Category Archives: Republicans

Don’t look for sanity inside Beltway this year

21 Replies

To elevate a comment exchange to post status, back here Bart said:

The GOP may be a joke but it looks like they will have the last laugh come November when the American voters, who are a lot more intelligent than most give them credit for, sends a message that they don’t appreciate being Punk’d by a bunch of lying Democrats. Democrats, who by the way, are no picnic at the beach either.

The sword cuts both ways when it comes to deceit, dishonesty, and downright thievery by politicians.

I agree completely with you, Bart, about the Dems being no bargain. But no one should make the mistake of thinking a swing to the Republicans, particularly the Republicans of 2010, is in any way better.

Yes, the GOP will be more successful in November than Democrats, winning control of one or more of the two chambers of Congress.

And next time we have a Republican president, two years after he is elected, the Democrats will be more successful in the mid-term elections than Republicans.

And so on. It means nothing. The sad thing is that Republicans will foolishly believe that they won this year because of something they DID, and will give the credit to their mad rush to the extremes. So we’ll get more of that garbage.

Occasionally, something different from that happens. For instance, in 2006 a number of moderate Democrats won office, thanks in part to a campaign run by Rahm Emanuel. It drove the loony left even loonier, they hated it so. But it was better for the country. Unfortunately, those moderates — in both parties — make up such a tiny minority still that they have little impact upon the partisan insanity inside the Beltway.

My point is that these midterm shifts don’t have to be swings back and forth to the wacky fringes. They can pull us to the middle, toward sanity. It just doesn’t look at all like that’s going to happen this year.

This year — wow. This year, we see Sarah Palin not only NOT swept to history’s dustbin, as would happen in a country in which the voters were as sensible as Bart asserts (after all, she was a HUGE part of why the GOP lost the White House in 2008), but has such a secure brand (we Mad Men use words like “brand” a lot) that she is able to play kingmaker. Or queen maker, as the case may be. Although, reassuringly, it didn’t work out so well in Georgia last week.

If the voters choosing the GOP were so sensible, a sensible guy like Henry McMaster wouldn’t have fallen so easily to the likes of Nikki Haley. Nor would he have resorted to his own desperate attempts to prove that he, too, was suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome.

No, the Republicans winning the House this year will not be a good thing, any more than it was a good thing when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker. Same diff.

So are you running for re-election, or not?

3 Replies

Speaking of Twitter — which seems to be my theme today — I really like this new feature that, each time you open or refresh your home page, suggests two users you might want to follow. It’s obviously based on whom you’re following already, and it seems to work pretty well. The last 20 or so people or organizations I’ve elected to follow have been based on those suggestions. Which is good, because I’m trying to build up my followers, and the way to do that is to follow more people yourself — I’ve found that I usually have a little more than twice as many followers as I follow myself (and I’ll consider my “brand” to be dying when the number I follow starts to catch up). But it’s hard, on my own, to increase the number I follow dramatically. I don’t like having my feed clogged up with stuff that doesn’t interest me. This new feature helps me build the numbers with relevant stuff.

But occasionally, I get a suggestion that sort of puzzles me. Like the suggestions to follow people who haven’t tweeted in 6 months — why not amend the algorithm to cull those out? And then there are those like this one (screen capture image above), which seem designed to push me away. (And I’m setting aside the turnoff from Twitter’s blatant number disagreement in that message.)

I mean, seriously — are you or are you not running for re-election? And if you are, why are you turning people who want to know more about you away?

Shannon Erikson is by no means alone in this. I’ve run across it before. Hers just happened to be the most recent example when it occurred to me to comment on this.

I just don’t get the thinking behind this phenomenon. If you are such a private person, don’t run for office. If you aren’t, throw open the doors and windows. Come on.

If only Karen Floyd cared about what I really think

17 Replies

I got an invitation this morning, via e-mail, to participate in an opinion survey, from state GOP Chairwoman Karen Floyd. It was just another of those bogus surveys that the political parties send out — you know, the ones that are more about making partisan assertions and whipping up the faithful (so that they’ll give money), rather than actually trying to learn from what other people think.

To be fair, this one is better than most such. I get the impression that this one is more about testing messages with the faithful (which is a FORM of information seeking at least) than about merely whipping them up. So it could be worse.

But I can’t help wishing that a party would actually try to determine what other people think, and learn from that, rather than just spinning the plate. Of course, if it did that, I suppose it would no longer be a political party.

Here was the come-on to get folks to take the survey:

THE QUESTIONS: As we move through the 2010 election cycle, endure an economic decline and watch liberal leadership fail our nation, there are a lot of big questions that we must answer together.

YOUR ANSWERS: Please take the time to answer these short questions. We will be sending the results to every South Carolina Republican member of Congress and the General Assembly next week.

JUST 3 MINUTES: Will you take 3 minutes today to give us your opinion on the biggest issues facing South Carolina?

And here was the survey itself:

Please fill our out Summer Survey and give us your opinion on the biggest issues facing SC.
1. Do you think a mosque should be allowed to be built at ground zero?
Yes
No
2. Do you agree with our gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley that we can create jobs by cutting the income tax?
Yes
No
3. Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?
Yes
No
4. Do you agree with a judge’s decision to stop parts of Arizona’s immigration law from being implemented?
Yes
No
5. Should South Carolina should pass an Arizona style immigration plan?
Yes
No
6. Should South Carolina’s coastline be opened up for natural gas exploration?
Yes
No
7. Do you support or oppose the federal takeover of our health care system?
Yes
No
8. Should the state of South Carolina fight the nationalization of our health care system on the grounds that it is a violation of states’ rights?
Yes
No
9. Our Lt Governor candidate Ken Ard wants to resturcture the way we elect our Governor and Lt Governor so that they run together on a ticket and work more hand-in-hand to create jobs for our state. Do you agree with Ken Ard?
Yes
No
Do you think that Democratic 2nd Congressional district candidate Rob Miller should return the $370,000 he received from liberal activist group MoveOn.org?
Yes
No
10. Should South Carolina voters replace Nancy Pelosi’s chief budget writer John Spratt with a strong conservative like State Senator Mick Mulvaney?
Yes
No
11. What else would you like us to know today?

What gets me about these kinds of questions is that, aside from the last one they don’t allow you to answer truthfully. For so many of these questions, a “yes” or “no” answer is entirely inappropriate. But parties are about forcing people to choose “yes” or “no,” and unfortunately the MSM cooperate in rewriting our political language so that we can’t think in any other terms — which of course was the same idea behind Newspeak in 1984 — if you lack the words to think new thoughts, you can’t think them.

Here are the answers I gave, but please don’t do like the party and take them at face value. After each I am providing an answer, in italics, that tells what I REALLY think. But Karen didn’t ask for that, or provide me any way to give her that. Hence this post:

Please fill our out Summer Survey and give us your opinion on the biggest issues facing SC.

1. Do you think a mosque should be allowed to be built at ground zero? Yes. I say that only because the mosque indeed has the RIGHT to build there. And of course, that right is an important part of who we are in this country, and what we’re fighting for in the War on Terror. If the question, therefore, is should it be ALLOWED, then the answer has to be “yes.” But if you asked whether it should be built there, I’d say no. If you asked whether I think the choice of this site is a deliberate provocation of American sensibilities, I’d say I’m afraid that is likely the case, on some level — although I lack enough information to know. I find it very disturbing that the leader of this group wants America to share blame for 9/11 and refuses to say whether Hamas is a terrorist organization. And it doesn’t help a bit that Hamas endorses the plan to build there. Finally, if you ask whether I think building there represents a sincere attempt to bridge differences and heal wounds, I would say that if that’s what they truly wanted to do, they’d do it elsewhere. But in the end, do they have the right? In America, they do.

2. Do you agree with our gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley that we can create jobs by cutting the income tax? No. Can cutting a tax be part of a rational plan to stimulate the economy and thereby create jobs. Absolutely. But do I believe cutting a tax CONSTITUTES a rational plan to stimulate South Carolina’s economy, absent any plans to build physical or human infrastructure? To that, I say you’ve gotta be kidding. Bottom line, Nikki Haley doesn’t have a plan for creating jobs. She has a series of cookie-cutter GOP talking points: Cutting taxes, decreasing regulation, and privatization. That’s not a plan.

2. Should the Bush tax cuts be extended? No. Actually, I have no idea. Frankly, I’m loath to end them right now because of the condition of the economy. Any increase in the tax burden at any level, before we’ve got the economy growing again, is problematic. I never saw any need for these particular tax cuts to begin with, and had I been in Congress would likely have voted against them, as they were presented. But I’m not certain this is the time to end them. But I answered “no” because I don’t side with your party’s belief in the magical goodness of tax cuts in all circumstances, absent other measures, and I wanted you to know that.

3. Do you agree with a judge’s decision to stop parts of Arizona’s immigration law from being implemented? Yes. For the simple fact that immigration is a federal function. Yeah, I get it — your base believes it’s time for states to step in because the federal government isn’t getting the job done. I’m unpersuaded by that. I also know that the people across the political spectrum most adamant about this issue have been the main obstacle to the federal government adopting a comprehensive solution to the problem that does exist. Work on that if you want to have a constructive effect. Don’t advocate states usurping a federal function.

4. Should South Carolina should pass an Arizona style immigration plan? No. Of course not, for the reasons cited above.

5. Should South Carolina’s coastline be opened up for natural gas exploration? Yes. I said yes because that’s the Energy Party answer. We should do anything and everything, within reason, to make this country energy-independent. The objections on the left to such exploration are rigidly faith-based, like your party’s belief in the magical powers of tax cuts. It’s an article of faith that is immune to argument or circumstances. That said, my “yes” comes with a caveat — seems to me I’ve heard that the SC coast isn’t that likely a place to explore (tell me if I’m wrong on that; I can’t recall where I heard it). So let me amend my answer to say that by all means, we should explore in likely locations. If SC is a likely location, explore away.

6. Do you support or oppose the federal takeover of our health care system? Yes. Absolutely. If such a thing were proposed, I’d be all for it. That is, I’d be all for a substitution of a single payer for the insane way that we pay for health care now. Which is not the same thing as a “takeover of our health care system,” but it would come a heckuva lot closer to being that than anything that has been seriously proposed in this country, but less actually enacted. As for your implication that something that could be characterized a “federal takeover of our health care system,” that is an absurd fantasy on your part, a lie that you are trying to propagate in order to have a straw man to knock over. And there’s no way you should be allowed to get away with that. In the meantime, we need to let this feeble “reform” that Congress passed have a chance to be implemented so that we can see if it helps at all — which I doubt, but let’s give it a chance before condemning it. Your attempts to repeal it before it’s been implemented is unconscionable, because the need for some kind of change to our system is unquestionably dire.

7. Should the state of South Carolina fight the nationalization of our health care system on the grounds that it is a violation of states’ rights? No. Oh, get a life, people! How can we fight something for being something that it is NOT?

8. Our Lt Governor candidate Ken Ard wants to resturcture the way we elect our Governor and Lt Governor so that they run together on a ticket and work more hand-in-hand to create jobs for our state. Do you agree with Ken Ard? Yes. Although a better way to put it would be that Ken Ard, someone I hadn’t heard of before three or four months ago, agrees with me on something I’ve publicly advocated for almost 20 years. Not to toot my horn, but to suggest this Ard guy (who I strongly suspect to be an MSM plant because headline writers love a guy with a name that short) should get credit for the idea is patently ridiculous. If he does what the rest of us reformers have failed to do and actually gets the idea implemented, I’ll applaud. But not until then.

9. Do you think that Democratic 2nd Congressional district candidate Rob Miller should return the $370,000 he received from liberal activist group MoveOn.org? Yes. But only because I think he and Joe Wilson have both raised far too much money already to waste on their campaign, which presents voters with a no-win proposition. That’s why I say yes, not because I despise. MoveOn.org. I mean, I DO despise MoveOn.org, but that’s not my reasoning here. I just think this race is a total waste, and wish I had a better candidate than either of these guys to vote for.

10. Should South Carolina voters replace Nancy Pelosi’s chief budget writer John Spratt with a strong conservative like State Senator Mick Mulvaney? No. Give me a frickin’ break. What you meant to say, of course, was “Should 5th District voters replace the smartest and most capable guy in our House delegation, the very moderate and sensible John Spratt, with some ideologue more to our suiting?

11. What else would you like us to know today? I’d love, absolutely LOVE, a survey that sought thoughtful answers, rather than mere fodder for keeping the partisan spin machine turning.

Oh, and thank you for the opportunity, Karen. My answers were rather hasty, and not as in-depth as such complex questions demand — but they’re far more thoughtful than what you were looking for. Which is my point.

Huck says nay to Graham citizenship proposal

6 Replies

Lindsey Graham may have decided to go way harsh on letting the U.S.-born children of illegals be citizens, but Mike Huckabee, charting his own course among leading GOP lights these days, begs to differ:

Huckabee on Immigration: Don’t Punish the Kids

Posted by John Wihbey on Wednesday, August 11, 2010

In a Wednesday interview with NPR’s On Point, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, an ‘08 GOP candidate for president and a potential candidate again in 2012, said he did not favor repeal of the 14th Amendment — which grants citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status – and said that all children of illegal immigrants should have a path to citizenship.

Asked if he would favor changing the Constitution, Huckabee said, “No. Let me tell you what I would favor. I would favor having controlled borders.”

He also elaborated on his views on illegal immigrants’ children who came to the U.S. later on. “You do not punish a child for something the parent did,” he told On Point host Tom Ashbrook. “…I’d rather have that kid a neurosurgeon than a tomato picker.”

Huckabee’s positions likely represent dividing lines in any future GOP presidential primary. As the illegal immigration issue has flared up again in American politics, the issue of birthright citizenship has become a hot topic in GOP circles, as various people have called for its repeal or reinterpretation by the courts. (Listen back to On Point’s Monday segment on the issue.)

Huckabee is an interesting guy who thinks for himself on a number of issues. Sort of like Lindsey Graham, so this contrast is all the more interesting for that.

Irony of the day: Sarah Palin and Twisted Sister

15 Replies

Most interesting item from Twitter today… Aaron Sheinin, formerly of The State (and now of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution) tweeted this at midday:

The song Palin and Handel are coming on stage to:http://youtu.be/WT1LXhgXPWs
about 4 hours ago via TweetDeck

To explain — Sarah Palin was in Jawgia today to campaign for Karen Handel, that state’s former secretary of state, who is in a bitter runoff tomorrow for the GOP nomination for governor. (Yet another case of rather presumptuous people, such as our own Jim DeMint, jetting around the country to play right-wing kingmaker and fragment the Republican Party.)

And the two women made their entrance at the event to the strains of “We’re Not Gonna Take It.” Yes, by Twisted Sister. Yes, the self-appointed maven of true, traditional downhome American values was striding out to a theme by a band that, when I was a young Dad back when they first hit the charts, I would have leaped tall buildings in my haste to keep my children from seeing so much as a picture of, so deeply offensive to basic traditional sensibilities (such as my own) I found everything about the band — their name, their look, and (to a lesser extent) their head-banging sound — to be.

By the way, I double-checked with Aaron to make sure I wasn’t misunderstanding, and he responded:

@BradWarthen going on right this second.
about 4 hours ago via TweetDeck in reply to BradWarthen

At this point, I could digress with a discourse on how the grossly childish, hostile, chip-on-shoulder attitude embodied in that song, that whole “grownups aren’t going to tell me what to do” petulant pout, fits PERFECTLY with the worldview of the Tea Party and the other bits and pieces of ex-Gov. Palin’s fan base. Which, I’m sure, is why it was chosen.

To give you a further idea of the mentality the song embraces, another reader responded to Aaron’s observation thusly:

JVTress @asheinin You know who else used that song? The one and only John Rocker.
about 4 hours ago via TweetDeck in reply to asheinin

You know, John Rocker — the former Atlanta Braves closer who was better known for shooting off his mouth and offending people than for putting out rival hitters. You know — the guy most famous for saying this when asked whether he would ever play for the Yankees or the Mets:

I’d retire first. It’s the most hectic, nerve-racking city. Imagine having to take the 7 Train to the ballpark looking like you’re riding through Beirut next to some kid with purple hair, next to some queer with AIDS, right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time, right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It’s depressing… The biggest thing I don’t like about New York are the foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get in this country?

In other words, “a Real American.”

But bottom line, the thing that gets me is the cultural aspect of the Palin-Twisted Sister connection. You know, I have frequently called down some of my interlocutors here for making like Bristol Palin’s shame is a legitimate topic for political dissection. I don’t hold with attacking folks’ families. But it does occur to me that if mom thinks Twisted Sister is a good place to go for background music, kiddies could grow up a bit confused. (And no, it’s not that I’m square, as we said in my day. I was just into Elvis Costello and Men at Work and the like at that point in musical history. I was never into “let’s twist glam until it’s positively gross.” The closest I came to that was my deep admiration for the work of Spinal Tap.)

Anyway, I’ll say this for the video at least: I love the little homage to “Animal House” in the video, from using the actor (Mark Metcalf) who played “Doug Neidermeyer” to the paraphrase of his most famous line: “What it THAT? A Twisted Sister pin on your UNIFORM?!?!?”

That did make me smile.

Is that the best Haley can do? Bring up Obama? Wow, that is truly lame…

33 Replies

There wasn’t much new in The State‘s recap Sunday of how Vincent Sheheen is pretty much thrashing Nikki Haley on her signature issues (transparency and business savvy) — nothing much you couldn’t have read here the middle of last week.

But I was struck by the unbelievably lame response recorded from the Haley campaign:

For its part, Haley’s campaign has argued Sheheen, a state senator from Camden, is ducking questions about whether the Democrat supports recently approved national health insurance law and the Obama administration’s lawsuit challenging Arizona’s immigration law, two issues Sheheen could have to deal with if elected governor.

Really? That’s the best you can do? He’s totally crushing you on transparency, and making a mockery of your desire to run government the way you run your business, and that’s your response? You retreat to the current GOP playbook? That book only has one play these days, you know. It goes something like this:

When cornered, talk about Obama. Don’t worry that it has nothing to do with the office you’re running for. Just cry, “Obama! Obama! Obama! We hate Obama! Do you hate Obama? If you don’t, you’re not one of us, because we really, really hate him…” Yadda-yadda. Just keep going; don’t worry about repeating yourself or not making the slightest bit of logical sense, because your base will eat this up…

As for the last phrase in that excerpt from The State — “two issues Sheheen could have to deal with if elected governor” — it’s hard to imagine a more transparent case of news people bending over backwards to act like a source is saying something rational when he or she is not. Yeah, you stretch a point and sure, health care reform affects every state (just as it does business and many other aspects of life) and a governor will govern in an environment in which a lot of people insist that immigration is a huge state issue. But you could say that about almost any hot-button national issue, from Afghanistan to the BP oil spill — it still wouldn’t be central. Everyone, but everyone, knows that the Haley campaign putting out that response has absolutely ZERO to do with what faces the next governor, and everything to do with the fact that if it isn’t in the Sarah Palin songbook, they can’t sing it.

Anyway, we are left waiting for a substantive response actually bearing on the two things that are allegedly Nikki’s strong suits, and why we should believe anything she says about them. And Vincent didn’t pick these issues — Nikki did.

Just ran into Nikki Haley. She looked well…

11 Replies

I ran into Nikki Haley at lunch today, at M Vista on Lady Street. She was there with Rob Godfrey and Tim Pearson of her campaign.

I think it was the first time I’d conversed with her since that time at Starbucks on Gervais shortly after the 2008 election. That day, she had a young woman in tow whom she introduced as being “with my campaign,” and I thought that was odd. The ’08 campaign was over, and it was early for a House candidate to be having meetings about the next campaign. I was probably the most shocked guy in South Carolina when it came out a month or two later than she was running for governor — it just seemed so totally unlikely that she would see herself as ready for that. It was the beginning of me seriously wondering about Nikki…

Anyway, Nikki was pleasant and charming as always when I went up to chat with her today. I don’t think Rob or Tim were all that thrilled to see me, though. They certainly didn’t smile, but then we guys don’t, do we, under such circumstances? Nikki did, but then ladies do.

We didn’t talk shop. She did the standard thing polite people do when other topics are awkward — she asked after my family. Then she asked how I was doing, and I told her that I was with ADCO and having lunch with my colleagues over there, and gave her one of my ADCO cards. She said I was probably glad not to be at the paper any more, and I thought that was perceptive of her. Or a good guess. Maybe it was just an understated slap at the paper; I don’t know. So I asked how she was holding up, and she said great, and I said something about how things had probably gotten a lot less crazy in the last few weeks, and she agreed. And then she asked me again about my family. So I began to dismiss myself, thinking I should wish her all the best but wanting to be honest, and ended up saying something totally inane like, “Well, as long as you’re enjoying yourself; that’s the thing…”

My ADCO friends thought it odd that I had gone to speak with her. Maybe they thought I was showing off, as in That Brad! He’ll just do any crazy thing! But that’s because they only know about Nikki and me through what I’ve written on the blog lately. They don’t realize that I’ve known her for years, and we’ve always had a very cordial relationship. I’ve happily endorsed her twice — in 2004 and 2008 (those were the only elections in which she had opposition), and always enjoyed chatting with her. I always had good hopes for her — before she embarked on her quest to become the new Mark Sanford and darling of the Tea Party, South Carolina’s answer to Sarah Palin. Which is deeply unfortunate.

So it was nice to see her, even though there was that slight awkwardness.

There is nothing wrong with this cartoon

29 Replies

In fact, it’s quite awesome.

I missed it when Robert put it out week before last, and I’m glad it’s been called to my attention now. It’s hard to imagine a more pointed evocation of exactly what’s wrong with Nikki Haley. Or one of the things wrong with her, anyway.

What might be harder to imagine, to a sensible person who understands the concepts of satire and the idioms of topical visual communication, is the controversy it engendered.

It wasn’t all that much, of course. Just intimations that he was essentially calling her a “raghead.” Or check this one out, helpfully headlined, “Reminder: Nikki Haley is a Secret Muslim Whore.” An excerpt:

Now, just a month after Haley’s victory, one Republican cartoonist has emerged from his gutterto dredge up the same vile race-baiting and sexism that failed to derail her primary campaign. In a cartoon published Tuesday (pictured above), Robert Ariail portrays the Indian-American gubernatorial candidate as a bikini-clad pageant queen in the first panel and a niqab-clad Muslim in the second.  The cartoon explicitly echos previous race-, religion-, and gender-based attacks against Haley, a practicing Methodist raised in the Sikh tradition by her immigrant parents.

Ariail depicts Haley as a radical Muslim posing as an all American pageant contestant so she can put one over on voters.  He claims that’s totally different than when State Senator Jake Knotts described Haley as “a raghead that’s ashamed of her religion trying to hide it behind being Methodist for political reasons.”

All utter … let me think of a nice word… nonsense. An ironic side note: Robert’s used to getting this kind of … nonsense… from the left, so at least this is a change of pace, reflecting the extreme right’s recent and sudden discovery of the power of Identity Politics.

Silly as it all was, Robert was nevertheless asked by a local TV station to account for himself, which he dutifully did:

The cartoon on Ms. Haley is, I think, pretty straight forward: It contrasts her campaign’s message of open government and transparency ( which I support ) with her recent closed-door meetings, her refusal to release House e-mail accounts and her explanations on consulting fees and what she did to earn them. The cartoon is neither salacious nor an ethnic or religious slur. I came up with the idea of her as “Miss Transparency” wearing the title sash and bikini and chose the burqa as the best clothing metaphor representing the opposite of transparency. The burqa is a visual metaphore I’ve used before to make similar points. It is not about Ms. Haley’s religion- after all, she was a Sikh, not a Muslim, before she became a Christian. Anyone who claims this cartoon is an ethnic or religious slur is deliberately misconstruing its simple, issue-oriented meaning.

Robert Ariail
robertariail.com

I appreciate Robert’s extreme patience in providing this “hold-you-by-the-hand-and-explain-the-obvious” explication, but it almost ruins the cartoon for me that he had to. Explanation is death to comedy. And if there must be an explanation, I prefer the one that Robert suggested to me when I told him this morning I might post something about the foolishness that some chose to read into the cartoon. He suggested that I tell y’all, “Robert’s not thinking about s__t like that” when he does his thing. Please excuse his technical newspaperman jargon.

My message is, this is everything a cartoon should be: It makes an excellent political point that needs to be made, and it provides a laugh along the way. Good job, Robert.

Oh, one other thing. Today Wes Wolfe raised a new question about the cartoon (which is what got me to thinking about it): After saying that “After discussing the piece with friends, we decided that was perhaps not the best way to go” (which suggests to me he might need some new friends), Wes suggested that the cartoon may have had something to do with Robert parting company with The Nerve, the S.C. Policy Council Web pub Robert had done some cartoons for recently — since, you know, Nikki’s their kind of gal.

Well, that seemed unlikely to me, and Robert confirms: When you go back to work for the MSM, you can’t still be associated with what is essentially a propaganda entity. It’s just not a good fit. So he chose, wisely, the Spartanburg paper over The Nerve — and those folks understood, and they parted on good terms — as Wes notes. And now Robert’s back doing what he ought to do.

Finally, a bonus: Robert’s gotten into hot water over burqas before, ALSO over a hilarious, pointed cartoon that had absolutely nothing wrong with it. It was the one making fun over the controversy in the Legislature over young female pages being dressed too provocatively. The hoo-hah over that one at least led to something good — a conversation between me and Robert about how everybody seemed to be after him with the torches and pitchforks, which in turn led to the cover of his last book.

Anyway, for your enjoyment, a look at that earlier “offensive” cartoon:

So which was it — 99 days or 100?

8 Replies

Meant to raise this question yesterday, which would have been less confusing, but when it occurred to me last night I didn’t feel like breaking the laptop back out, so here goes.

On Monday, I received a release from the Rob Miller campaign headlined “99 Reasons,” and beginning this way: “It seems far away now, but we are just 99 days from ending Joe Wilson’s congressional career.”

OK. Aside from that sounding excessively optimistic, it wasn’t particularly interesting. So I set it aside.

Then I got a release from the Nikki Haley campaign headlined “100 days,” and saying essentially that that was how many days were left. How she arrived at the number is further confused by this boldfaced passage:

Yesterday marked a significant milestone in our campaign — there are only 100 days left until Election Day.

So does that mean they were counting from “yesterday,” which would have been Sunday? If so, why does the sentence go on to use the present tense, saying “there ARE only 100 days left”? One is left to conclude that the Haley campaign was saying there were still 100 days left.

Was she counting Monday itself, as a way of asserting her wish not to waste a day? Perhaps. But I’m left with the impression, once again, that these Democrats and Republicans can’t agree on anything. But I set that aside, too.

Then last night, just before 10 p.m., I got a release from Karen Floyd headlined “99 Days of Bad Ideas” and just chock full of the sort of ranting nonsense you expect from parties:

We’re going to hear from liberals like Joe Biden, who just stopped in to raise money for John Spratt, saying that we should have spent even more “stimulus” money.  We’re going to hear fromCongressman Spratt himself that the budget he wrote is actually fiscally responsible, although we all know it increases our debts and puts our nation at risk. We’re going to hear from Rob Millerthat it’s okay for candidates to accept millions of dollars from liberal Washington special interest groups. We’re going to hear from Vincent Sheheen that English doesn’t have to be our state’s official language and that tax cuts won’t create jobs and grow our economy. We’ll hear from Matt Richardson (he’s the liberal running for Attorney General, in case you’ve never heard of him) that we don’t need to stand up to the federal government when they step on our rights every other day. We’ll even hear from their US Senate candidate who believes action figures of himself will fix our high unemployment rate.

Why don’t they just save themselves trouble by typing “liberal” once and then just pasting it into the text over and over? “Liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal…” It would make as much sense, and be just as relevant. They could italicize some of them and boldface others, for variety. “Liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal…” If they don’t think variety is ideological heresy, of course.

And where on Earth did they get the thing about English as an official language? What does that have to do with anything? And is that really the best they can come up with as an indictment of Vincent?

Anyway, the thing that interested me was that Karen Floyd was siding with Rob Miller on the number of days left. Just goes to show that there is room for finding common ground across the partisan divide. And it demonstrates how out of touch Nikki is, even with her own party.

Yes, that last sentence would have had a smiley face after it if I did smiley faces.

Sanford Redux? Let’s pray not. But the long knives ARE likely to come out for Lindsey

6 Replies

First, the good news: As the one most thoughtful and principled Republican in the United States Senate — a guy who will fairly consider Democratic court nominees, just as he demands the same intellectual honesty from Democrats with Republican nominees — Lindsey Graham today became the only GOP senator to vote Elena Kagan out of committee.

Sure, some of the Republicans who voted against her and Democrats were voting for were voting their convictions, too, but the only person you KNOW was doing so was Lindsey Graham, because there was nothing in it for him politically. Except for the respect of us UnPartisans, and we’re not that powerful a lobby.

So, for the sin of being thoughtful and intellectually honest and really meaning it when he says elections have consequences and presidents’ choices, if qualified, should be given respect by the opposition, back home the yahoos are lining up to run against Lindsey Graham in the 2014 primary.

Really. Because this is South Carolina, where we don’t wait around for crazy; we grab it by the throat and ride it to death.

And of course the national media, from the MSM to Jon Stewart, have come to expect crazy from us, and have even started trying to anticipate it.

Which is why today, on the very day of the Kagan vote, we already have The Washington Post’s Chris Cilizza speculating about which Republicans will line up to run against Lindsay.

Frankly, I think it’s an overreaction. I suspect that when all is said and done and four years have passed Lindsey will — if he still wants the seat — face only marginal opposition from within his own party. But given what the nation has seen from the GOP within SC in recent months, who can blame Cilizza for compiling this list?

* Katon Dawson: The former chairman of the state Republican party would have the financial network and connections in the state to make a serious run at Graham. And, he may be looking for a next act after losing out on the Republican National Committee chairmanship in 2009.

* Jeff Duncan: Duncan, a state representative, is the odds-on favorite to replace Rep. Gresham Barrett in the 3rd district this fall. (Graham held that same Upstate seat before being elected to the Senate in 2002.) That would provide a real geographic base from which to run in four years time.

* Mark Sanford: Yes, that Mark Sanford. The soon-to-be-former governor has made clear to political insiders that he is interested in a return to politics and targeting Graham in 2014 might give Sanford enough time to rehab his badly damaged image.

* Trey Gowdy: Gowdy is a heavy favorite to come to Congress this fall after he crushed Rep. Bob Inglis (R) in a primary in the strongly Republican 4th district. He gets rave reviews from smart political people in the state but it remains unclear whether the Senate is an office he covets.

* Mick Mulvaney: Mulvaney, a state senator, is currently running against Rep. John Spratt (D) in the 5th district. Win — or even lose — and he’s likely to be in the Graham primary mix.

* Tom Davis: Davis is a state Senator from Beaufort (in the Lowcountry). He’s also a close ally of GOP gubernatorial nominee Nikki Haley. If Haley is elected governor this fall, her allies will be in the catbird’s seat for offices down the line.

“Yes, THAT Mark Sanford.” Just sends chills down the spine, doesn’t it? It that man’s political career is not over, then there is no justice in the political world. And between the kind of insanity that has some Republicans who would actually vote for him again (and you know there are a lot of them), and enough people on the Democratic side who would and did vote for Alvin Greene, it would pretty much end my faith in democracy as a positive force in South Carolina.

But you know what’s really awful about this? With Lindsey Graham, South Carolina has the best representation in the U.S. Senate that it’s had in my lifetime. Representation that, for once, we can truly be proud of. And the very idea that anyone would want to take that away from us is appalling.

But that they would be motivated to do so by his acting like a rational human being is what really provokes despair.

Here’s hoping that when all is said and done, this kind of doomsday thinking about SC is wrong. But recent history is not reassuring.

Let’s just say it over and over:

This is nothing but wild speculation from an outsider… This is nothing but wild speculation from an outsider…This is nothing but wild speculation from an outsider…This is nothing but wild speculation from an outsider…This is nothing but…

SC GOP having absolute cow over Pelosi’s $2k

18 Replies

You may have noticed something about South Carolina Republicans this year — even the ones who have good sense, like Henry McMaster: They’re all about national politics, and not at all about South Carolina.

So it is that you have Henry’s ridiculous “Vultures” ad. And with Nikki Haley, it pretty much seeps into everything she does. For instance, a routine release from her campaign yesterday began:

Friends,
Across this country, we’re seeing people waking up and taking their government back.  We certainly saw it in South Carolina last month …

Now let’s set aside the ridiculous demagogic “taking their government back” construction, which makes zero sense. I mean, really — give us some examples of these instances you refer to, because I’d like to see what this business of “taking back government” looks like, how it plays out in the actual world, what sorts of results it produces.

No, my point is that the frame of reference, the point from which the release begins, is national politics — specifically, a national ideological movement. From this point of view, what happens in and to South Carolina only makes sense within the framework of the latest national ideological fad.

But things like that actually almost make sense set against the paroxysms that have been engendered by a campaign contribution made to a South Carolina congressional candidate by Nancy Pelosi. Various Republicans have today gone wild over this. They just can’t believe their good fortune. Instead of having to play their usual game of pretending that South Carolinians like Vincent Sheheen and John Spratt are liberals in the modern meaning of the term, they actually have an actual liberal touching South Carolina politics. So of course they are jumping up and down with joy and making mighty mountains out of Nancy’s molehill. They are ecstatic, and like many people who are beside themselves with happiness, they have gotten rather silly about it. For instance:

  • Under the headline, “MATCH PELOSI: Let Her Know She Can’t Buy America,” Joe Wilson says, “Nancy Pelosi gave $2,000 to Rob Miller, so we’re asking you to help Joe raise $2,000 today and every day until August 1. Send a strong message to Nancy Pelosi that we’re going to protect conservative leaders and TAKE BACK CONGRESS!” There’s that “take back” construction again (which sort of makes you want to ask, “What did you do with it when you had it last, Joe?”). Then there’s the utter overkill of it. Nancy gives 2 Gs, so the natural response is to raise that much every single day! Somebody needs to take a chill pill.
  • On a special, rather comical-looking Web page called “Washington Liberals” and in a related release, State GOP Chair Karen Floyd exults: “Nancy Pelosi is building a team of like-minded liberals and pouring millions of dollars into South Carolina,” continuing, “You’re next up to bat. Will you let Nancy Pelosi buy South Carolina or will you knock her plan out of the park?”
  • Then, on Twitter, the Blogosphere’s own Wesley Donehue put out Tweet after Tweet pumping the Wilson effort, with items such as “Will you help us raise $2,000 today to match Nancy Pelosi’s donation to Rob Miller?” followed by “Dang! Already half way there after just 20 minutes. Help us hit just $2k for @congjoewilson.”

Which means people are actually giving actual dollars in response to this utter nonsense. What kind of a sap do you have to be to fall for this flapdoodle?

Now as y’all know, I have no truck with folks interfering in the politics of other people’s states. When folks from here get worked up about elections elsewhere that are none of their business, I call them on it. So for the record, I’d greatly prefer that Nancy Pelosi stay the hell out of our South Carolina elections. Of course, there are levels of egregiousness in outside interference. Speaker Pelosi acting in a fairly modest way upon her desire to keep a majority so that she can keep her job is unseemly. Howard Rich pouring a fortune into South Carolina, not for a national issue, but in an effort to impose his ideology upon the South Carolina Legislature, is an outrage. That distinction made, we can do without your involvement, Nancy.

But the really interesting thing here is the way Republicans overreact when they finally, finally get the smallest excuse to make a South Carolina contest about national politics. Since they have no ideas for helping South Carolina move forward, they invariably fall back on the Washington boogey man. And when a prominent Democrat actually plays along with their narrative, they are absolutely thrilled.

Did anybody go to Nikki’s meeting?

3 Replies

Since I got uninvited from the meeting at which Nikki Haley was to woo business support today, I’m wondering… Did it even happen, or did it get canceled or postponed? Who showed up? What was said? Did she make any progress against Vincent Sheheen’s Chamber support?

I drove past the Wilbur Smith building a little after noon, and about all I can report is that they certainly weren’t spilling out onto the sidewalk. But then, I wouldn’t really expect them to. It’s a big building.

Anyway, if you were one of the Elect who attended, drop me a line at [email protected]. I’d love to hear how it went.

Hey, I missed that amendment…

15 Replies

Man, I’ve just got to do a better job of keeping up with new wrinkles in the U.S. Constitution. Apparently there’s a provision now that requires that governors to vote on U.S. Supreme Court nominees.

Who knew?

That’s the only way I can explain this development, brought to my attention by an alert reader…

It’s an advisory about the same unveiling, in Columbia on Thursday, of the campaign I mentioned back here, but there’s a new wrinkle: It says in part that Nikki Haley is expected to attend. The event will be put on by “the nation’s leading grassroots military-support organization, Move America Forward” along with “the Judicial Action Group and Tea Party Express” to call on Sens. DeMint and Graham to opposed the nomination of Elena Kagan.

And why will Nikki, a candidate for governor of South Carolina, be there? To “give her reasons for opposing a Kagan nomination.”

Really.

This is a new one on me.

Anyway, this event will apparently be at 10 a.m., which leaves Nikki two hours before her secret meeting with business folk. I’m sure the business people will be thrilled to hear that she went out of her way to express herself about the Kagan issue — because, you know, that’s such a huge factor in improving the business climate in South Carolina…

Nikki’s secret meeting to try to woo business

12 Replies

Well, this is ironic…

When I was typing this post back here about how Nikki Haley is trying to compensate for the fact that the Chamber backs Vincent Sheheen, I got a call from Henry McMaster. Actually, first I got an e-mail from Trey Walker asking for my phone number, then I got a call from Henry.

What was Henry calling about? Well, let me back up a day…

At the end of Monday’s Columbia Rotary Club meeting, I ran into Henry (he and I are both members) on my way toward the door. It was the first time I had run into him since he lost the primary, and we chatted for a minute about that. He said something about wishing he could roll time back a couple of months, which prompted me to ask him what he would do differently, to which he responded that there really wasn’t anything he could have done to achieve a different result. Too much tumbled Nikki’s way in quick succession — the ReformSC ad, the Sarah Palin endorsement, the wave of sympathy arising from the Will Folks stuff — not to mention having Jenny Sanford out there working for her.

I sensed that Henry was, at least in spirit, not entirely thrilled with his new role as supporter of the GOP nominee. But he’s a good soldier, and he quickly roused himself to do his duty. As I was about to walk away and Crawford Clarkson was approaching, he grabbed my arm and said hey, he wanted to invite me and Crawford to a special meeting on Thursday at noon at the Wilbur Smith building.

He said it was a chance for business people to get answers to the questions they have about Nikki Haley. Nikki will be there to answer them. “And you’re a business man now, right?” he said to me. You betcha, I said.

Questions? At the Wilbur Smith building? Questions like, what did Nikki do for Wilbur Smith for that 40 grand, aside from having “good contacts”? Well… actually, all sorts of questions, Henry said, such as about her position on this bill or that one… I didn’t press him further, because I figured I’d find out Thursday, right?

And the best part? Henry said the media wasn’t being invited. So as a business guy, I’d have a scoop. Nice being a businessman, huh?

That was yesterday.

Today, Henry called me rather flustered. He said it was a “totally closed, no-press event.” That meant somebody like me, who would turn around and write about it (and I would, too), was NOT invited. “They’re right emphatic about it,” he said.

He told me how embarrassed he was, and I knew he was. I thanked him for calling — after asking if our former Rotary president, and president of ADCO, Lanier Jones could go instead of me. Lanier’s a businessman, and he doesn’t blog.

Henry said the meeting was getting really crowded, and he didn’t know, but he’d check.

I feel bad for Henry.

Show us transparency, Nikki: Release the e-mails

22 Replies

Did you see the strong editorial in The State Sunday, challenging Nikki “Transparency” Haley for hiding behind a loophole in FOI specifically carved out to protect legislators, and legislators alone, from transparency in order to keep her state-issued e-mail secret?

I was very glad to see it. As the edit pointed out, this isn’t about Will Folks or disgusting sex allegations. Neither The State‘s editorial board nor I expect to find anything about that if we ever see those e-mails. But the fact that this started with such accusations creates a smoke screen that lets Nikki get away with a flagrant flouting of the principles she lets on to hold most dear. From the heart of the editorial:

Ms. Haley, after all, is not just someone who thinks government transparency is a nice thing. Her one claim to fame as a legislator is her crusade to bring sunlight to a legislative process that for too long has protected lawmakers from accountability rather than giving the voters information they deserve. Her entire campaign for governor is built on that push for openness, for letting the public in on the Legislature’s secrets, for eliminating the special perks and privileges legislators give themselves and their friends.

Does that apply only to the direct expenditure of public money?

Does it apply only to other people?

Imagine if the blogger had claimed that he helped Rep. Haley secretly funnel millions of tax dollars into a green-bean museum and steer tens of millions more in cushy no-bid contracts to her campaign donors, and that messages on her government e-mail account would back up his claim. Is there anyone who would not be demanding that she make the correspondence public?

What is she hiding? Why doesn’t she want us to see the messages she has been sending as she juggled her campaign for governor with doing her job as a legislator?

It is not Ms. Haley’s job to disprove unsubstantiated allegations. It is, however, her job to prove that her commitment to ushering in government transparency and ushering out special legislative privileges is sincere — even more since it has been called into question before. She still hasn’t explained what she did to earn more than $40,000 in consulting fees from a government contractor that hired her for her “good contacts.”

If Ms. Haley were governor, we already would have seen her e-mails, because what governors write on their government e-mail accounts is public record. In fact, Gov. Mark Sanford’s attorney saw fit to turn over some e-mails from his personal account, because she determined that he was using it to discuss public business.

If Ms. Haley were the president of the University of South Carolina, we already would have seen her e-mails. Ditto if she were a $30,000-a-year clerk in the bowels of the bureaucracy, because what nearly all state employees write on their government e-mail accounts is public record.

The only reason her public e-mail correspondence has remained hidden is that she is a legislator, and legislators have written themselves a special exemption to the Freedom of Information Act.

This exemption is the very epitome of the secrecy that Ms. Haley vows to eliminate.

I’m glad to see this now. Because at some point, someone was going to point out this obvious inconsistency and raise a stink about it. My concern has been that it would happen in late October, thereby engendering another tidal wave of protective emotion that would sweep Rep. Haley to victory.

The time to address this is now, when there’s time to be calm. Time to see that she cannot possibly have any legitimate excuse not to share these state-sponsored communications.

What is she hiding, indeed? For all I know, absolutely nothing. But then I don’t know, because she’s hiding it, in a stunning display of contempt for the ideals she says she stands for.

Graham said what I think about the Tea Party

14 Replies

On Sunday, my wife was reading the paper, and announced that there was something in there about what Lindsey Graham said in that New York Times Magazine profile recently.

Turns out it was a rehash of the quote about not being gay.

What I had HOPED was being quoted was what he said about the Tea Partiers, because it’s the one question that ought to be asked of those folks repeatedly:

“Everything I’m doing now in terms of talking about climate, talking about immigration, talking about Gitmo is completely opposite of where the Tea Party movement’s at,” Graham said as Cato drove him to the city of Greenwood, where he was to give a commencement address at Lander University later that morning. On four occasions, Graham met with Tea Party groups. The first, in his Senate office, was “very, very contentious,” he recalled. During a later meeting, in Charleston, Graham said he challenged them: “ ‘What do you want to do? You take back your country — and do what with it?’ . . . Everybody went from being kind of hostile to just dead silent.”
In a previous conversation, Graham told me: “The problem with the Tea Party, I think it’s just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out.” Now he said, in a tone of casual lament: “We don’t have a lot of Reagan-type leaders in our party. Remember Ronald Reagan Democrats? I want a Republican that can attract Democrats.” Chortling, he added, “Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today.”

Whenever I hear Nikki Haley (you know Nikki Haley — she’s that extremist who wants to censure her own party’s senior U.S. senator for being a rational human being) say that line, “take our government back” to Tea Party cheers, I wonder the same things. Take it back from whom? To do what with it?

Gee, uh, thanks, Mr. Greenwich…

9 Replies

Since word had been flying around that Newt Gingrich, in SC for a GOP fund-raiser, had not actually endorsed Nikki Haley, he put out this hasty Tweet:

“Had a geeat meeting with nikki haleyShe is going to be a great reform governor of south carolinaI am delighted to endorse her”

The way I figure, any staffer he hired to do social media for him would be a better speller and typist than that. So I’m guessing that’s pure Newt.

Ron Paul inching toward another run?

18 Replies

We all have our little cheap tricks for driving traffic to our blogs. One local blogger posts cheesecake pictures and claims to have had sex with a candidate for governor. I occasionally put “Ron Paul” in a headline. The Paulistas come running in droves from across the country, for items such as this:

Last month’s trip to Iowa was his third to the state since November 2009, so it begs the question: Is Paul trying to lay the groundwork for a 2012 White House run?
“I am very serious about thinking about it all the time,” Paul said about his possible presidential aspirations. “My answer is always the same thing: You know I haven’t ruled it out, but I have no plans to do it.”
For now, Paul will continue to travel the country to promote his philosophy, while his 2008 presidential campaign operation has morphed into the Campaign for Liberty, a 500,000-member organization that promotes libertarian views.

Apparently he’s thinking of running as a Republican again this time. Don’t know why he doesn’t go back to running as a Libertarian. It was a closer fit (despite the GOP’s moves in that direction), and his chances would have been just as good. If I were a Libertarian, I’d feel abandoned — soon as the guy gets some notoriety, he leaves. Perhaps the emergence of Sanfordistas such as Nikki Haley encourages him that he’s making progress. Of course, I wouldn’t call it progress, but he would.

Maybe Nikki will teach Democrats a lesson

40 Replies

Thought I’d start a separate discussion based on a subthread back on the post about Nikki Haley on the cover of Newsweek.

Phillip, reaching for the bright side of the national MSM’s superficial coronation of Nikki because she’s an Indian-American woman, wrote:

Maybe this is all for a larger good. Even if I disagree with almost everything Haley or Tim Scott stand for, if this means the GOP is now abandoning the “Southern Strategy” of the Helms-Thurmond-Atwater variety, that can only be a healthy thing, for the party and for the country (and region).

Another way of putting it is that soon, racists and bigots in the South will have no one to vote for. That can only mean there’s fewer and fewer of them, and that, electorally speaking, they matter less and less.

And Kathryn chimed in, “Nice thought, Phillip–from your mouth to our ears!”

This little burst of liberal feelgoodism set me off in a way that again illustrates how impatient I am with both liberals and conservatives, even when they are respected friends such as Phillip and Kathryn:

Nice thought, but it hardly makes up for the hard reality. I’m moved to quote the last line of The Sun Also Rises: “Isn’t it pretty to think so?”

You want to hear a dark spin on Phillip’s rosy scenario? It’s all well and good for racism to have nowhere to go, and it’s fine for you to moralize about those awful racist Republicans becoming better. But here’s the other side of that: Maybe after she’s elected and we have another four, if not eight, years of Mark Sanford largely because the national media couldn’t see past being thrilled over an Indian-American woman, liberals in South Carolina (liberals elsewhere won’t notice because they don’t give a damn about SC, except as a source of their occasional amusement) will think, “Maybe this identity politics thing isn’t such a wonderful thing after all.”

Now that would be tremendous. But you know what? I’ve waited through too many 4-year chunks of wasted time in South Carolina to go through another such period just so that Republicans can be more ideologically correct and Democrats can wise up a little. It’s not worth it. Change these things about the parties, and other objectionable idiosyncrasies will simply expand to take their places, because parties are schools for foolishness.

This positive name recognition in Newsweek and elsewhere, which doesn’t go more than a micrometer deep (an Indian-American woman! in the South! Swoon. End of story) is going to make her unstoppable — until the narrative changes in some way.

If the South Carolina MSM will do its job and ask the hard questions (OK, Ms. Transparency, where are those PUBLIC e-mails, which you are hiding behind a special exemption from FOI laws that lawmakers carved out for themselves? Any more $40,000 deals to buy your “good contacts” that you haven’t seen fit to disclose?), maybe the national media, the media that people in SC are much more pervasively exposed to, will notice. Maybe. Maybe. Isn’t it pretty to think so?

Whom we elect in SC is none of your business, Gov. Pawlenty

15 Replies

As you know, few things tick me off more than the nationalization of local politics. I even get on the case of politicians I like when they start acting like they want to influence the residents of OTHER states as to whom they should elect — especially since they almost always do so in behalf of those abominations, the two major political parties.

So it is that we are not amused at this latest small outrage:

I’m Gov. Pawlenty’s communications director… Watned to let you know
that today, Gov. Pawlenty’s Freedom First PAC will formally endorsing
and contributing to several South Carolina candidates in this fall’s
elections:

Governor – Haley – $3500
Senator – DeMint – $3000
SC-01 – Scott – $2000
SC-02 – Wilson – $2000
SC-03 – Duncan – $2000
SC-04 – Gowdy – $2000

As you probably know, Governor Pawlenty is currently in South
Carolina. Last night, he attended a fundraiser for the state GOP at
the home of GOP chairman Karen Floyd in Spartanburg with Nikki Haley.
(We posted a photo of the two of them on Gov. Pawlenty’s facebook
page.) This morning, he attended a fundraiser for Mick Mulvaney’s
congressional campaign in Rock Hill.

Please let me know if you have any questions or need an on-the-record
quote from me.
Thanks,
Alex

As I’m typing this, I can’t remember who the frick “Gov. Pawlenty” is, but let me guess before I Google it: He’s yet another Republican who thinks he’s got what it takes to be president, cozying up to South Carolina Republicans because of our early primary.

And the answer is… Yes, I was right! Of course, it’s not much of a guess. Even Mark Sanford was once in that fraternity, which shows you, anybody can get in.

At least he’s got a motive. But that doesn’t excuse it.