Category Archives: Parties

I become a five-timer on Pub Politics (no, excuse me — THE five-timer)

Pub Politics Episode 45: Subterranean Night, Part 2 from Wesley Donehue on Vimeo.

Here, finally (not that I’m complaining, Wesley), is the video from my record-setting appearance as the first five-time guest on “Pub Politics.” This episode was taped in front of a sizable and enthusiastic studio audience (with whom you’ll see us interact a bit, even though, alas, you can’t see them) at The Whig last Wednesday night, Feb. 16, 2011.

Here is Wesley’s blurb on the show, or rather this segment of it:

The boys of Pub Politics meet up in the basement bar known in Columbia as The Whig for a subterranean night. Political blogger and former journalist Brad Warthen and WACH Fox news director Bryan Cox jump on for segment 2 to the intersection of the Internet and journalism.

Join Brad Warthen online at bradwarthen.com.

Visit WACH Fox online at midlandsconnect.com.

A HUGE thank you to The Whig for hosting us. Visit them at thewhig.org.

And of course we were talking about this, which is why Bryan and I were there.

Who, if anyone, is the grownup in the governor’s office? (Hint: It SHOULD be the governor)

Have you seen Kevin Fisher’s column about the Nikki Haley/WACH thing? It’s pretty good; you should check it out.

For my part, this bit reminded me of something I wanted to share:

Haley made the post late on a Sunday evening, presumably in the privacy of the governor’s mansion. Would she have done so the next morning after talking it over with advisers while sitting in the governor’s office? I doubt it. She strikes me as too smart to have made a mistake like this upon reflection, and certainly her communications staff would have advised against it (or if not, she should move quickly to get new communications people).

Last night on “Pub Politics” (which was a good show, with an excellent studio audience filling up The Whig — Shop Tart was there! so was Laurin!), Wesley Donehue made a related point, but in a far more outrageous way.

In defending Nikki — or trying to — he basically tried to excuse her immature and inappropriate published insult of WACH on the fact that it was spontaneous, and of course she wouldn’t have said something like that if she had consulted with her staff first. (I forget his exact words, but I’ll post the whole show when he sends me the embed code, by tomorrow probably.)

This set me off.

OK, I said, I can dig that Wesley and Phil Bailey might think it’s OK to say something like that, because after all, they themselves are unelected political operatives hired by elected officials. Professional pride, if nothing else, might lead to such thinking.

But folks, the governor is the governor. The governor is the boss of those people, the one who should be the grownup in the room, checking and correcting her subordinates, not the other way around. The governor is the one who was ELECTED by the people, the one who is accountable to them.

Yes, I realize we have a governor who was nowhere near ready, someone seriously lacking in the kinds of professional and life experiences that prepare one to be the boss (and a politically accountable boss, which is an even more demanding job requirement). We have someone in the office who a year ago was a very junior, very green back-bencher, suddenly thrust into leadership.

It happens. (The unfortunate thing about this situation is that she has no one on her staff to BE that grownup for her, to make up for her own lack. Mark Sanford had Fred Carter, but unfortunately failed to listen to him, and ran him off. Who can play that role for Nikki? Not her chief of staff — he doesn’t even know the system or the players; he’s a political operative from out of state. A mature type like Fred Carter who was from out of state, a real pro from Dover, could make up for his lack of local knowledge with pure, transferable professionalism, the knowledge that in ANY state, there are things you do and say and things you don’t. But as we saw with the Curtis Loftis incident, Tim Pearson is not that guy. Or at least, he hasn’t shown us that guy yet. But I digress. Of course, that’s what parentheticals are for.)

But SHE was the one who decided to go off half-cocked on Facebook. And even if she’d done it on advice of staff, SHE would be the one responsible for it.

Where we’re headed: Pack heat, or else

Have y’all seen this?

COLUMBIA, S.C. — A House panel on Thursday will take up a bill that would allow anyone who can legally own a firearm in the state to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

The move to loosen gun laws comes in the wake of the Jan. 8 Arizona shootings that killed six and left U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords recovering from a gunshot wound to the head, as well as a Dec. 14 incident in Florida where an armed man threatened school board members before he was fatally shot by security.

But rather than seeking to tighten gun restrictions, as some Democrats have urged President Barack Obama to do on the federal level, South Carolina lawmakers are looking at how to make it easier to carry weapons for protection…

Yes, it said LOOSEN our concealed carry law. You know, the one that I had thought had been already been made looser than a gang-banger’s waistband by previous legislation.

Why do we see legislation like this every couple of years? Because we get NEW ideologues in the Legislature who weren’t part of the previous liberalization, and felt left out, and are trying to make their mark and prove to constituents and posterity that THEY, personally, love guns more than anyone.

You know where this is going, don’t you? Another couple of election cycles with heavy Tea Party involvement, and we’ll have legislative newbies pushing legislation requiring us all to go armed at all times. (And if anyone complains that such compulsion violates their rights, they will blame Obama for starting the whole mandate trend with his health care thing.)

I don’t know if I’ll be able to afford it. Have you seen what guns cost these days? It’s not like in Lee Harvey’s day.

Who would do that, who was not being PAID to do it?

I guess the answer to my question is, Nick McLaughlin would:

COMMITTEE TO DRAFT DONALD TRUMP IN 2012 FORMED

National and New Hampshire Leaders Named
ST. CHARLES, MO. — Decorated Iraq War veteran Nick McLaughlin of St. Charles, Missouri, has announced the formation of a grass-roots, all volunteer organization to draft New York developer Donald J. Trump for the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination.
McLaughlin saw combat in three tours in Iraq in the US Marine Corp and was hit by shrapnel from a car bomb in Ubush, Iraq. He was awarded a Purple Heart and nine other medals including a Presidential citation.

“Under Barak Obama, America has become a laughingstock around the world,” said McLaughlin. “America needs a strong leader like Donald Trump to restore America’s economic strength and respect around the world.”

McLaughlin, who has never been active in politics before, said he had filed the committee with the Federal Election Commission and that the organization was not directed, authorized or funded by Trump. “I have never met Mr. Trump,” said McLaughlin, “But I am certain he is the man America needs.”…

Volunteer? Really? Who would actually want Donald Trump to be president of the United States, and want it bad enough to spend time and energy trying to make it happen, except for someone who was being paid to do it?

This is a question to which I do not have an answer.

I’m not doubting the guy’s word; I just don’t understand his motivations.

Tom Davis has the right approach on cameras

Sen. Tom Davis is my favorite Sanfordista, because while he believes some unlikely things with which I disagree, he at least takes a reasonable approach to things. He has a laudable willingness to engage with people with other views, and to avoid letting his ideology blind him:

BEAUFORT, SC (AP) – Beaufort Sen. Tom Davis wants a commission to study automated traffic cameras like the ones being used in Ridgeland on Interstate 95.

Ridgeland’s use of the cameras to catch speeders has prompted a senator to offer a bill to outlaw the cameras, as well as a federal lawsuit challenging the use of the cameras.

Davis wants a panel of members of state government, law enforcement and the South Carolina Bar Association to report to lawmakers by Nov. 1.

Bonneau Sen. Larry Grooms wants to ban traffic tickets based on photos and to require police to give tickets to drivers within an hour of a violation.

Ridgeland has mailed tickets to more than 8,000 drivers since last summer.

Some Beaufort County House members have offered a bill to ensure the traffic cameras are legal.

Yes, study it. While I vehemently defend the local government’s right to do this without being stepped on by the state (that subsidiarity thing again), I’d like to know more. I have my own reservations. For instance, don’t you lose a deterrent effect when the speeder is not stopped at the time of the offense (which tends to slow him down, at least for a time). Is that deterrent loss offset by the signage warning drivers of the camera’s presence? I don’t know.

But the standard should be, What works? Not vague anti-gummint ideology, or the preferences of the defense lawyers who represent speeders, or the perverse urge to frustrate local communities’ desire to govern themselves without state interference, or any of the other factors that tend to predominate in our XGR.

Here’s where that path leads, Lindsey

Just to elaborate a bit on that last post, in which I wrote about how once-sensible Republicans are dancing with madness these days…

I’d just like to point out to Sen. Graham where all this “hate Obamacare to the point that we’ll hurt actual South Carolinians by blowing it up” stuff leads.

Continue down that path, and you cease to be that voice of reason you’ve always been in Washington, that Gang of 14 guy, the guy who took a bullet for comprehensive immigration reform, the guy who at least for a time fought for the Energy Party platform at great personal political risk, the guy who could get President Obama to listen to reason on national security. You cease being all that (which is a national tragedy, because the nation NEEDS you to play that role), and you end up being state Sen. Lee Bright. I mean this guy:

Sen. Lee Bright: SC should coin its own money

Continuing a pattern of attempts to assert South Carolina’s independence from the federal government, State Sen. Lee Bright, R-Roebuck, has introduced legislation that backs the creation of a new state currency that could protect the financial stability of the Palmetto State in the event of a breakdown of the Federal Reserve System.

Bright’s joint resolution calls for the creation of an eight-member joint subcommittee to study the proposal and submit a report to the General Assembly by Nov. 1.

The Federal Reserve System has come under ever-increasing strain during the last several years and will be exposed to ever-increasing and predictably debilitating strain in the years to come, according to the legislation.

“If there is an attempt to monetize the Fed we ought to at least have a study on record that could protect South Carolinians,” Bright said in an interview Friday.

“If folks lose faith in the dollar, we need to have some kind of backup.”

The legislation cites the rights reserved to states in the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings in making the case that South Carolina is within its rights to create its own currency…

Thank Bud for bringing that to my attention. I hadn’t seen coverage of it. But the Boston Globe has noted it. And these guys are applauding it. (This really embarrassing stuff tends to come to my attention this way. While SC media is trying to look the other way — or rather spending its time covering legislation that might actually pass, which sounds better — the rest of the country is chortling. When Mike Pitts proposed doing away with the Yankee dollar and replacing it with gold and silver, I first learned about it from Burl Burlingame and The Onion.)

Sen. Bright, by the way, was last seen pushing broader legislation to protect South Carolina’s “rights” (which rights were under siege was unclear, but then it usual is) from encroaching federal power in general. You may or may not recall that I wrote about it in a post headlined “These guys cannot POSSIBLY be serious.” I led with a reference to that scene from “Gettysburg” with the Confederate prisoners speaking nonsensically about fighting for their nonspecific “rats.” You know how I like movie allusions.

Anyway, that’s where you could end up.

You don’t want to go there, do you, Lindsey? I didn’t think so. But that’s where this “seceding from Obamacare” stuff leads…

If SC “opts out” of Obamacare, you will definitely have stepped over the line

I say that because, between the two of them — him and Nikki Haley — I figure he’s the one more likely to listen to reason. At least, I would normally think that, although his recent behavior on this subject injects a large measure of doubt.

Here’s what I’m on about:

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham and Gov. Nikki Haley on Monday opened the S.C. front in the Republican Party’s battle to roll back health care legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama last year.

At a State House news conference, Graham and Haley took turns blasting the law as an expensive federal takeover of the nation’s health care system. Graham said the law, which won 60 votes in the 100-member U.S. Senate, was passed through a “sleazy” process that offered no opportunity for GOP input.

Graham also said he has introduced legislation to allow South Carolina and other states to “opt out” of the law, which is being challenged in federal courts.

“I’m confident that, if given the chance, a large number of states would opt out of the provisions regarding the individual mandate, employer mandate and expansion of Medicaid,” Graham said, referring to requirements in the law that individuals buy insurance, companies offer it and Medicaid be expanded to cover those without insurance. “As more states opt out, it will have the effect of repealing and replacing Obamacare.”

Last time, I was sort of seriocomic in warning Sen. Graham that he was goin’ to messin’, with my “Lindsey, fill yer hands; I’m a callin’ you out” post.

It’s not funny any more.

In fact, this is the one thing that leading Republicans (or anyone else who got such a notion) could do that would be totally beyond the pale, truly unforgivable.

Look, I get it: You don’t like Obama. No, scratch that: What I get is that your constituents don’t like Obama (in some cases for reasons that don’t bear a lot of scrutiny), so you’re playing to that. I doubt Nikki has any strong feelings toward the president one way or the other (she never even had occasion to think about him until she decided to become the Tea Party’s Dream Girl last year) and for his part Lindsey is perfectly happy to work with him in a collegial manner. But they’re trying to stay in the game with Jim “Waterloo” DeMint, and this leads to trying to fake the symptoms of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

I fully get the fact that since the defeat of November 2008 (when, it you’ll recall, I endorsed both John McCain and Lindsey Graham), the Republican Party has gone stark, raving mad, having concluded that its problem in ’08 was that it wasn’t extreme enough, not wacky enough, causing it, as it wandered lost in the post-apocalyptic landscape, to embrace the Tea Party in its lonely desperation. I get all that.

But that is a disgusting, absurd, inexcusable, disgustingly irresponsible reason to try to prevent the people of South Carolina — who have perhaps more need for health care reform than people in any other state — from deriving any benefit that might accrue from the federal health care legislation.

No, the thing dubbed “Obamacare” doesn’t accomplish much; it’s a bit of a Frankenstein of a bill. But it actually would do SOME people SOME good. And it at least has the one essential element that one would have to have in any attempt to address the crisis in paying for health care in this country, the national mandate — which, absurdly, is the ONE thing you object to most vehemently. (We’ve discussed in the past how there’s no point in talking about “reform” unless you start with the premise that everybody has to be in the game for it to work, so I won’t go on and on about it now.)

Yep, Obamacare is pretty inadequate. But you have NOTHING to replace it with, nothing in the wings (with any chance of passing, or any chance of doing any good if it DID pass) to do what little good Obamacare will do.

So trying to tear it down is nothing but an act of pure destruction. And the thing you’re destroying is the ONE thing that’s been done lately to address the one greatest domestic need in this country.

I expect this kind of nonsense from Nikki Haley (the Tea Party Nikki Haley that is, not the promising young House member I used to know). But Lindsey Graham is fully smart enough to know better.

Fine, have your little press conferences and make your symbolic gestures. But if you actually start to make this “opt-out” thing a reality, that will be unforgivable.

Ought to be the shortest show EVER…

Had to smile when I saw this Tweet from Teow0nna Clifton:

Teowonna Clifton

@ThatTeowonnaTeowonna Clifton
Diversity in the Governor’s Cabinet Pt.2 on OnPointX will air 02/15.http://tobtr.com/s/1549521#BlogTalkRadio

First thought: Diversity in the governor’s Cabinet? There’s so little of that that I’m surprised you could get one show out of it, much less two…

Script for the show:

— Hi, we’re here to talk about diversity in the Haley administration.

— OK, let’s do. What ABOUT diversity in the Haley administration?

— Well, the governor herself is Indian-American?

— And?

— And she named one black nominee to her Cabinet. But that nominee withdrew. So she named another black nominee to take her place.

— And?

— And that’s the end of our show! Thanks for being with us…

Dang. Wish I’d had that a little earlier, for Health and Happiness…

Who am I? Butch Bowers? You might think so…

Following up on this bit of silliness last night…

I never did see either of my appearances on WACH last night, but Lora was kind enough to shoot video with her iPhone, which she shared with me. Unfortunately, when I converted it, the sound was gone, so I’m just giving you a screenshot above. You’re seeing that as the announcer says, “His attorney, Butch Bowers, says the letters are routine inquiry, and nothing more than routine paperwork and filing matters.”

Viewers were hearing that, while seeing the above footage from the lieutenant governor debate I moderated back during the fall — leaving them to assume, not without reasons, that I am Butch Bowers.

That’s a hoot. I need to tell Butch about it.

What are you trying to say, Wesley?

The other day I ran into Wesley Donehue at Starbucks (see that, Starbucks? yet another product placement you’re not paying for), and we talked briefly about my appearing on “Pub Politics” again, which would make me a member of the Five-Timer Club. I’m totally up for it, particularly since I’d like to discuss this aptly titled “rant” on Wesley’s blog.

I think I want to argue with him about it, but first I have to get him to explain more clearly what he’s on about.

I say “rant” is apt because it seems to come straight from the gut, without any sorting or organization from the higher parts of his cortex — and Wesley is a smart guy. The problem I have is that his thought, or emotions, or impulses or whatever, don’t add up. They just don’t hang together.

He makes the following unconnected points:

  1. Where does the media get off making like it’s a champion of transparency?
  2. How dare WACH-Fox defend itself from a slur leveled at it by Gov. Nikki Haley on Facebook?
  3. The media are just lashing out, because they are becoming irrelevant in the new media age, when politicos can go straight to the people.
  4. “Transparency” doesn’t mean going through the MSM, so the media have no legitimate excuse to criticize the gov.
  5. Any problems the media have are their own damn’ fault, for failing to be relevant and keep up with the times.

Did that cover everything? I may have missed an unrelated point or two.

Here, respectively, are my problems with his points:

1. Golly, Wesley, the MSM may be guilty of a host of sins, but suggesting they are somehow an illegitimate, insincere, incredible or inappropriate advocate for transparency is most illogical. They’re kinda obsessive about it, and this might be a shock, but they were into it a LONG time before Nikki Haley ever heard of it. Finally, the media are the one industry in society that actually have a vested, selfish interest in transparency (unlike certain politicians who TALK about it, but belie their commitment to it with their actions) — they kinda rely on it in order to do what they do — so I’ve just gotta believe they really mean it.

1a. Furthermore, what does this have to do with the ongoing talk about the gov’s failures to be transparent? What did I miss? This seems to me to be about the TV station defending itself from the governor’s insult. The transparency issue — the one that I hear folks in the media talk about, anyway — has to do with everything from Nikki not wanting to disclose questionable sources of income and refusing to release her e-mails back during the campaign, all the way up to meeting with two other Budget and Control Board members while excluding the others. I’m missing the connection in other words, between this incident and your complaint that the media are going on inappropriately about transparency.

2. Well, let’s see. The governor wrote “WACH FOX 57 is a tabloid news station and has no concept of journalism.” Wesley, I don’t care whether the governor said that on Facebook, or through an interview with the MSM, or in a campaign ad or by use of skywriting. The choice of medium does not take away from the fact that that was an extraordinary thing for a governor to PUBLISH (and that’s what she did; if governors and other empowered “ordinary” folks are going to take it upon themselves to communicate directly with the people without the offices of the MSM, perhaps they need to take a little seminar on the difference in significance between merely muttering something to your friends, and publishing it). Next — are you really suggesting that WACH or any other business does not have the right to defend itself when maligned by the governor? I assert that they have that right under the 1st Amendment, whether they are Joe Blow’s Used Cars or the MSM.

3. This one’s really interesting. I’ll grant you, WACH looks pretty lame technologically when it fails to provide a direct link to the FB post with which it is disagreeing. (Here you go, by the way.) But beyond that, let’s talk about the new rules. Here’s the kind of thing that happens in this wonderful, marvelous new world in which anyone can publish their thoughts and don’t have to go through the stuffy ol’ MSM. In the old, benighted days, a former employee of the governor (and of the last governor) might go around muttering about having had an illicit personal relationship with the governor, but he would have been ignored. Now, thanks to the wonders of modern technology that you extol, he can publish it himself with practically zero effort or investment. So it’s out there — because, you know, those bad old editors can’t keep it away from the people. And then it starts affecting the political campaign, and therefore becomes news. Now, let me ask you — when that same blogger follows that up by publishing salacious details related to his allegation, having already caused it to be a news story, what are the media supposed to do? Well, I don’t know, and others aren’t sure either. Me? I ignored it. WACH made the call that it made. Did the governor have the right to get ticked and trash WACH because of it? Yes, she did. (Although it was, as I say, pretty extraordinary for a sitting governor to say something like that about a business in her state.) Did WACH — that poor, pathetic institution that’s falling apart as you say, have the right to defend itself? Of course it did.

4. Who said it did? I missed that. Maybe you have a link to it; I’d be interested to read/hear that argument.

5. The problems that the media have result from a massive restructuring of the way businesses — the ones they relied upon for the advertising revenue that underwrote the gathering of the news — market themselves to the public. The long-term trend has been away from mass-media advertising on the local level, and to more targeted approaches. Nothing about what the media have reported or not reported, or positions they have taken, have anything to do with it. The public is lapping up news and commentary more hungrily than ever — from the MSM as well as other sources. But the business model that supported newsgathering — the model that’s falling apart — has nothing to do with that; it’s a whole separate transaction from the one between a medium and its readers/viewers/listeners. So you’re way off base there.

Anyway, have me on the show and we’ll talk further. Keep the beer cold.

One step closer to nothing of consequence

This message came in this morning from Karen Floyd, headlined, “One Step Closer to Securing Our Elections.” Here’s the text:

Dear Brad Warthen
As many of you are aware, passing Voter ID legislation is one of the top goals we have for this busy year. Republicans in both the House and Senate are determined to protect our state’s elections process by requiring voters to show photo identification before casting a ballot. Yesterday, we got one step closer to achieving this important goal.
The Senate Judiciary Committee passed Voter ID legislation, which means that the next step is for the bill to be presented on the senate floor. While we prefer the House version of the bill, we are happy that the Senate is working hard on this crucial issue.
We would like to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Glenn McConnell for pressing this bill passed committee, as well as acknowledge Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler for making this bill a top priority. Also, our special thanks goes out to Senator Chip Campsen, who sponsored the bill and is working tirelessly to see this matter through until the end.
Please click here now to visit the Senate’s Facebook page and leave a comment on how important it is for Voter ID to become law this year! Also, please visit Senator Harvey Peeler’s and Senator Glenn McConnell’s Facebook page if you would like to leave them a comment as well.
Sincerely,
Karen Floyd
SCGOP Chairman

As I’ve said before, whether we have Voter ID is neither here nor there. The Republicans INSIST that representative democracy as we know and cherish it will cease to be if we don’t have it, on account of all this supposed fraud going on everywhere. The Democrats INSIST that representative democracy as we know and cherish it will cease to be if we do have it, because all sorts of already marginalized people will be disenfranchised (or something else really bad — I haven’t gotten a release from the Dems in this particular cycle, so I’m just going by memory here).

Whereas to me, it’s just another arm-wrestling match between parties to see which one can have its way. As with so many other issues. I just don’t think either the threat of fraud or the harm to the disadvantaged looms large enough or convincingly enough to be worth all the partisan hubbub. Both sides have a point, to the extent that they cancel each other out — the slight threats of fraud and disenfranchisement are of roughly equal size and believability. It most certainly is not a clear-cut case of one or the other, but a mutually-cancelling wash.

As I wrote before:

For my part, I think the Republicans’ assertion that this legislation is needed and the Democrats’ assertion that it will lead to dire consequences are both misplaced. Here’s a column I wrote on the subject awhile back. The best thing, of course, would be if our lawmakers didn’t waste a single second on this issue that ultimately is about the fact that Republicans don’t want certain people who are likely to vote Democratic to vote, and Democrats want them to for the equal and opposite reason.

Yeah, I get it. It’s about race and class and perceptions regarding those phenomena, and who cares and who doesn’t, and all those things that the parties posture over. Which means it’s about each of the parties polishing up their reps (since I’m not persuaded of the actual problems they say they’re addressing).

And Democrats are right when they say that when Republicans say, “secure our elections,” they mean “make our elections safe for Republicans.” And Republicans are right when they say that the Democrats are just trying to turn out as many people as possible who are likely to vote Democratic.

So in the end, it makes me tired. A step toward nothing of consequence, except to partisans.

Lindsey, fill yer hands; I’m a-callin’ you out

Did you get the “True Grit” reference? I do try to be topical (although I have no idea whether that line is in the remake)…

Back on this post, Doug Ross said, “So will Brad call out Lindsey for wasting resources?”

That kind of stuff makes me tired. You know why bloggers and sure-enough journalists avoid ever saying anything nice about anybody in public life? Because they never hear the end of it. They’re constantly getting this Well I hope now you see what a jerk your buddy is, and see the error of your ways stuff.

Let’s be clear. There is no one I respect in the U.S. Senate more than Lindsey Graham, so stuff that in your pipe and smoke it, you cynics. There are good men in public life, and Graham is highly intelligent, principled and hard-working. He has proved this time and time again. He is good for South Carolina, and good for the country. I am proud that he is our senior senator. Now that John Spratt is gone, I think Lindsey is clearly the best member of the SC congressional delegation.

But you know what? Sometimes, even on an important issue, he’s dead wrong. That happens. It happens with the best of men. (Women, too, probably, but far be it from me as a gentleman to reflect negatively upon the ladies.) And there’s one that he and two of my other favorites in the Senate, John McCain and Joe Lieberman, and that’s the one Doug and I were talking about — national health care policy.

He’s really, really wrong on it. I mean, Jim DeMint just wants it to be Obama’s Waterloo, but I get the feeling that Lindsey Graham really means it. He really wants to gut Obamacare. And he doesn’t just want to vote on a purely symbolic “repeal;” he want to hang it, draw it and quarter it, slice and dice it, by passing legislation that deprives it of its central elements, the only things that give it any chance of having a good effect on the health care crisis in this country.

Here’s the release he put out today:

Barrasso, Graham Introduce Legislation Allowing States to ‘Opt-Out’ of Obamacare

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and John Barrasso (R-Wyoming) today introduced S.244, The State Health Care Choice Act, to repeal and replace Obamacare by allowing states to ‘Opt-Out’ of its major provisions.  Under the legislation, states could choose to ‘Opt-Out’ of:

  • Individual mandate – the requirement to buy government-approved health insurance coupled with a financial penalty for not doing so.
  • Employer mandate – the requirement for businesses to provide government-approved health insurance coupled with financial penalties for not doing so.
  • Medicaid mandate – the forced expansion of state Medicaid programs.
  • Benefit mandates – defines what qualifies as a health plan as well as new federal requirements for regulating health insurance.

“As a doctor in Wyoming, I witnessed regularly how Washington simply didn’t understand the needs of the people of our state,” said Barrasso.  “After Obamacare, Washington is more out of touch than ever.  Instead of requiring states to follow Obamacare’s one-size-fits-all health care policy, our bill lets states decide what works best for them.  We will fight to repeal the President’s bad health spending law and provide states with flexibility, freedom and choice.”
“Our legislation opens up a third front in the fight against Obama health care,” said Graham, noting the other ‘fronts’ include legal challenges moving through the courts and the House-passed repeal.  “Our bill takes the fight out of Washington and puts it back in the states.  I would hope every Senator, regardless of party, would give the people of their home state a chance to be heard.  I’m confident that if given the chance, a large number of states would opt-out of the provisions regarding the individual mandate, employer mandate, and expansion of Medicaid.  As more states opt-out, it will have the effect of repealing and replacing Obamacare.”

“Medicaid expansion under Obama health care will be devastating to many states, including South Carolina,” continued Graham.  “We are already facing a severe budget shortfall this year.  The future expansion of Medicaid – which adds an additional one billion dollars of state matching funding requirements and will result in nearly 30 percent of South Carolinians being eligible for Medicaid – only adds to our budget problems.  This combination of Medicaid expansion and increased state funding makes it virtually impossible for South Carolina to pull out of her economic woes.”

The Senators noted the Obama Administration has already issued 733 waivers to businesses allowing them to continue offering insurance to their employees and questioned why states should not have the same ability to obtain relief.

#####

To read the text of the bill, click here.

Note that this masquerades as a substitute for Obama care — not mere repeal, but replacement. What a mockery. It is most certainly nothing of the kind.

The absolute worst thing you could do to last year’s health-care bill — which is deeply flawed, but would at least take a step or two in the direction of real reform — would be to let anyone opt out of it, much less entire states.

Either we’re all in it, or it will not work. It may not work anyway. I still firmly believe that simple, straightforward single-payer is the way to go. But hey, critics of Obamacare say it’s a back-door way to get us there, and maybe they’re right. One thing I know for sure is that there isn’t a plan in the wings to replace it. I mean, if this is the best that a smart guy like Lindsey Graham can come up with, we’d better cling to Obamacare as though it were our last chance to avoid drowning.

And this fantasy that states can in any way affect this mega-economic hole that we are in — or that they would (especially if they are South Carolina). Again, either we come up with a national solution and we’re all in it — a risk pool of 300-plus million people — or there’s not much use talking, because you really don’t get the problem. Sen. Barrasso says Washington doesn’t get it. He may be right; I can certainly point to one guy in Washington who doesn’t get it. No, make that two. (And for that matter, the Dems don’t either, or they’d have gone for single-payer. So I guess he’s right; it’s a majority.)

This is just sad. So sad, that I marvel at it.

I’m going to issue another invitation to Sen. Graham to join me on “The Brad Show” and explain this. He always has good explanations for what he does, and I’d love to hear this one.

In the meantime, satisfy yourselves with this video of him and Barrasso talking about this abomination…

Trying to muster enthusiasm about Dems gathering just up the road

Phil Noble found an unusual way to celebrate the fact that the Democratic National Convention will be in Charlotte next year:

“This is the best news for South Carolina Democrats since our native son Andy Jackson was elected President in 1828. With tens of thousands of Democrats, and the global media converging just a stone’s throw away from President Jackson’s birthplace, South Carolina Democrats will have their voices heard on the national and international stage.”

“The Convention will be the rallying point we need to strengthen and build our party throughout the state. It will give us our first real opportunity in a generation to launch the kind of root-and-branch reform movement that could make South Carolina a truly competitive two-party state again. This is just the first of many ‘big things’ ahead for Democrats in our state.”

I’ve just got to say, what does that have to do Andrew Jackson? Personally, I think the fewer reminders that Jackson came from here, the better, but I’m kind of an unreconstructed Federalist. And I don’t even mind a Democratic Republican now and then, if he’s qualified, like Jefferson and Madison. But Jackson? Shudder… And the suggestion that we’ve had no news better than Jackson’s election in 183 years. Well, that’s just depressing. I mean, I know it’s been a long good news drought for SC Democrats, but come on — y’all were pretty happy when Obama was elected, weren’t you? And personally, I’d count that as WAY better than Ol’ Hickory.

Anyway, in the second graf Phil got to the main business, which was to try to get SC Dems pumped about a city that’s almost in our red state hosting the convention. Nice try, there, Phil.

Me, when I heard it, my first thought was “Maybe the paper will let me go there and cover the frickin’ thing THIS time, since the travel cost would be minimal.” But then I remembered. Oh, yeah…

Maybe I’ll find an excuse to wander up that way sometime during that week. Although I gotta tell ya, it can’t possibly be as much fun as the one I went to in New York in 2004 — the last time I managed to con a publisher into paying for it. There’s nothing like closely observing SC politicos partying in unfamiliar surroundings. Charlotte… well, how much fun can you have in Charlotte, really? I mean, what’s it known for? Banking?

Then, of course, there’s the fact that with an incumbent president, there won’t be a heckuva a lot of news to cover. So, no party. No news. I don’t know. I might have to think long and hard about whether to take time away from my real job for this…

So much energy devoted to tearing down, to no good end

Speaking of stuff I’m seeing on Twitter today, this just came in from Jim DeMint:

Jim DeMint

@JimDeMintJim DeMint

All Republican Senators have now joined to cosponsor the bill to repeal ObamaCare, S.192

And this reminds me…

Today at the Columbia Rotary Club, our speaker was George Zara from Providence Hospital. He started off by asking the 300 or so Rotarians whether they thought Obamacare was going to be repealed.

Let’s just say that there wasn’t exactly a sea of eager hands reaching for the Seawell’s ceiling. I saw a few, very hesitant, hands half-raised — as in, not above shoulder height. Most people knew better.

I wonder why Jim DeMint et al. don’t.

What a lot of energy spent just to make a make a point. What destructive energy. Personally, I don’ t have great hopes for Obamacare solving our problems, but I know that the solution’s not coming from people who don’t WANT a solution.

And it really ticks me off that they are trying to do everything they can to tear this effort down before it even takes effect. What else would be the point of making such a huge political gesture, when you KNOW you’re not actually going to repeal it?

Couldn’t they spend some of this energy trying to accomplish something, rather than trying to make sure no one else accomplishes anything?

I hope the Tea Party, for whom this is being done, appreciates this. Because I don’t.

Schumer was just testing us

I knew that following Adam Baldwin on Twitter (no, not one of those Baldwins — we’re talking Jayne Cobb from “Firefly”) would pay off eventually. Today, he brought my attention to this:

Adam Baldwin @adamsbaldwinAdam Baldwin

QFE: “We have 3 branches of government. We have a House. We have a Senate. We have a President.”- Sen. Schumer (D-NY) ~ http://bit.ly/eqwbNq

Hey, we all misspeak. And maybe the good senator was just checking to see whether the viewers were paying attention.

Here’s a question: Would Jayne Cobb have known about the three branches of government? Probably not. Of course, in his ‘verse, all you need to know is that there’s the ruttin’ Alliance, and there’s the freedom-loving Browncoats.

Guess I should start paying attention. Sigh.

Just got this from Politico:

ARLINGTON, Va. – POLITICO announced today the launch of 2012 LIVE, a new section of its website designed to provide moment-by-moment coverage of the race for the Republican nomination for the presidency, as well as President Barack Obama’s campaign for a second term.

2012 LIVE offers a huge volume of information on the likely candidates with continuous updates on where the candidates are on the campaign trail, who they’re recruiting as advisers and staff, where their money is being raised and what is being said about them in the media.

The section dives deep into the four states crucial to winning the GOP nomination. With ‘Early State Insider’ subpages dedicated to Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, POLITICO brings readers straight to where the candidates are making their key moves. Robust partnerships with leading newspapers in these states – The Des Moines Register, New Hampshire Union Leader, Las Vegas Sun and the (Charleston, S.C.) Post and Courier – provide added insight and analysis for POLITICO readers.

“2012 LIVE is based on our belief that political junkies cannot get enough news and analysis on the election.” said POLITICO Executive Editor Jim VandeHei. “We think there needs to be more velocity and information – not less. No other news organization will be able to match our early and sustained commitment to covering the 2012 campaign.”…

Sigh. Guess I should start paying attention.

At this stage before 2008, I was pumped about it. We had W. exiting the stage, and the prospect of putting all that strife behind us, and fairly exciting fields of candidates on both sides coming through SC — Obama, McCain, Clinton, Giuliani, Edwards, Romney, Biden, Huckabee… note that I’m not saying I like all those candidates (y’all know better); I’m just saying that at the time, the nation’s prospects seemed interesting, and those candidacies made politics worth following…

Now, of course, there’s zilch going on the Democratic side, and I’m already getting sort of jaded on the GOP field.

Maybe it’ll get better. Must give it a chance. And the first step will be paying attention…

Want diversity? Then you should have elected the white guy. Ironic, ain’t it?

Well, I’ll probably get some heat for that headline, from irony-deprived people who get as put off by it as I did when I heard about the “Don’t blame me; I voted for the white guy” bumper stickers after the 2008 election.

But I couldn’t resist; there’s just so much ironic goofiness inherent in the complaints that Nikki “Haley’s Cabinet Appointments Lack Diversity.” As the official Democratic Party release says:

COLUMBIA– South Carolina Democrats criticized Governor Nikki Haley for turning a blind eye to diversity in the wake of her final cabinet appointment.  Haley, who this morning appointed Duane Parrish to lead South Carolina’s Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism, only appointed one African-American candidate in forming her cabinet.  Worse still, says the party, that appointee– Columbia attorney Lynne Rogers—will have her role seriously diminished if the Governor’s plan to consolidate the agency Rogers will lead with another agency is successful.

“Shame on Nikki Haley,”said South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler. “The faces of this state’s government ought to bear some resemblance to the faces of the South Carolinians they will govern.  African-Americans make up nearly a third of South Carolina’s population, but Governor Haley has willfully ignored them in forming her government, and she”s fighting for an agency merger proposal that will only further marginalize a high percentage of her constituents.  We deserve a Governor who takes all South Carolinians into consideration when she makes big decisions, and we need a government that reflects all South Carolinians.”

See how that was just chock full of the automatic, obligatory, self-righteous, ritualistic phrases? The kinds of phrases of which we used to say at the newspaper, in the days when we were on the old Atex mainframe system, “She must have that on a Save/Get key.”

Of course, you want to say to people who complain about such things, If you wanted someone who gave a damn about your complaint, you should have voted for Vincent Sheheen. But that’s the thing, of course: All the people complaining DID vote for Vincent Sheheen. (Or if they didn’t, they’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do.) In fact, that’s the real problem they have here, not the demographic makeup of Nikki’s Cabinet.

Poor Duane Parrish. As the last appointee, HE’s the guy whose appointment announcement gets overshadowed by the hand-wringing

Duane Parrish: A White Guy Too Far?

over “diversity.” It’s not his fault, he was just a White Guy Too Far.

There’s a subtext here, and that’s the part that appeals to my sense of the absurd. While Carol Fowler and the Legislative Black Caucus know better, and shouldn’t be a bit surprised (and are not), there are other innocent practitioners of Identity Politics out there who actually thought it meant something — as a milestone for all women and minorities — that an Indian-American woman was elected governor. You heard all the claptrap about how “historic” her inauguration was and all a couple of weeks back.

As you know, it completely befuddles me that people can believe in this identity stuff — that a woman can get excited for another woman’s success because she IS a woman and she thinks that means something to her and to all women. Or the same thing with black folks, or Sikhs, or what have you. I don’t understand it because, well, we white guys have no such delusions, near as I can tell. Oh, sure, there are atavistic racists who get all bent out of shape when another white guy gets done wrong, or when they imagine such a thing has happened. But I don’t understand that, either, and near as I can tell, 99 percent of us just really don’t feel any identification with each other. One of us does well, and we understand that THAT GUY did well. Good for him, but what good does that do ME? One of us gets dumped on, and we think, Too bad for that guy, but that’s his problem. (Insensitive jerks, ain’t we?)

Or perhaps I’m projecting here. Perhaps I’m making the same mistake that the Identity Politickers make, in thinking there is such a thing as a characteristic way of looking at the world particular to this or that demographic. (Hmmm. Do you think?)

The thing is, Nikki Haley got elected because she was the Republican. And she got the Republican nomination because she had done the most to charm the Tea Party, and this was their year. Period.

And here’s the ultimate irony in this: Nikki Haley, the great Symbol of Women’s Success, is highly unlikely to sit up nights worrying about her administration “lacking diversity.” For one thing, she’s not ideologically inclined to do so. Then there’s the fact that, frankly, she gets a pass because, well, she’s a chick. And a minority. (In fact, she’s SUCH a minority that it’s not even fair. Her minority status leaves black folks and Hispanics in the dust, looking almost like a majority. She’s just et up with moral advantage in the identity politics department.)

Oh, she’d probably rather have her Cabinet praised for “looking like South Carolina” than not — everybody likes a pat on the back — but she can get by without it, I expect.

You want somebody who’s going to sit up nights worrying because Leon Howard was offended at having to shake all those white people’s hands (see the quote; I’m not making this up), get yourself a white guy. Doesn’t have to be Vincent Sheheen, although he’s a very nice and thoughtful white guy, and they’re the most susceptible. But even your less sensitive white guys are likely to worry about “lack of diversity” — or at least, worry about looking like they worry about it. To some extent.

But Nikki? She’s immune. You want to make somebody feel bad, go pick on a white oppressor.

Shut that door, Jim! Slam it! Then nail it shut…

This is strange. This is the angriest picture I've ever seen of Jim. Normally, he's so mild-mannered looking. Where did I get it? His campaign website, of all places...

I was more than a bit alarmed when the HuffPost reported, somewhat confusingly, that “Jim DeMint advisers say he’s not the shutting door on a presidential run.”

Well, I certainly wish he would “the shut door.” Slamming it would be better. Nailing the sucker shut would help me sleep at night.

Then our good friend Peter Hamby had to threaten my future slumbers with this:

Washington (CNN) – News that South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint will travel to Iowa on March 26 to address a conservative forum organized by Rep. Steve King is sparking another round of chatter that DeMint might launch a dark horse bid for the White House in 2012.

The Republican gadfly has been adamant in denying such intentions for more than a year – just Wednesday, he gave CNN’s Wolf Blitzer a flat “No” when asked if he plans to seek his party’s presidential nomination.

But the ground may be shifting in DeMint-world, and several of his closest advisers and political confidantes are now telling CNN that he is at least open to a presidential bid if a suitably conservative candidate fails to emerge from the early and wide-open GOP field.

“I think that you can read into it that he sees he has a role in the process and he hasn’t completely shut the door,” said one DeMint adviser asked about the Iowa foray.

Perhaps a beer would help calm me down as bedtime approaches. But they say I shouldn’t have a beer after giving blood. I’ll just have to tough this out…

Joe’s alternative to the alternative to the GOP response

I got bushed and went to bed last night before getting this video, which is Joe Wilson’s response to the State of the Union.

So… since some guy named Paul Ryan gave the “official” Republican response, and Michele Bachman (another nonentity to me, but I’ve vaguely aware she’s one of those fringe people the shouting heads on TV go on and on about, like Sarah Palin) delivered a sort of self-appointed alternative response as a way of playing directly to the Tea Party, that means Joe’s clip is sort of the alternative to the alternative. Or maybe, since the “official” GOP response is in itself offered as an alternative to the actual State of the Union, Joe’s is an alternative-alternative-alternative. Which sounds way more avant-garde than the way I think of Joe Wilson.

Speaking of Joe… I ran into his guy Butch Wallace this morning at breakfast and told him — sort of joshing, sort of serious — that I appreciated that Joe had behaved himself last night, adding that I suppose it was hard to do otherwise sitting with those Democratic ladies. Butch smiled politely. Then I added, quite seriously, that I appreciated that Joe had wanted to make that gesture — which others in our delegation refused to do, even though it would have taken them so little trouble. Butch said Joe wanted to work with all kinds of people, regardless of party, and I said that’s good — because the more folks you’re willing to work with, the more you’re likely to get done.

As for Joe’s message — it sure beats “You Lie!” (which, if you’ll recall, was NOT during a SOTU), although in his hurry, he sort of flubbed a couple of the lines. And the overall message is rather thin and lacking in substance. But these things always tend to be that way. There’s a formula: 1.) Due respect to the president (no name-calling); 2) A brief reference to something that was in the president’s speech, a cursory effort to give the impression that the responder actually read or heard it and thought about it before responding; 3) A rather trite and general statement of ideological difference with the president that may or may not bear relevance to the president’s points; 4) Some sort of statement of civic piety such as asking the deity to bless the troops, or America, or the taxpayers, or whatever.

So much for Joe and his message. Now to the larger issue: This nonsense of opposition-party “responses” to the State of the Union, which I have always found offensive. I thought this writer put it well: “The very idea of a rebuttal is asinine.”

Or at least, the idea of some sort of formal response with an “official” status is asinine. Of course, we’re all entitled and encouraged in this free country to share what we think of the president’s speech. But over the years, something really weird and insidious has happened, and like so many other media/political phenomena in the modern age, it has done much to solidify in the average voter’s mind the nasty notion that there is something good and right and natural about everything in our politics being couched in partisan terms.

First, just to give the broadest possible perspective, the State of the Union is a constitutional responsibility of the president of the United States — not of a party, or of an individual, but of the chief executive. It’s right there in black and white in Article II, Section 3:

He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.

Note that it doesn’t say he has to do it every year, much less in January just before the Super Bowl. Nor is he even required to give a speech of any kind: Before Woodrow Wilson, presidents took care of this requirement in writing.

So, no one has to give a speech. But the president is required to make a report (including recommendations, if he judges such to be necessary and expedient, which you know he always will). It’s his job. It’s not a campaign speech (even though no politician yet born would pass up such an intro once it’s handed to him). It’s not something that he does on behalf of his execrable party. It’s something he is required to do.

In other words, the “equal time” requirement placed on purely political TV face time doesn’t apply. No member of the opposite party is in any way obliged to offer a “response,” and no broadcast outlet is obliged to run it — not by law, and not by any sense of journalistic obligation. Sure, you might cover it — you ought to cover it, and any other politically relevant response. (Just as you ought to cover the SOTU itself, if you know what’s news.) But the idea of a formal, ritualistic response is completely unnecessary.

And harmful. Because it instills in the public’s mind the notion that this is just some guy giving a political speech, rather than the president of the United States fulfilling the requirements of his job. And it inflates the ceremonial, institutional importance of parties to our system of government, putting the prerogatives of a party on the same level as the most fundamental requirements of our Constitution.

My reaction to the GOP response last night — that is to say, my reaction to the idea of a GOP response, because as usual, I didn’t watch it (when the pres was done, I ran upstairs to plug in my laptop because the battery was nearly dead and giving me warning messages) — was exactly the same as to Democratic responses to a Republican president: You want to give a free-media speech to the whole nation on this particular night, you go out and get elected president. We don’t have a president of one party and a “shadow” president as in a parliamentary system — we have one person elected to that position, and in delivering the SOTU (whether aloud or in writing), he’s fulfilling a specific responsibility that we elected HIM (and not some eager up-and-comer in the opposition party) to perform.

So share your thoughts all you want, folks. But spare me the “official” responses.