caucuses a “double-distortion mirror” on the campaign. The turnout is tiny, consisting only of people who are willing to attend a two-hour night meeting during the week and declare their preference in front of the world.
Forget what happened last night if you were watching to see which candidate has the strongest support among voters of either party. All the caucuses measure is who can most effectively corral the most highly committed, vocal partisans at a given moment. It tests organization — and a very specialized form of it at that. Organizational skill is important — but it’s hardly everything. [Note this amendment today to this opinion.]…

Today, I heard them on NPR talking about the money being spent on TV ads in Iowa. You’re kidding me, right? The whole marketing world has turned away from mass media (preferring more targeted approaches) to the extent that the industry could no longer afford to pay guys like David Stanton and Robert Ariail and me, and yet these idiots are spending good money on TV ads to reach the handful of people who will attend caucuses? Really? Why not just go to their houses and talk to them?

When I was a very young political reporter, I went to Iowa to write about the 1980 caucuses. I thought they were important. They weren’t then (Ronald Reagan lost), and they aren’t now. But here we all are, with bated breath, again…

All you “progressives” out there: Don’t forget to vote for Mitt Romney next month!

21 Replies

Last night I was cleaning out email, and ran across this item from last week.

Actually, technically, it’s from 2002. In the clip, Mitt Romney assures Massachusetts voters, “My views are progressive.” And you know, at the moment, it may have been true.

In any case, you may have noticed he doesn’t say that much any more, for some reason.

Well played, sir: Newt says he’s got Wilkins

12 Replies

Not brother David, the ex-speaker and ambassador, but Billy Wilkins, the former head of the 4th Circuit:

After Gov. Nikki Haley endorsed Mitt Romney for president this morning, S.C. frontrunner Newt Gingrich responded by announcing the endorsements of Billy and Debra Wilkins.

Billy Wilkins is a partner at the Nexsen Pruet law firm and a former chief justice of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. His wife Debra is a former member of the board of visitors at the Medical University of South Carolina.

Gingrich’s campaign noted that Billy Wilkins is “most recently known for playing a pivotal role in Boeing’s decision to locate in South Carolina.”…

Billy Wilkins

Maybe it doesn’t cut much ice with the rank and file voters who still like Nikki Haley, but they are, ahem, in the minority now. As for this minority of one, I certainly find the endorsement of Judge Wilkins to be more impressive than the one Romney bagged. For what little that’s worth. Newt’s all like, Yo, maybe you’ve got Nikki, but I’ve got somebody serious. So much for me being the wild man, huh?

Interesting that Romney, the closest thing the GOP field has to an establishment candidate, gets the Tea Party governor’s backing, but Gingrich the Perpetual Insurgent comes up with an endorsement as Establishment as Billy Wilkins.

You just can’t make any assumptions in this contest…

Haley’s for Romney: So does that mean Gingrich has sewn up SC now?

13 Replies

I suppose you’ve seen this news:

Haley endorses Romney

By ADAM BEAM and GINA SMITH – [email protected], [email protected]

Gov. Nikki Haley has endorsed Mitt Romney for president and will campaign with him in Greenville today and Myrtle Beach and Charleston tomorrow.

“He is a conservative businessman who has spent his life working in the economy, and he understands exactly how jobs are created,” Haley said in a news release from Romney’s campaign.

In a none-too-veiled slap at Romney’s chief GOP rival, former House Speaker Next Gingrich, Haley added, “He is not a creature of Washington, and he knows what it means to make decisions – real decisions – not simply cast a vote.”…

The first thought this prompts is, Does this mean Newt Gingrich is a shoo-in in South Carolina? Maybe I’d better call back the folks from the British consulate and say, Hey, I now know what’s going to happen.

Or not. This year is so unpredictable that even an endorsement by a Republican who is less popular in South Carolina than Barack Obama is not a sure thing.

Now, confession time: I feel a little bad that that was my first thought. Because it means I’m thinking like those people who used to say that “The State‘s endorsement is the kiss of death.” Of course, they were so demonstrably wrong — I ran the numbers, and over the course of the years I was on the editorial board, 75 percent of our endorsees in general elections won — but I still hate to be so dismissive.

But what am I gonna do? That was the first thing it occurred to me to say. Of course, you might say that I could wait a minute, and have other thoughts. To which I would say, Hey, this is a blog, not print.

I suppose, if I do think a bit more, I would say:

  • No news here. It’s what everyone expected. She was for him in 2008, back when she was a mere backbencher. And he endorsed her early for governor (something I still can’t get used to; outsiders interfering in our elections).
  • Romney is using the standard playbook here, getting the endorsement of the sitting governor — as though he were George H.W. Bush, and she were Carroll Campbell. Well, he isn’t. And she isn’t. And this is a year in which the playbook seems to have been torn up. But we’ll see.
  • I wonder what she would have done had Sarah Palin stayed in it?

By the way, the national media still don’t get Nikki Haley and South Carolina. They think it’s a biggie, or at least some of them do. Samuel Tenenbaum said he was taken aback when he saw this reported on MSNBC at 5 this morning. (Routine for him; Samuel is an early riser.) But probably not everyone in SC reacted the way he did. Or the way I did. It takes all kinds to make up a South Carolina.

Which is my way of saying, maybe this is a bigger deal than I think it is. But it seems unlikely.