Category Archives: Republicans

Folks, Joe’s got enough money. You can stop giving now

It’s rather incredible that after all those millions that rolled into his (and opponent Rob Miller’s) coffers right after the “You Lie!” incident, Joe Wilson would still be trying to raise money.

But that’s how it works these days. Candidates raise money so they can set up a real steamroller of an operation that will raise them MORE money, on and on. Rob Miller’s probably doing the same thing and just doesn’t have my e-mail address or something.

Anyway, here’s Joe’s latest. Note the bombast. Note the hyperbole. Note the over-the-top demonization of the opposition. Yeah, it’s all extremely destructive to our ability to have a civil society, but hey — who cares if it works in infuriating people enough to give money, right? Here it is:

The clock is ticking to end the spending spree in Washington. But Nancy Pelosi and her gang of liberals are trying to pull out all the stops to silence our conservative beliefs. You have less than 24 hours left to have your voice heard since tonight at midnight marks the end of the financial quarter.

Just this week, Democrats launched an initiative aimed at tripping up conservatives and trying to play gotcha games. Since liberals can’t win with their ideas like government-run health care and raising our taxes, they have to play games instead.

I have been busy meeting with constituents constantly in the Palmetto State. Hard work is something I greatly value, and my promise has always been to be accessible and accountable. This recent video will show just one example of my commitment to the Second District of South Carolina.

I realize we are in a tough economy, unemployment is far too high and the liberals in Washington need to get out of the way of small businesses and stop spending your money endlessly.

Going up against people who we’ve all seen will do or say anything isn’t easy. This is a team effort. Momentum is on the conservative side, we’ve seen it recently with the historic elections of Republicans in New Jersey and Massachusetts.

My opponent is taking in big bucks from unions and extreme groups like Moveon.org. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has even chipped in a few grand to the opposition. Such donations will tell you where he really stands.

November may seem like a long way away, but we’re in a battle of ideas. Our side will win and we will do it together. The financial quarter ends at midnight tonight. Just $100, $50 or $25 will go along way in helping us send a strong message to Nancy Pelosi.

Please keep our conservative movement running strong as we build momentum for the fall.

Sincerely,

Joe Wilson

US Congressman

PS – The financial quarter ends at midnight tonight. All the political pundits will be reporting on our fundraising totals. Please click here, to make a small donation and let Nancy Pelosi know that big government isn’t the path to economic freedom.

Yeah, things may be tough and you may not have a job, but I’m hoping I can get you to hate those other guys enough to cough up some of the money from your tiny unemployment check to help me stop ’em.

God have mercy upon us.

Like Joe would actually do anything to change the country, even by this pitiful standard, if re-elected. The point is to re-elect Joe, because he really likes being your congressman. He really does. It’s sort of touching, really, the extent to which he digs it, and gets all breathless about it. (I suppose Joe would send out letters gushing about just that, but his well-compensated consultants advise against anything that positive.) He’s like his late predecessor Floyd Spence in that respect. Floyd never tried to DO anything in Washington; he just loved being a congressman and having his picture taken with famous people, and voting a safe, conservative way, and doing constituent service so that folks would let him keep doing it. He never rocked anybody’s boat, and normally Joe doesn’t, either. It’s not his nature.

Which is what makes the “You Lie” thing so weird. I think Joe shocked himself that night, losing control like that. Which is why he apologized… until he saw all that money coming in.

Results mystify in the two runoffs worth watching

18 Replies

I was way tired last night after going to Charleston and back and then swinging by a couple of watch parties, so no posting about runoff results.

But then, I didn’t have much to say. There was nothing to say about Nikki Haley because we knew she was going to win. Even the historic news of Tim Scott becoming the first black Republican nominated to Congress from SC since Reconstruction was anticlimactic; we had fully expected him to win big as well.

The suspense was with the lawyers — in the GOP attorney general’s race on the statewide level and Democratic solicitor’s race locally. And the results on both was disappointing.

Leighton Lord was clearly the stronger candidate for attorney general. Alan Wilson is a fine young man (and his wife is a friend from church and from the news biz), but come on — he’s been a lawyer 7 years. I’ve got a kid who’s been a lawyer almost exactly that long. Lord was the managing partner of a large law firm, a man at the peak of his career, admitted to practice before the Supreme Court, and so on and so forth. There just was no contest. If you were a rational employer choosing between these two applicants for such a senior position as attorney general, it wouldn’t take you more than a couple of seconds to choose Lord.

John Meadors was just as clearly better-qualified to be solicitor, something he has amply demonstrated over the course of 23 years of able service as a prosecutor. Yes, Dan Johnson had such experience too, but less of it. I see that Rep. James Smith had endorsed him. I’m having lunch with James tomorrow and maybe he can explain it. But with the endorsements Meadors had, including that of the third candidate in the primary, plus the fact that his team included Joey Opperman, who helped run such an effective runoff campaign for Steve Benjamin, made me think he’d win this one. (Plus, he advertised on this blog, which is usually a clincher.) But he didn’t.

After the Alvin Greene debacle, my faith in democracy has been a bit shaken. While these two instances are nowhere near as bad as that case — not within light years of it — I’m struck again at how whimsical election results can sometimes be. And this year, seemingly, more than most. Yeah, I know about the narrative of “less experience is better” this year, but that is so irrational, so positively childish, that I look for better reasons for the voters to have for the decisions that they make. I wonder: Was Leighton Lord too aristocratic, too “born to rule” seeming for an electorate in the hunt for the common touch (which is related to “experience is bad,” but not quite the same)? If so, why go with the son of a congressman? Was Meadors’ loss as simple as “the black guy won” (even though Meadors had plenty of visible black support)? Let’s hope not.

Anyway, at this point the only thing to do is congratulate Dan Johnson and hope he’ll be a great solicitor — since solicitor he will be, with no GOP opposition. And to give Alan Wilson a more conditional congratulations, and begin to focus on the contest to come in the fall against Democrat Matthew Richardson.

“Truth Squad,” whoever they are, win in court

7 Replies

An update — early this evening I got an e-mail from “South Carolina Truth Squad” attorney Todd Kincannon (last seen sponsoring “Pub Politics”), saying “We won” in reference to his clients’ case in the state Supreme Court.

But not having been there, I didn’t really have enough to write a post based on that. Now Jack Kuenzie over at WIS has filed this report:

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) – The Republican runoff race for attorney general continues to get hotter as an attack ad made by a third party sparked a state Supreme Court hearing on Monday.

An attorney for candidate Alan Wilson argued before the state Supreme Court over the ethics of a critical campaign ad paid for by a group called the “South Carolina Truth Squad.”…

But Truth Squad attorney Todd Kincannon filed an appeal, and the dispute landed late Monday afternoon in front of three members of the State Supreme Court.

“This is true speech,” said Kincannon. “This is political speech. It is the highest form of speech. It is the most protected form of speech and that is a point that has been lost, I believe.”…

Monday evening, the Supreme Court sided with the Truth Squad and granted the stay of the restraining order. The ad continues to air.

But who is the Truth Squad? Wilson’s opponent, Leighton Lord, denies any connection with the ad. But Monday’s hearing indicated some if not all of the money, $90,000, came from a 22-year-old assistant to Kincannon.Well, we still don’t know who they are, but their ads against Alan Wilson will keep on airing as we head into tomorrow’s runoff.

We still don’t know who they are, but apparently their ad will keep airing against Alan Wilson as we head into tomorrow’s runoff.

The video ad that Leighton Lord DID approve

3 Replies

Before writing that past post, I wrote to Leighton Lord to ask:

Leighton, does this video have anything to do with your campaign? If not, do you know who’s doing this?

He wrote back:

B, this is our spot, below, don’t who the Truth Squad is. Not my campaign.

Above (not below) is the ad that he takes responsibility for. As you see, it starts out with a MUCH milder, less wacky Tea Party-ish version of the same sentiment Henry McMaster was going after in “Vultures.” Or perhaps the same IDEA, I should say. Lord is very much about reason, not emotion.

Beyond that, I think he makes his case well that he’s better prepared to be the state’s attorney general than Alan Wilson is. (And you’ll note he makes the same points as the mystery video, except for the “Daddy” part.) That’s not so say anything bad about Alan; I think he’s a good guy. But he doesn’t have Lord’s resume. And that business about Lord not being a prosecutor is a red herring, given the job they’re running for.

Who is the “SC Truth Squad?”

14 Replies

Here’s an interesting little last-minute puzzle.

See the above video. Note that it’s an attack video against Alan Wilson, yet not approved by his runoff opponent Leighton Lord. It’s from a group calling itself the “South Carolina Truth Squad.” It’s a South Carolina classic, having a PO Box but no physical office address, Web site or any other overt presence (you know, like Alvin Greene).

If you wrack your brain, and the Web, for an answer to the question, “Why does ‘South Carolina Truth Squad’ sound so familiar?” you’ll see that it’s the name of that pro-Obama group that was the vehicle for Dick Harpootlian and others to attack the Clintons back in January 2008. I wrote about it back here. Dave Barry wrote about it, tangentially, here.

So are Dick et al. getting their licks in early, assuming Wilson will be the nominee. I doubt it, while not discounting the possibility entirely.

Meanwhile, the Wilson campaign has put out this release:

EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION

FROM: Robert Bolchez, former Republican candidate for Attorney General

Over the past 24 hours. we have called as many Republicans as possible and left a recorded message about an incredible last minute dirty trick someone has launched during the final hours of the Attorney General’s race.

PLEASE MAKE ALL YOUR FRIENDS AWARE OF THIS:

A mysterious group calling itself the S.C. Truth Squad is spending over a hundred thousand dollars to pay for last minute TV ads attacking Alan Wilson. And it’s important for Republican voters not to be deceived by these underhanded tactics. I can assure you that those ads are either misleading or completely untrue

As you know, until last Tuesday I was a Republican candidate for Attorney General. Now that I’m no longer in the race, I have offered my full support to Alan Wilson.

Alan is now the ONLY prosecutor in the race. He’s also a decorated combat veteran and he’s the only candidate who’s actually served as an Assistant Attorney General. By far, Alan is best qualified for the job.

Again, please tell all your friends that the TV ads attacking Alan Wilson are NOT true. In the race for attorney general, Alan is by far best qualified to protect our families.

I ask you to join me in supporting Alan in the runoff election tomorrow. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Robert Bolchoz

One assumes Robert Bolchoz was involved, even though his name is misspelled in the “from” line.

Funny thing about all this mystery — the video’s not all that out of line. One can believe an actual campaign would claim it. Sure, it goes overboard to be unfair, such as when it says “The truth is, the only notable thing in Alan Wilson’s background is being a congressman’s son.” Actually, I think his being a combat veteran is notable, even though its relevance to the post he’s seeking is questionable.

In fact, the tone is no more negative than the tone in the ad below that Wilson actually posts on his Web site.

As for substance in these ads, such as it is? Well, I think Lord’s experience running a big law firm is more relevant and impressive than young Alan’s short time as a prosecutor. For what that’s worth. (And calling his Daddy “our conservative hero Joe Wilson” is for me the biggest turnoff in either ad.)

“We are not Confederates.” See, that was easy

21 Replies

Back on a previous post, Greg Jones said:

On a final note; do any of the German government buildings still fly the Nazi flag?
Just asking.

To which I gladly replied, No, they do NOT, Greg. The Germans decided to draw a line, to say going forward, “We are not Nazis.”

Unfortunately, South Carolina has not yet decided to declare to the world, “We are not Confederates.”

And therein lies the problem.

At this point, the “heritage” crowd will get apoplectic, and scream about how the Confederacy and the war it started is completely different from the Nazis and the war they started, with different causes, different motivations and different kinds of moral culpability.

But the BIGGEST way in which they are different is that the Germans are able to say, “We know our history and will never forget it. But we HAVE learned from it. And we can say unequivocally, that is not what we are about any more.”

And South Carolinians, who should be able to do the same, do not. In fact, the Republicans seeking to become our next governor deliberately, meekly submit themselves to, and do their best to pass, an ideological purity test administered by people who think the exact same conflict over the exact same issues continues today, and who are continuing the struggle.

Senate wasting time on voter ID

53 Replies

While we all wait for the Senate to act on the Sanford vetoes overridden by the House (an override doesn’t stick unless both chambers do it), Mike Fitts reports that they are busy squabbling over a partisan litmus-test issue:

With dozens of vetoes overturned by the House headed to the Senate for consideration, that legislative body was entangled this morning in a Democrat-led filibuster over voter I.D. legislation. Democrats fear the bill would disenfranchise thousands of people, especially the poor, who often do not have drivers’ licenses or easy access to their birth certificates.

Yeah, I know that many people of goodwill on both sides — people I respect — think there is a huge principle involved here, and that the consequences of their losing the fight would be dire. But I remain unpersuaded.

As I’ve written in the past, including one of my very last columns at the paper, I am unpersuaded by both sides. The GOP claims they must stop widespread voter fraud. The Dems claim they are trying to prevent wholesale disenfranchisement. I frankly think any fraud that actually occurs, or people who would even be inconvenienced by voter ID, are few and far between, and not enough to determine the outcome of elections.

But you say, isn’t ONE case of voter fraud an outrage? Isn’t a single person denied the right to vote a sin against democracy?

Look, call me heartless or apathetic, but I take the 30,000-foot view on this. I’m looking at the forest. To me, the staggering numbers of people who vote with NO idea who they are voting for or why is a MUCH greater threat to democracy than these rare phenomena the two parties are obsessing over.

Doubt me? Well, then, I have two words for you: Alvin Greene.

Nikki and the neo-Confederates

35 Replies

“Nikki and the neo-Confederates”… Hey, THAT could be a name for my band! Kind of Katrina-and-the-Wave-ish. I wonder if Nikki would agree to front us?

Just though y’all might be interested in viewing the video of Nikki Haley and the other candidates seeking the endorsement of a group called “South Carolina Palmetto Patriots.” And who are the “South Carolina Palmetto Patriots” aside from folks with a certain affinity for redundancy? Well, by their agendas ye shall know them. To quote from the group’s “2010 Agenda:”

The Federal government has stolen our liberties and rights and nullified our ability to self govern as a state. It is the obligation of all people of our great state to restore unto ourselves and our children these inalienable rights as set forth in The Constitution of the United States of America.

Mind you, that’s the preamble to their 2010 Agenda, and not their 1860 Agenda. Don’t believe me? Here it is.

You think maybe I’m kidding when I say the GOP this year has spun so far out that the worst thing you can call a Republican candidate, in his estimation, is a “moderate?” All four gubernatorial hopefuls dutifully sat down and earnestly answered this group’s questions. Did they do that for any group that YOU belong to?

I didn’t watch all of it. I couldn’t. But if you want to here’s the link. And here’s the first clip from Nikki’s interview:

‘I am not a moderate.’ That just says it all…

5 Replies

First, an apology: I realize it’s unfair to single out this one thing that Gresham Barrett said in his interview with The State. There was a lot of other information in the piece, and I learned things about him I hadn’t known — or had forgotten. I recommend that anyone who plans to vote in next Tuesday’s runoff and is undecided read it.

But I tend to zero in on telling details, and this one really struck me — not for what it says about Gresham Barrett, but for what it tells us about what’s going on in the Tea Party-besieged GOP:

Barrett said he’s been on the receiving end of more attacks, including a Haley TV ad, than any other Republican gubernatorial candidates “My record over the last several months has been distorted. I am not a liberal. I am not a moderate. … Unfortunately, a lot of people have disagreed with my TARP vote and can’t get over it. There’s nothing I can do about that. It is what it is.”

Let’s hear that again:

“I am not a moderate.”

God forbid he should be seen as anything but an extremist. Obviously, he (like pretty much all the Republicans this year) believes that would be political death. Which reminds us why I simply could not see endorsing, or voting for, any of the GOP gubernatorial hopefuls this year — which is a real departure for me.

Now, to highlight some of the good stuff I learned about him from the piece: He remains unafraid to differentiate himself from Mark Sanford, at least in small ways. I knew that he did not hesitate to criticize him in the past. But this year, Republicans all seem to be doing a calculation that goes like this: What’s going on? The voters — at least MY voters, who are usually sensible conservatives — all seem to have lost their minds this year! How can I stay on their good side? What’s my guide? Oh, yeah — Mark Sanford! HIS ideas are totally nuts… since the voters have gone nuts, maybe they’d like it if I act like HIM… and so forth. But Gresham Barrett is saying no to that, at least to some extent.

And that means voters (or at least, those who did not vote in the Democratic primary) have an actual choice next Tuesday. Not that he has a chance, but at least they do have a choice, between an actual conservative Republican, and a Sanfordista who talks about being a conservative (and not so much a Republican).

We’re making one heck of an international impression

8 Replies

It’s just not the sort a sane person would want to make.

As I was getting out of a vehicle to walk to the State House right after lunch today, I got a call on the Blackberry from Paris. Caller ID said the number was … well, there were 11 digits. To summarize the phone call, I quote from the e-mail I found when I got back to the office:

Good Morning M. Warthen,

I am a french journalist, working for a french national private media
called Radio Classique.
I am working today on a story about Alvin Greene and the democrat
candidacy.
It would be very interesting for me to talk to you about that and may be
doing a short interview by phone.
Is it possible ?
It would be great.
May be within two hours or tomorrow morning your time ?

It would be great and very interesting.

thank you very much.

Best regards.

Marc Tedde
Radio Classique

I asked if he also wanted to talk about all the Nikki Haley stuff. He didn’t know about any of that. Just as well.

Just what South Carolina needs.

Anyway, we’re going to do the interview tomorrow morning — afternoon, his time, morning our time. I’m going to let him call me again, rather than vice versa, I assure you.

Truer words than Jake’s never spoken in SC

9 Replies

Well, I’ve gotta hand it to Jake Knotts — he stood up as what he is and spared no words about it: He is a redneck. And he was right to be proud of the supposed ephithet. A farmer suntan is a mark of hard work, something of which a simple kind of man should be quietly proud. Or blusteringly proud, depending on his inclinations.

In saying that, he touched on something — a minor, side issue, really — I tried to explain in my column about why we VERY RELUCTANTLY endorsed him against Mark Sanford’s candidate in 2008. The decision nearly killed Cindi Scoppe from sheer mortification, but there was one silver lining in it for me: I had always felt a tiny bit of middle-class guilt over always being against the rednecks (on video poker, on the lottery, on the Flag, and so on), and sometimes doing it in a way that betrayed class snobbery on my part. I figured, endorse this rough, brutish son of the soil against the Club for Growth snobs just once, and for the next 20 years I wouldn’t have to feel that guilt again. Yes, I’m being a little facetious, but also a little bit serious.

Anyway, you can’t deny (unless you are a Republican Party functionary, in which case you will deny it most vehemently) the truth of what Jake said about the hypocrites of his party, who defend Nikki from his brutishness because she’s their gal, and their likely standard-bearer in the fall. Unlike Henry McMaster, Jake will not humbly join that train; he remains what he is, with all the good and bad that entails.

What is Jake right about?

He’s right when he says that if he’d only called Barack Obama a “raghead,” the Lexington County Republican Party would not have indignantly censured him and sought his resignation. Calling the president a “raghead” would be merely a comical slip, compared to the deliberate demonization of the president through such devices as Henry’s “Vultures” ad. If Jake had only been talking about Obama, it would merely have put him on the ragged edge of what is increasingly his party’s mainstream (as the mainstream is more and more infiltrated by Tea Party extremism). Oh, Carol Fowler would have fired off an indignant statement. The Black Caucus may have drafted a fiery resolution that would have died a lonely death on the House floor. But within the Republican Party, only a deafening silence. The righteous fury we’re hearing is coming from advocates for Katrina Shealy and Nikki Haley. It’s coming from the Sanford wing of the party, which is seeing the chance to achieve what it could not in eight years of holding the governor’s office — seize control of the party.

He’s ABSOLUTELY right when he alludes to the uncomfortable truth about the newly politically correct GOP. It deserves to be carved into granite somewhere over at the State House:

“If all of us rednecks leave the Republican Party, the party is going to have one hell of a void.”

Indeed. Where would the S.C. GOP be without rednecks? In the minority, that’s where. That’s assuming they went back to the Democratic Party where they came from.

I was just over at the State House myself, and fell into conversation with Dwight Drake, and I happened to ask him — now that he’s out of it — how he thinks Vincent-vs.-Nikki contest will shake out.

He said that of course one must start with the obvious — that this is a majority Republican state (actually, a plurality-Republican state, but why quibble?) … which caused me to interrupt him to say, “Which it wouldn’t be if all the rednecks left, as Jake said.” And he readily agreed.

Of course, he would agree, being a Democrat. But if Republicans were totally honest, they would agree, too. There is no question that the balance of power in the South shifted from the Democrats to the Republicans as Strom Thurmond and George Wallace led legions of rednecks to abandon the Democratic Party. No, not everyone who switched parties was a redneck; some were mere pragmatists who saw there was a heap of white people in their districts and if they wanted to be elected, they needed to go with the GOP. But that would not be the case if not for the rednecks. However much of the GOP vote may be thus described — 15 percent, 30 percent, whatever — it’s enough to mean there are more Republicans than Democrats.

And while your more high-minded sort of Republican — the kind who like to imagine themselves as the sort who 50 years ago would have been Republican, when in the South it was not much more than a debating society making up a demographic roughly the same size as the Unitarians (the kind who are feeling SO broad-minded because they may have a nonEuro, something that would excite relatively little comment among Dems) — may protest loudly at the notion, on some operational level, consciously or unconsciously, every Republican with the pragmatic sense to win a primary knows this. Occasionally we see overt manifestations of it, such as in 1994 when the GOP unashamedly boosted their primary turnout by including a mock “referendum” question on the Confederate flag. Or when, having taken over the House as a result of that election, the new majority made it one of its first orders of business to put the flying of the flag a matter of state law, so that no mere governor could take it down.

Lord knows that other pathetic gang the Democrats has enough to be embarrassed over, but this is the big dirty secret of the Republican Party. Huh. Some secret. Everybody knows it.

The Republican Party can talk all it wants to about conservatism and “small government,” yadda-yadda, but we all know that it has political control in these parts because of the rednecks in its ranks. That’s just the way it is.

Two views on the McMaster endorsement

6 Replies

First, we have this release from Nikki Haley:

Friends,

With one week until Election Day, I am proud to welcome my friend Attorney General Henry McMaster to our campaign! General McMaster was a true gentleman on the campaign trail and I am thrilled to have him join our team.

You can watch General McMaster’s endorsement from this morning here.

Over the past few days, we have seen South Carolinians from all political backgrounds join our movement. The people are tired of arrogant, unaccountable governance and we are ready to take our government back! General McMaster’s endorsement is merely a reflection of the support we are seeing from across this state – and I am honored by the trust he has placed in me.

To help us build on these great successes, please consider contributing to the campaign today. I can promise you that we are spending campaign contributions wisely.

Thank you for all your hard work on my behalf and I look forward to seeing you on the campaign trail soon!

My very best,

Nikki

Interestingly, that came over the transom (view transom here) AFTER I got this from S.C. Democratic HQ:

SC Dems: McMaster Endorsement Confirms Haley as Establishment Candidate

COLUMBIA- South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler released the following statement today in response to State Attorney General Henry McMaster’s endorsement of GOP gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley.

“It’s no surprise to South Carolinians that Henry McMaster would endorse Nikki Haley today. Mrs. Haley proudly represents the Republican Party establishment in South Carolina. As a devoted student of Mark Sanford’s School of Political Ideology, she would continue to promote the same failed policies and agenda of the Sanford/McMaster administration. South Carolina voters are tired of the GOP establishment and ready to take our state in a different direction under the leadership of Vincent Sheheen,” said Fowler.

Paid for by the South Carolina Democratic Party – 1.800.841.1817 or www.scdp.org –

and not authorized by any federal candidate or candidate’s committee.

Establishment candidate? Our Nikki? Them’s fightin‘ words!

Fun Post III: Drummer shows up at wrong gig

4 Replies

This bit of fun comes to you courtesy of our pal Burl Burlingame out in Hawaii.

You have to watch it long enough for the music to start before it gets good, but it’s worth the wait. Nothing like a bit of musician humor.

And Burl should know from musician humor, being a talented purveyor of melodies himself. Rather than having spent the last 40 years talking about starting a band the way I have (still working on the name, and the playlist), he has played in a number of them.

Very little-known bit of music trivia here, sort of on the order of Moonlight Graham‘s half-inning in the bigs, only much more small-time: Burl and I were in a band together VERY briefly back in the summer of 1971, right after we graduated from Radford High School. The band was together for the length of one rehearsal, over at Steve Clark’s house. Burl played harp (harmonica for you non-musical squares out there), and I was the front man. Thought I was Mick Jagger.

And what does all this have to do with politics, which is what you usually come to this blog for? Well, a few years back Steve Clark ran for one of those congressional seats in Texas that the Republicans caused such a stir by gerrymandering into existence. But he dropped out before the actual primary.

And — wonder of wonders! — I just discovered (looking for a link) that he’s running AGAIN, as a “Tea Party conservative.” At least, I think he’s still running. His campaign Facebook page hasn’t been updated since February.

To get a sense of just how wildly absurd it is to me to think of Steve this way, check out the picture of him

in 1971, and compare it to his campaign picture. And no; I’m not telling you which one’s which. DANG! I thought there’d be more of a contrast (I had not yet looked when I typed that last sentence) — I forgot that Steve, who even then spoke of a career in politics, used to always tuck his shoulder-length (or at least Prince Valiant-length; somewhere in that range) hair back behind his ears before being photographed. Crafty, eh?

Maybe if this campaign also goes belly-up, we can get into some serious negotiations about getting the band back together.

Bolchoz endorses Wilson for attorney general

3 Replies

While I was at Rotary at 1 p.m. today, Robert Bolchoz endorsed Alan Wilson for the Republican nomination for state attorney general.

So if you’re Leighton Lord, you’re worried right about now. You would have barely trailed Wilson in the vote last Tuesday, 39 percent to 37. The question becomes, how much of his 24 percent can Bolchoz deliver?

I don’t know. We’ll see. More on this race later. I’m trying to get some face time with the two remaining candidates.

Lawmakers will uphold most of Sanford’s vetoes

21 Replies

Governor threatened to veto entire budget again

It took me all afternoon, but I finally balanced my checkbook. Having done that, it is with a great sense of self-sacrifice that I know turn back to the state budget. Oh, my head!

Anyway, you’ll recall that I mentioned the e-mail exchange that a reader had had with House Majority Leader Kenny Bingham, which to me raised questions. That reader later wrote to me again to relate a phone conversation that he’d had subsequently with Kenny. That caused me to send Kenny an e-mail asking him the following:

Kenny, I’ve got a question for my blog… is this correct? Did the governor threaten to veto the whole budget again? And did y’all promise to uphold his vetoes if he didn’t?

If so, why in the world didn’t you just tell him to veto the whole budget if that’s what he wanted to do, and then override him, just as you did before?

I’m just not following this…

— Brad

Kenny responded last night by calling me at home and taking a long time to explain to me what had happened. The two startling things I learned are reflected above in my headline and subhead, to repeat:

In all the wrestling back and forth over the budget at the end of the session, at one critical moment the governor threatened again to do the outrageous thing he did in 2006 — veto the entire budget. Rather than call that bluff, the GOP leadership (the group led in the House by Speaker Bobby Harrell, Ways & Means chair Dan Cooper and Kenny) made a deal to uphold most of his line-item vetoes. Why did they not just let him veto the whole budget and override him as they did in 2006? Because between the Democrats, who were voting as a bloc against every move the GOP leaders made, and the Republicans who could be counted on to vote with Sanford, the leaders didn’t think they COULD override a veto of the entire budget. And the leadership didn’t want to see the government shut down.
To avoid that, the leadership agreed to sustain most of the governor’s vetoes. I can’t give you numbers, because frankly I’m not sure of them, and Kenny wasn’t giving me precise numbers anyway. We’re talking about roughly $70 million in vetoes that will be sustained. That’s nowhere near the $414 million that the 107 vetoes total up to. But about half of that is a special pot of money created to deal with a special, stimulus-related, higher Medicaid match that Congress hasn’t yet extended, and the governor says they won’t and lawmakers think it will, and even if it doesn’t there’s enough money to last in the program through next February or April, and… well, it gets REALLY complicated. That disputed Medicaid match is isolated in a section of the budget called Part Four. Most of the vetoes lawmakers will be sweating over are in Part One. (Part Two is where you find provisos, and I never even bothered asking about Part Three, if there is a Part Three…)

And yes, the parts they’re likely to sustain include some of the things that folks are most upset about being cut, such as the State Museum. So does that mean the Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum, for instance, will shut down?

Kenny says no, because the Budget and Control Board has reserves that will keep the museum and other drastically cut programs

Kenny Bingham -- 2006 file photo/Brad Warthen

going. But there he is relying on the governor SAYING those reserves are available to bail out those programs. And the e-mail campaign against these vetoes that I’ve seen says the governor is wrong about that. I asked, how do you know the governor’s right? And he doesn’t know. I asked, what does Frank Fusco (head of the B&C Board) say? Kenny said he hadn’t talked to Frank yet. Presumably he will before the voting on Tuesday.

Bottom line, Kenny doesn’t know exactly what will happen Tuesday on all those vetoes, because there are a number of things that haven’t been worked out yet. And THAT’S what’s different about this situation. In the past, at this point he would have said with confidence that no one should worry; the vetoes would be overridden. That’s what we’ve seen year after year: Sanford makes his symbolic gesture, and the Legislature keeps the government running.

But this is the first time I’ve seen the GOP leadership this flummoxed over the Sanford vetoes. And as Kenny tells it a lot of it arises from the fact that the leaders just don’t think they have the votes. They blame the Democrats (no surprise there, huh?) for voting against them on a number of key budget votes. He said every single Democrat, with the occasional exception of Herb Kirsh, voted against them. Add to that the minority bloc of Republicans that can be relied upon to vote the Sanford way, and the leadership barely had the votes to pass a budget at all, much less come up with the two-thirds to override the governor.

As an example of the things they fought over… the leadership came up with a plan to raise court fees and license fees to help keep the courts running and pay for the next class of state troopers. The Sanford loyalists wouldn’t go for it, and the Democrats said Republicans should raise a general tax rather than paying for the added expenses with new fees.

I need to talk with somebody with the Democratic leadership this week to get their side of it, but Kenny’s account of the Democratic position sounds pretty credible: Basically, they’re saying that the Republicans got themselves into this mess with their tax cuts and such, and the Democrats aren’t inclined to help them out of it.

Anyway, what I got out of all this was this time, we might actually see some of the more headline grabbing consequences of the governor’s vetoes actually happen: shutting down the State Museum and the Arts Commission, for instance. Might not happen, but there’s a bigger probability this time than ever.

And in spite what I’ve been hearing about how the governor has tried to be more reasonable in dealing with lawmakers since his personal troubles began, it appears that he’s up to his old shenanigans, engaging in the same kind of ideological brinksmanship that we saw at the height of his arrogance.

It’s going to be very interesting to see what happens Tuesday. And those who care about the State Museum or ETV or the arts in SC have every reason to be in suspense.

An exchange about the budget vetoes

10 Replies

A reader writes to me via e-mail to say, with regard to the governor’s budget vetoes:

After receiving an e-mail alert from ETV yesterday and reading about Medicaid cuts, I e-mailed Majority Leader Bingham and asked him to vote to override these two items. I am attaching his response. He does not commit to a yes or no answer, and the remainder of his response left me scratching my head. Why would house Democrats team up with Governor Sanford against House republicans? Am I misreading this?
I know that there is more going on than I know about, but this just does not make sense to me.
I have asked Majority Leader Bingham for clarification; I have e-mailed Senator Setzler as well.

Here is the response he says he got from Kenny Bingham:

Thank you for your email and for taking the time to write. As you can probably imagine, as a result of Governor Sanford’s budget vetoes, I have been inundated with emails and phone calls from those who are concerned about the negative impact that these vetoes will have on various agencies of state government. In past years, the General Assembly has been able to override many of the catastrophic vetoes that have been handed down from Governor Sanford. Unfortunately, this year will be different. As those who have closely followed the budget process know, we have had a very difficult time putting together a budget that a majority of members would support.

In the House of Representatives, our first try to pass the final budget conference report, failed by a vote of 47 to 69. After several days of intense negotiations, we were finally able to pass the budget, but only by the slimmest of margins and without any help from the House Democrats. This set the stage for what we now have before us. As a result of not having the support of House Democrats throughout this years budget process, this allowed the Governor and a group of his closest allies, to hold us hostage with this year’s budget. We were faced with the dilemma of either agreeing to accept his line item vetoes, or he was going to veto the entire budget document which would have required that we start the budget process over from scratch. A process that took 5 months to complete the first time, and one that would have been next to impossible to complete prior to government having to shut down on July 1st.

Therefore, when the House Democrats informed us on the last day of session that they would not help us override the Governor’s veto of the entire budget, we were left with no other real option but to agree to sustain the Governor’s line item vetoes. While this is clearly not the kind of news that I hoped to be sending you, it is unfortunately the truth. So barring the Governor having a change of heart, or some other unforeseen circumstance, I anticipate that the Governor’s vetoes will be sustained.

As always, if I can ever be of assistance to you or your family, or answer any questions about state government, please feel free to contact me.

Take care,

Kenny Bingham

I must say, I don’t follow it either. No matter what happened with the Democrats during the budget debate (whine, bitch, moan; it’s always somebody else’s fault, preferably someone of the other party, even the completely hapless Democrats), why can’t lawmakers override the vetoes? I mean, that was then; this is now.

Maybe this will make sense to some of y’all; it doesn’t to me.

Let the voters decide the fate of Jake Knotts

15 Replies

The Lexington County Republican Party has called on Jake Knotts to resign, and has done so, at least on the surface, for noble reasons. Good people everywhere are nodding their heads and thinking, “About time. South Carolina no longer has room for that sort.”

I applaud many (although not all) of the motivations that cause people to say that. And I think it might do our state’s reputation some good in the larger world if he were hounded from office.

But in the end, I think it’s none of the Lexington County Republican Party’s business whether Jake stays in office or not. As he says, he doesn’t serve the Republican Party. He serves the voters of his district. He should answer to them. That’s the way the system is supposed to work. Many of the same people calling for his head within the party are also supporting the candidate who has announced she will run against him in two years. Fine. Let the battle be joined. And let the voters decide whether they prefer Jake, or Katrina Shealy. All of this mess over that inexcusable thing that Jake said should be thoroughly hashed out in that election. And it certainly promises to be an interesting one. (And maybe, if we’re lucky, someone else will step in and run, someone who is NOT tainted by the blood feud between Sanford and Knotts, so that we can have a more straight-up election about values that have nothing to do with power politics between rival factions.)

There are many things that should NOT be settled by public vote. Matters of public policy, for instance. Ours is a representative democracy, and government by plebiscite is in no way to settle complex issues.

But a vote of the people is precisely how we are supposed to settle the important issue of who will be those elected representatives. And we must have the greatest respect for that prerogative of the people, or else, whatever our high-minded standards (and I do find it ironic to hear some of the high-minded pronouncements of principle I’m hearing from some of these Lexington County Republicans, although I welcome it), our system is not grounded in the ultimate source of legitimacy, the people.

That’s what I think about the Jake Knotts affair. Leave it to the voters.

Now, I expect to get hit with all kinds of howls of protest from those who think Jake’s my big buddy, just because, after opposing him strenuously for election after election, we very reluctantly supported him over Ms. Shealy (actually, over Mark Sanford, because that’s what the election was about) in the last election. Such people fail to understand what I think about Jake. I explained it pretty well in a column I wrote at the time, and I urge you to go back and read it. If you’re still not satisfied, well, I’m working on a post that elaborates. I’ll try to get it posted by tomorrow sometime. (I wanted to get it done today before posting this, but it got so long and involved — it involves trying to explain some thoughts I have about the world that I’ve never tried to set in writing before, partly because they take so long to explain — that I just set it aside, and decided to go ahead and post this.)

But in the meantime, consider this: Sen. Knotts is not accused of stealing from the state treasury, or high treason, or physical violence or anything else that would justify short-circuiting the voting relationship between him and his constituents. What he did was say a word — a word that reveals a particularly nasty, grossly unacceptable set of attitudes toward other people based upon the accidents of birth. It was inexcusable, and indicative of much deeper problems, of a great flaw of character.

There are people who believe that merely having such attitudes should be criminalized. I am not among them. For this reason I oppose “hate crime” laws. It’s one of the few things I agree with libertarians (like Jake’s enemy Mark Sanford) about. I believe it is unAmerican to punish a person for his attitudes, however grotesquely objectionable those attitudes are. What we should do is punish the act. And in this case, Jake Knotts didn’t ACT upon his attitude, he just said the word.

Then, let the attitude fend for itself in the public marketplace. This is particularly true of an attitude expressed by a politician. Let the voters decide whether they can live with what it reveals of the candidate’s character. Yes, I know that many people disapprove of the decisions that other voters make. But that’s none of their business. If the poor, black electorate of Washington, D.C., wants to re-elect Marion Barry, that’s up to them — unless he commits a felony or otherwise disqualifies himself. If the redneck white electorate of Georgia wants to elect a Lester Maddox, that is likewise up to them. One of the things these Lexington County Republicans are struggling with is whether they want to be associated with attitudes reminiscent of Gov. Maddox. Good for them. But the final arbiters must be the voters, not a party.

That’s the American way. With all its warts.

More on the subject — probably more than you want — later.

But only in a real emergency, mind you…

4 Replies

Thanks to Jack Kuenzie for bringing our attention to this via Twitter:

Andre Bauer, describing himself on his FB page: “The only candidate who will tell the truth when need be.” Perhaps not the best wording. 1:21 PM Jun 9th via web

And sure enough, there it is, right where Jack said. The entire blurb:

From the honks to the road side chats our people are determined to vote for the real conservative in race for governor.The only candidate to give back his paycheck.The only candidate who runs his own business.The only candidate who has experience marketing South Carolina to business leaders across the world.The only candidate who will tell the truth when need be.

He means it, too. When the chips are down and all other options have been exhausted, ol’ Andre will flat tell you some truth, and take a polygraph to prove the amazing feat.

I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes from Huck Finn, which I long ago used in a column about Bill Clinton:

So I went to studying it out. I says to myself, I reckon a body that ups and tells the truth when he is in a tight place is taking considerable many resks, though I ain’t had no experience, and can’t say for certain; but it looks so to me, anyway; and yet here’s a case where I’m blest if it don’t look to me like the truth is better and actuly SAFER than a lie. I must lay it by in my mind, and think it over some time or other, it’s so kind of strange and unregular. I never see nothing like it. Well, I says to myself at last, I’m a-going to chance it; I’ll up and tell the truth this time, though it does seem most like setting down on a kag of powder and touching it off just to see where you’ll go to.

Ol’ Huck had a finely developed moral sense, and could tell when it was time to do something as outrageous and “unregular” as tell the truth. And ol’ Andre’s making sure that we know that if and when the need arises, he can do the same.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits