Category Archives: Parties

Pelosi picks Clyburn for supercommittee

19 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, you’d BETTER put this on sale…

6 Replies

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

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

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

This was brought to you by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. All rights reserved.

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

Thanks, SC5 and the rest of you; our country has for the first time lost its AAA credit rating

69 Replies

Well, it became official last night, about three hours after I had wrapped up my first Virtual Front Page in awhile:

S&P Strips U.S. of Top Credit Rating

A cornerstone of the global financial system was shaken Friday when officials at ratings firm Standard & Poor’s said U.S. Treasury debt no longer deserved to be considered among the safest investments in the world.

S&P removed for the first time the triple-A rating the U.S. has held for 70 years, saying the budget deal recently brokered in Washington didn’t do enough to address the gloomy outlook for America’s finances. It downgraded long-term U.S. debt to AA+, a score that ranks below more than a dozen countries, including Liechtenstein, and on par with Belgium and New Zealand. S&P also put the new grade on “negative outlook,” meaning the U.S. has little chance of regaining the top rating in the near term…

S&P said the downgrade “reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.” It also blamed the weakened “effectiveness, stability, and predictability” of U.S. policy making and political institutions at a time when challenges are mounting…

The WSJ report (and here are others from the NYT, NPR, BBC and the WashPost) goes on to say that it might not be too bad, since the other ratings agencies have kept the U.S. at the triple-A rating, then says…

But the move by S&P still could serve as a psychological haymaker for an American economic recovery that can’t find much traction, and could do more damage to investors’ increasing lack of faith in a political system that is struggling to reach consensus even on everyday policy matters. It could lead to the prompt debt downgrades of numerous companies and states, driving up their costs of borrowing. Policy makers are also anxious about any hidden icebergs the move could suddenly reveal.

Just what we needed, right?

As you see, the reason is that we failed to reach a comprehensive, rational, credible agreement on reducing U.S. debt. That was always the greater danger than the debt ceiling not being raised. And our elected representatives descended to the challenge of eroding the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

Of course, all involved in the government will vehemently defend their agreement against such condemnation as Standard & Poor’s. The Obama administration scoffed at S&P for making “a $2 trillion error” in its calculations. And indeed, well they might lash out, because all will share the blame.

But here’s the thing: Obama was willing to do a real deal. I’m not saying it would have fixed everything, but at least he was pushing the essential elements — both spending cuts and tax increases (or “reform” or “enhancements” or “revocation of cuts” or whatever you want to call it). That was and is essential to real deficit reduction for the simple fact that no one wants to go far enough in cuts.

Oh, four of the SC5 would go far enough. They have a nihilistic desire to cut, slash and burn; they are ideologues, and are not affected by pragmatic considerations. But Joe Wilson wouldn’t be with them; he wants to be re-elected. And if the cuts were deep enough to essentially eliminate the deficit without any revenue increases, they would be replaced in the next election by people who do give a damn about the essential functions of government (or what most voters regard as the essential functions of government, which in political terms amounts to the same thing). It would probably also split our two senators: DeMint cares little for the consequences of cutting, but Graham would balk at emasculating the U.S. military.

Gentlemen, if I may go so far as to call you “gentlemen,” you and those like you have brought us to this. I will watch, not without some trepidation, to see what you do next.

ANY deal thrown together like this will do bad stuff

19 Replies

This release came out a little while ago from Lindsey Graham:

Graham to Oppose Debt-Limit Compromise

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today said he will oppose the compromise debt-limit agreement negotiated between congressional leaders and President Obama.

Graham said:

“I cannot in good conscience support this deal. Simply stated, it locks us into more debt, bigger government and most devastating of all, a weakened defense infrastructure at a time when we face growing threats.

“This agreement adds over $7 trillion in new debt over the next decade and only makes small reductions in future spending.  We hardly address the future growth of entitlements, a major contributor of future budgetary problems.  Instead of our nation running toward bankruptcy we will be walking toward bankruptcy.

“If fully implemented, the consequences to our nation’s defense infrastructure would be severe.  And these deep cuts would come at a time when threats to our nation are increasing, not declining.  What has happened to the Party of Reagan who viewed the primary purpose of the federal government was to provide a strong national defense?

“This agreement legitimizes the concept that defense spending is not only equal to other areas of federal spending, but is of lesser importance.  This is a philosophical shift I will have no part of.

“I fear this agreement will destroy our nation’s defense infrastructure at a time when we need them the most.  The only part of our nation’s budget which is really exposed to serious consequences under this compromise is the Department of Defense.

“I have always believed we have to raise our nation’s debt-ceiling but it should be done in a responsible manner.  I support raising the debt-ceiling for a period of nine months, the historical average since 1940, accompanied by a dollar-to-dollar spending cuts to debt-ceiling increase.  In effect, this basically is the first portion of the Boehner-Reid proposal.”

#####

And  it got me to thinking…

Almost by definition, almost any deal at this point that both raises the debt ceiling and addresses the deficit (which must happen to avoid a devastating credit downgrade) will contain elements that do things no intelligent person would want to do.

Such as, as the senator mentions, eviscerating our defense infrastructure.

And yet we have to go ahead and make a bad deal anyway, because we’re out of time to make a good one that would benefit the country.

Helluva situation, isn’t it? For an explanation of how we got here, watch this. Yes, it’s silly, but anything that explained this would be.

The Tea Party might be right about one thing. It may be time for a revolution. Because this whole thing just isn’t working, and hasn’t for a while.

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

66 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What McCain had to say about the “hobbits” who are precipitating this crisis

13 Replies

You may have heard about John McCain’s speech excoriating the likes of the South Carolina delegation, and the Tea Party in general. Here’s the full text. Here’s an excerpt:

I will take a backseat to none in my support of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I have voted for it 13 times. I will vote for it tomorrow. What is amazing about this is, some Members are believing we can pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in this body with its present representation, and that is foolish. That is worse than foolish. That is deceiving many of our constituents by telling them that just because the majority leader tabled the balanced budget amendment legislation that, through amending and debate, we could somehow convince the majority on the other side of the aisle to go along with a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That is not fair. That is not fair to the American people to hold out and say we will not agree to raising the debt limit until we pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is unfair. It is bizarro. Maybe some people who have only been in this body for 6 or 7 months or so believe that. Others know better. Others know better.

I especially like the way he ended it:

It is time we listened to the markets. It is time we listened to our constituents. Most of all, it is time we listened to the American people and sit down and seriously negotiate something before we face a situation where we are depriving the American people of the fundamental right of having a government that doesn’t deprive them of the essential services, goods, and entitlements which they have earned.

Oh, and in case you wondered where the “hobbits” part come in. That was from when McCain was quoting from this piece in the WSJ. An excerpt from that:

The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue, and the public will turn en masse against . . . Barack Obama. The Republican House that failed to raise the debt ceiling would somehow escape all blame. Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea-party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor.

Slouching toward history’s first intentional Great Depression

22 Replies

We’ve been here before, back in the late ’20s and throughout the ’30s. But this time, we’re going to do it on purpose.

There’s blame to go around, in the long view. The Democrats did their bit leading us up to this point, but they’ve been offering compromises lately, and occasionally even making sense. Here in the home stretch, most of the “credit” for a crash will belong to the Republicans and their Kool-Aid-drinking — I mean Tea-drinking — friends.

Yesterday, the five Republican members of South Carolina’s congressional delegation “distinguished” themselves by being the most obstinate state bloc in the GOP caucus. Not that the Boehner plan was anything to write home about, or anything likely to get us toward a resolution. Today, I see that Boehner’s doing better among his caucus, but for all I know, our guys are still firing on Fort Sumter. (Anybody see an update on the SC part? I haven’t yet.)

But after all the tears and folderol in the House, whatever they pass will be DOA in the Senate, where Reid has a plan of his own. I fail to see how these two plans lead us to an actual solution before Tuesday.

And here’s the thing, folks — it’s not good enough to raise the debt limit. The ratings agencies will still probably downgrade the nation’s (AND South Carolina’s) credit rating, which will likely take our already staggering economy (did I mention that the newspaper company that laid me off two years ago just posted a 2nd-quarter loss of 32 percent?), and knock it right down onto the mat. UNLESS we take serious steps toward getting the deficits under control. And that’s WAY harder than just raising the ceiling.

You’d think — what with the fact that about the only thing our state’s leaders have had to brag about for the last 20 years has been our vaunted AAA rating — that the SC delegation would want to do something positive toward averting this disaster, wouldn’t you? Well, so far, you’d be wrong.

You know what happened in the U.K. after the Conservatives — the real conservatives, not these ruffians over here who take pride in throwing the Tories’ tea into the harbor — took over the government? They cut spending, and raised taxes. I was there when the taxes went up (see, “The terrible, awful, horrible day that the VAT went up,” Jan. 4) Far as I know, England is still there. Scotland, too. Maybe even Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Nobody wants to raise taxes at a time like this. It can have a cooling effect. Nor does a sensible person want to see drastic spending cuts, which can do the same. But the alternative to doing both looks considerably worse at the moment. And wanting to do one without the other — no, insisting upon doing one without the other, no matter what — is a form of madness.

Just something to think about, guys. Here at the last minute.

Rorschach test: The new congressional districts

27 Replies

Until this morning, I had not had a chance to look at the congressional districts as passed by the Legislature on Tuesday. All that hoo-hah over the new 7th District distracted the coverage from what I, and others who live in the Midlands, wanted to know: What do the 2nd and the 6th look like?

But The Post and Courier has obliged me, and I urge you to go there to see the graphic full-sized.

This was brought to my attention this morning by a friend who presented it as a political Rorschach test: Look at the images, and then state which of them you think is the more gerrymandered, the old or the new?

Not to prejudice your opinion, but to me it’s fairly obvious that the new is less gerrymandered. Certainly the 2nd — no more of that reaching-down-to-Beaufort nonsense. And the new 7th is nicely blocky — no spider legs there.

Of course, the 6th still looks ridiculous coming into Richland only to cut the heart out of it, leaving the rest to Joe Wilson.

And of course, there’s the beef for Democrats — the 6th has WAY more Black Voting Age Population than Jim Clyburn wants or needs. It is the dumping ground for black voters, so that the Republicans don’t have to deal with them in the other six districts.

But don’t look for Dick Harpootlian’s threatened lawsuit to materialize. Or if it does, don’t look for a court to give it the time of day. The Legislature passed this; there was no impasse. The Dems just lost the argument. Their interest in it is clearly partisan.

It is of course inherently racist to gather up as many black voters and stuff them into one district. But Republicans will point to Tim Scott and go their merry way.

Hurrah for the House Republicans — they reject recall

22 Replies

The SC Democratic Party is griping about this:

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

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

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

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

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

-###-

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

Another GOP official who “likes” cop-killing post

6 Replies

Politico is now reporting that “Corey Norris,” whom it identifies as “a district director for the Lexington County GOP,” has also approving posted the “When Should You Shoot a Cop” post, saying, “VERY good article. Think about it.”

I don’t know whether that’s the same guy as this Cory Norris out of Chapin, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Sample Tweet:

If you live with your boot on the throat of the masses, don’t be surprised if your ankle eventually gets broken.

Jeff Mattox is looking less like an aberration. As the Sage of Wichita used to say, “That’s twice. Once more and it’s a trend, and we can send it to Lifestyles.”

You need to be careful about your associations

33 Replies

This devil’s bargain that the GOP has made with the Tea Party since the GOP’s traumatic loss in 2008 — which seems to have driven the party half-mad with grief, and into the arms of the snake-flag crowd — just looks worse and worse. And not just from the perspective of UnPartisans like me. I would feel a lot worse about it were I a Republican. I mean a real one — of the Lincoln, Eisenhower, or Reagan variety.

Of course, the Democrats are eating it up; they think it’s great — the crazier their opponents get, the better they like it.

For the rest of us, watching these extremists drag down the GOP in the debt “debate,” and the GOP still clinging hard enough to drag the country and the world’s economy down with it, is pretty agonizing.

And if you’re a Republican, this has to be really uncomfortable. First, they helped people like Nikki Haley roll right over the actual conservatives like Henry McMaster (and Bob Inglis, and others).

And then, you have to watch stuff like this Kershaw County “when to shoot a cop” thing just getting worse and worse. It gets hard to disassociate yourself from a guy like Jeff Mattox, as much as you’d like to.

Last night, the picture above cropped up in two places — in an e-mail from the Democratic Party, and in a post by Will Folks. It purports to show Jeff Mattox, the Kershaw County GOP co-chair and member of Kershaw County Patriots (which, according to the Camden paper, he calls a Tea Party group) with you-know-who.

If you’re a mainstream Republican, you cringe in private at Nikki Haley being your governor, if you’re paying attention. Now you have to face the fact that all this anti-government stuff takes you to some pretty crazy places. It’s a matter of degrees, a series of steps.

  1. One step: Mere anti-government rhetoric, with a hint of menace. Gov. Haley likes to say people in government “are incredibly scared and it’s a beautiful thing.”
  2. Another step: This Mattox guy “likes” the cop-killing post, but says he doesn’t really want to kill cops: “No. It’s just kind of a conversation.” Eloquent defense, huh?
  3. Next step: “Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET ‘law enforcers’ have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them.”

And then you have cops in Kershaw County going around wearing body armor.

It’s all connected. And it’s no wonder that Matt Moore and others over at party HQ are trying to cut themselves off from the more extreme end of the rope.

GOP official likes “when to shoot a cop” link

22 Replies

First, the Facebook page of a Tea Party-related group called “Kershaw County Patriots” posts a link to a blog article headlined, “When Should You Shoot A Cop.” A sample of that content:

Pick any example of abuse of power, whether it is the fascist “war on drugs,” the police thuggery that has become so common, the random stops and searches now routinely carried out in the name of “security” (e.g., at airports, “border checkpoints” that aren’t even at the border, “sobriety checkpoints,” and so on), or anything else. Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If it’s wrong for cops to do these things, doesn’t that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions? Of course, state mercenaries don’t take kindly to being resisted, even non-violently. If you question their right to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your home, and so on, you are very likely to be tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot. If a cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it “legally” or not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop. You can’t resist a cop ”just a little” and get away with it. He will always call in more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or dead.

Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.)

The Facebook link, by “Marlene Motley,” includes this commentary:

‎’If politicians think that they have the right to impose any “law” they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it’s called “law,” they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the “law-makers” or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define what counts as “law,” then by definition it is up to the “law-breakers” to combat tyranny.’

Then, Jeff Mattox, who has been identified by Politico and the Camden paper as “a co-chair” of the Kershaw County Republican Party, tells the world that he “Likes” the Facebook post.

The Camden Chronicle-Independent quotes Mattox as explaining:

Police sometimes do overstep their bounds… but advocate shooting a cop? No. It’s just kind of a conversation.

The Camden cops are kind of upset, according to the local paper. And they’re not fooling around, according to Politico: “Local police are reportedly wearing body armor in response to the post.”

I haven’t seen anything like this since G. Gordon Liddy recommended dealing with cops with a “head shot.” How about you?

Onion: “God Urges Rick Perry Not To Run”

21 Replies

Speaking of Rick Perry, which we were doing in passing back here…

I don’t go in for blasphemy, which means I don’t like it when politicians (usually conservatives) claim to be tighter with God than other people, or when critics (usually liberals) make fun of them for it. I especially, speaking from my own brand of conservatism, don’t like it when people presume to put words in God’s mouth.

But I must confess to you, my brothers and sisters, that I did find the point brought up by The Onion here at least worth discussing:

July 21, 2011 | ISSUE 47•29

AUSTIN, TX—Describing Texas Gov. Rick Perry as grossly unqualified for the position, God, the Creator and Ruler of the Universe, urged Perry not to run for president of the United States Wednesday. “I prayed last night and asked the Lord to support my candidacy, and He said no,” Perry told reporters outside the Texas Capitol, explaining that God had cited the governor’s rejection of federal stimulus funds to expand state jobless benefits, his irresponsible speculation about Texas seceding from the union, and his overall lack of concrete solutions to nation’s problems as reasons why He could not endorse a Perry presidential bid. “I believe God made some valid points about my lack of credentials, and He’s absolutely right. My extreme beliefs when it comes to social issues and states’ rights are not only disturbingly narrow-minded, but would also make me a horrible president.” When reached for comment, God said He would not be present at Perry’s much-talked-about Christian day of prayer on Aug. 6, calling the governor’s use of his public office to endorse a religion both “irresponsible” and a violation of the Constitution.

OK, it’s not as funny or creative as some Onion stuff. I’ll confess that, too. I think they sort of called this one in. They thought, “Somebody needs to make this point, and it might as well be us.” What keeps it from being brilliant is that the writer couldn’t resist making serious points, and even doing it in a sort of preachy manner.

But hey, I thought that referring you to it would be one way of bringing up the topic of Perry suggesting that he is on a mission from God. So we could discuss it.

Personally, I don’t think God wants to get involved in the Perry candidacy one way or the other. I am, of course, not positive about that. I could ask Him, in order to make sure, but I really don’t like to bother Him with stuff like that.

We can go where we like, but Haley BFF Eleanor Kitzman is going to Texas

12 Replies

The best historical marker in the world is on the Madison County courthouse square in Jackson, TN. It tells what Davy Crockett told a group of voters, standing in that spot, after being defeated for re-election to Congress:

You can go to hell, but I am going to Texas!

Today, we have a similar case in South Carolina. Eleanor Kitzman, head of the Budget and Control board and the most passionate, emotional defender of Gov. Nikki Haley I’ve run across yet, is leaving us to go work for Rick Perry:

COLUMBIA, S.C. — The director of the South Carolina agency that oversees much of state government operations has resigned, six months after Gov. Nikki Haley picked her for the job, to take a role in government in her home state of Texas.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s office announced Wednesday that Eleanor Kitzman will start her job as that state’s insurance commissioner on Aug. 15. Her term there is set to expire in February 2013.

“I’m confident that Eleanor’s expertise in the insurance industry will make her a strong advocate for insurance customers in Texas,” Perry said in a release.

Kitzman, a 54-year-old Houston native, did not immediately return messages Wednesday evening.

Things that would never occur to Jim DeMint

34 Replies

Cindi had a good column today on the subject of arbitrary caps and limits and pledges and the like. There are a number of good things to get out of it.

The first is the fact that Jon Huntsman is the only Republican presidential candidate who has refused to sign Jim DeMint’s Cut, Cap and Whatever pledge — which apparently irritates our junior senator no end.

Jim is all like, “I won’t support any candidate who does not support balancing the budget. … So for me, he’s out.”

Which ignores reality, of course. It doesn’t occur to Jim (or at least, he lets on that it doesn’t occur to him, on account of amassing personal political power now being the most important thing to him, judging by his actions) that a guy could be for a balanced budget amendment (which Huntsman is) and not want to kowtow to him by signing his pledge. For that matter, just to go way deeper into territory that Jim DeMint would find impossible to imagine, one can be for, very passionately for, a balanced budget — and yet not favor a constitutional amendment mandating it.

Personally, I’m ambivalent about the amendment thing. A balanced budget should be standing operating procedure, except in times of full-mobilization war and other serious emergencies. But that should be an annual decision by Congress, not a mechanism. Whether we’ve reached the point that we have to throw out that process is not yet entirely clear to me. Maybe we have. I’m just not sure.

That aside, though, there’s a bigger point here — a point even bigger than the national debt. It goes to the heart of representative democracy:

But there’s an important principle involved as well: Pledging to do or not do anything important is an abdication of elected officials’ duty to examine the issues before them and make their own decisions on behalf of their constituents. And it makes it impossible for officials to govern in a changing world. Imagine the pledges some politicians might have signed before 9/11 — and how that could have prevented them from taking necessary actions to protect our nation after the attacks “changed everything.”

Yes! Yes! YESSSS!!! (Waiter, I’ll have what he’s having…) Continuing…

When you sign away your right to consider all your options, when you are bound by uninformed opinions, when you take directions from people whose primary purpose is to maintain power and defeat those who don’t think exactly as they do, rather than taking advantage of different points of view to come up with the best solutions, then you can’t even imagine the complex solutions to our state’s interwoven ills, much less enact them.

Sounds like Cindi was listening all those years, huh? Not that she couldn’t have come up with all those thoughts on her own. Come to think of it, maybe it was me listening to her…

How furious was Kenny Bingham? See for yourself

30 Replies

I wasn’t there when S.C. House Majority Leader Kenny Bingham tore into Nikki Haley on June 29, claiming her office misled lawmakers on the budget. But I had heard it was really something. After all, it got Kenny a standing ovation, which sort of tells you where our governor stands in the estimation of that Republican-dominated body.

Somehow, it didn’t occur to me to look for the speech on YouTube until someone mentioned it this week. I urge you to watch it.

By the way, for a fuller explanation of what happened, read Cindi Scoppe’s column of July 3.

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

21 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

Dick said no. But his actions say otherwise.

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

Harpootlian calls Jon Huntsman disloyal and disingenuous.

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

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

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

Press a button, and your iPhone shouts ‘You lie!’

1 Reply

Had to smile at this release about Joe Wilson going all high-tech:

Dear Subscriber,

Today, I am excited to tell you of the newest way you can stay in touch with the campaign by getting the latest updates, news, and stories: a new mobile application available for free to anyone with a smart phone.

As you all know, I love staying in touch with as many of you as I possibly can. This application is designed for just that purpose.   It allows me to reach out to you and post updates on local campaign events in your area, different ways for you and your friends to get involved with the campaign, and opportunities for me to visit with you in your community as well as news on the Second Congressional District of South Carolina.

Other features of the app include: interactive poll questions and direct feedback with me. I am also planning to launch a live video chat service in the future that I am very excited about.

In order to save this application to your phone, all you need to do is open up a webpage from your smart phone and visit www.joewilsonforcongress.com.  The mobile website will automatically redirect you to instructions on how to bookmark the application on your phone for future use.

I look forward to getting to know you better, and I hope you will join me by using your smart phone to visit www.joewilsonforcongress.com.

Sincerely,

Joe Wilson
U.S. Congressman

Actually, back to my intro, does anybody say “high-tech” any more? I think that term was trendy in Esquire back in the ’70s. I need to update myself. Maybe Joe could help me…

Nikki Haley was at Rotary today, too

35 Replies

OK, so Lee Bandy wasn’t the only person visiting Columbia Rotary today. He was just the one I enjoyed seeing the most. Nikki Haley made her first appearance at the club since back during the election.

As I said on Twitter, she gave a good speech, centered around her usual themes. She just gets smoother and stronger at that all the time. Guess I was wrong when I said she peaked that day with Sarah Palin; she has continued to maintain her speaking skills at a high level. So I guess it’s more accurate to say she reached a plateau on May 14, 2010. Either that, or this is another peak. If so, I’m not sure what put her in her Zone.

Certainly not audience reaction. The Rotarians applauded a couple of times — the biggest response was when she was sticking up for Boeing. But it was polite, not what anyone would call enthusiastic.

Speaking of polite, I thought you’d enjoy the above clip when our own Kathryn Fenner — who had publicly expressed uneasiness ahead of time about whether she would behave herself — challenged Nikki in a deeply respectful manner. Did it better than I would have. Whenever I’m confronted with any of Nikki’s bumper-sticker platitudes, which she pronounces with such deep conviction, I tend to go into pompous lecturing mode, as I did on this occasion (dang it; I can’t find a link to that video…) in response to her umpteenth repetition in my presence that the wanted to “run government like a business.”

What Kathryn responded to is, like the government-as-business thing (which tends to be spoken with the greatest enthusiasm by people who understand neither business nor government), a favorite of politicians of the libertarian-populist variety. It always goes something like, When families have a windfall, they save it rather than spending it. Which, of course, is nonsense. In hard times, families are more likely to spend a windfall on the necessities they’ve been deferring, such as that new roof on the house, or warm winter coats for the kids. Ditto with the related nostrum, When families fall on hard times, they tighten their belts. Yeah, of course they do — and at the same time they search frantically for ways to bring more revenue into the house. But people too seldom challenge these facile sayings, so it was good that Kathryn did so, and so very politely.

The speech itself, while well delivered, didn’t have anything in it that I found both new and interesting. I’ll be interested to see what the working media who were there lead with. I saw that Yvonne Wenger of The Post and Courier Tweeted this: “Haley unveils preliminary details on faith-based, community-based Neighbors Helping Neighbors program to get state engaged in meeting needs.” But there weren’t many such details. And that’s kind of a yawner. Republicans, even more mainstream Republicans than Nikki, are constantly trying to show they care by calling on churches to do what they don’t want government to do. You know, like maybe the churches aren’t actually trying now, and need the governor to tell them how.

Anyway, that was just in passing, in response to a question. Her main thrust was pretty much standard boilerplate, talking about what she saw as the main accomplishments of her first months in office — roll call voting, other stuff you’ve read about before.

It was interesting to see the rather substantial media contingent at the meeting — one of the larger such turnouts I’ve seen at South Carolina’s largest Rotary club. Their presence seemed to indicate they saw this as a bit of an event. I suppose the governor doesn’t get out much and speak to large groups here in the Midlands — I don’t know; I’ve never thought much about it. I know she talks to the media less than predecessors, which is probably why the press and broadcast types were dutifully lined up at the door waiting to catch her on her way out. (You’ll note on the video that she sort of promises to take questions from them later. I suppose she did. My ride left before that.)

I did have one small moment of epiphany during the Q and A, something that perhaps shed a light on why I don’t see things her way more often: “I’m a reality TV nut,” she said. Suddenly, a lot of stuff fell into place for me…

Seriously, though, I look forward to seeing what the reporters who were there get out of it.

Good column by Warren about Jim Manning

10 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Manning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I recently asked him what he meant by that.

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

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

The key word there is “judgment.”

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

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

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

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

Indeed.