Category Archives: Republicans

From Sanford’s clip file

A colleague calls my attention to Frank Rich's column over the weekend, which starts in on our governor about halfway down:

At least the G.O.P.’s newfound racial sensitivity saved it from
choosing the white Southern governor often bracketed with Jindal as a
rising “star,” Mark Sanford of South Carolina. That would have been an
even bigger fiasco, for Sanford is from the same state as Ty’Sheoma
Bethea, the junior high school student who sat in Michelle Obama’s box on Tuesday night and whose impassioned letter to Congress was quoted by the president.

In
her plea, the teenager begged for aid to her substandard rural school.
Without basic tools, she poignantly wrote, she and her peers cannot
“prove to the world” that they too might succeed at becoming “lawyers,
doctors, congressmen like yourself and one day president.”

Her school is in Dillon, where the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, grew up. The school’s auditorium, now condemned, was the site of Bernanke’s high school graduation. Dillon is now so destitute that Bernanke’s middle-class childhood home was just auctioned off in a foreclosure sale. Unemployment is at 14.2 percent.

Governor Sanford’s response to such hardship — his state over all has the nation’s third-highest unemployment rate — was not merely a threat to turn down federal funds but a trip to Washington to actively lobby against the stimulus bill. He accused
the three Republican senators who voted for it of sabotaging “the
future of our civilization.” In his mind the future of civilization has
little to do with the future of students like Ty’Sheoma Bethea.

What
such G.O.P. “stars” as Sanford and Jindal have in common, besides their
callous neo-Hoover ideology, are their phony efforts to portray
themselves as populist heroes. Their role model is W., that
brush-clearing “rancher” by way of Andover, Yale and Harvard. Listening
to Jindal talk Tuesday night about his immigrant father’s inability to pay for an obstetrician, you’d never guess that at the time his father was an engineer and his mother an L.S.U. doctoral candidate in nuclear physics.
Sanford’s first political ad in 2002 told of how growing up on his
“family’s farm” taught him “about hard work and responsibility.” That
“farm,” the Charlotte Observer reported, was a historic plantation
appraised at $1.5 million in the early 1980s. From that hardscrabble
background, he struggled on to an internship at Goldman Sachs.

Of course, with enemies like Frank Rich, the governor's liable to get some sympathy from me. Never have liked that guy's work — he has all of Paul Krugman's objectionable characteristics as a mindless hateful partisan, without the saving grace of being a Nobel winner in economics.

Anyway, I'm less impressed with that sort of mention than I am the kind that our governor gets in his favorite journalistic habitat, the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, where they continue to try to construct an alternative universe in which Mark Sanford, possibly the least accomplished governor in the nation, is an actual contender for President of the United States sometime this century. (I don't know about you, but I found "Serenity" way more believable — I just can't see terraforming taking hold in this world the WSJ is trying to conjure into being. Do you think Sanford could get the Reaver vote?)

Which reminds me that I meant to pass on this piece by WSJ board member Kimberley A. Strassel about our gov, which ran 10 days ago:

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is mooted as a GOP presidential contender. During the stimulus debate he told President Barack Obama, to his face, that the Palmetto State wanted no part of a spending blowout that would be harmful to the economy, to taxpayers, and to the dollar. He even traveled to Capitol Hill to stiffen Senate Republicans against the plan….
The 48-year-old South Carolina governor is of the party wing that believes it failed in its core promise of fiscal responsibility, and in tackling the bread-and-butter issues (education, health care) that worry voters today. He's made his name partly by confronting his own party, which runs the legislature.

My very favorite part is when she strains to make it sound like Mark Sanford has actual achievements in S.C. to boast of:

Nearly every year since he was elected in 2002, Mr. Sanford has proposed to cap spending at state population growth plus inflation. His state senate has ignored him. He's used his line-item veto more than 500 times, usually on pork projects. The legislature routinely overrides. Far from diminishing his standing, these lost battles have made him popular in the state.
His policies have made South Carolina more competitive. In 2005, the state passed its first-ever cut in marginal tax rates for businesses, and in 2007 broader tax relief. He's shepherded tort reform, and crafted incentives to encourage property insurers to remain in the state after a spate of hurricanes. South Carolina still has problems (in particular, education), though since 2003 it has had the 16th fastest job growth in the nation. Its unemployment rate — the third highest in the country — has been exacerbated by record growth in the state's labor force.

Did you catch that? We have so much employment here because there are just to darned many of us! Mark Sanford has made S.C. into such a Nirvana that people are a-comin' here quicker'n we can find jobs for 'em!

Much ado about photo ID

31 Replies

The photo ID bill that caused such a flap in the House yesterday is one of those classic issues that partisans make a HUGE deal over, and which seems to me entirely undeserving of the fuss.

The way I see it is this:

It's ridiculous for Democrats to act like this is some kind of insupportable burden on voting, even to the point of walking out to dramatize their profound concern. Why shouldn't you have to make the kind of basic demonstration of your identity that you have to make for pretty much any other kind of transaction?
It's ridiculous for Republicans to insist that we have to have this safeguard, absent any sort of widespread abuse here in South Carolina in recent elections. Where's the problem necessitating this big confrontation with the Democrats? I don't see it.

Some of you defend parties by telling me that they legitimately reflect different philosophies and value systems. Well, when you scratch the surface and get at the values that inform these two overwrought partisan reactions, it doesn't make me feel any better either way. In fact, it reminds me why I can't subscribe to either party's world view.

Democrats believe at their core that it should be EASIER to vote. I look around me at the kinds of decisions that are sometimes made by voters in this country, and it seems to me sometimes that far too many people who are ALREADY voting take the responsibility too lightly. Look at exit polls. (Or forget the exit polls, just try going up to people on the street and asking them a few pointed questions about public affairs.) Look at what people actually know about candidates and their positions and the issues, and look at the reasons why they say they vote certain ways, and it can sometimes be alarming. Hey, I love this self-government thing, but it's not perfect, and one of the imperfections is that some folks don't take their electoral responsibility seriously enough. So why would I want to see the people who are so apathetic that they don't vote NOW coming out and voting? Yet that seems to be what many Democrats are advocating, and it disturbs me.

And beneath all that sanctimony from Republicans about the integrity of the voting process is, I'm sorry to say, something that looks very much like what Democrats are describing, although Democrats do so imperfectly and in overly cartoonish terms. There's a bit of bourgeois disdain in the GOP position on these things. There is a tendency among Republicans to think of themselves as the solid, hard-working citizens who play by the rules, and to be disdainful of those who don't have their advantages — which Republicans don't SEE as advantages at all, but merely their due as a result of being so righteous and hard-working and all. There's a tendency to see the disadvantaged as being to blame for their plight, as being too lazy or immoral or whatever to participate fully. The idea is that they wouldn't have these problems if they would just TRY. What I'm trying to describe here is the thing that is making sincere Republicans' blood pressure rise even as they're reading these words. It's a tendency to attach moral weight to middle-class status. Republicans seem to believe as an article of faith that there are all these shiftless, marginal people out there — relatives of Cadillac-driving welfare queens of the Reagan era, no doubt — wanting to commit voter fraud, and they've got to stop it, and if you don't want to stop it too then you don't believe in having integrity in the process.

So basically, I'm unimpressed by the holier-than-thou posturing from either side. And I get very tired at all the drama over something that NEITHER side can demonstrate is all that big a deal. Democrats can't demonstrate that this is a great injustice, and Republicans can't demonstrate that it's needed. And yet we have to put up with all this drama.

McCain to go to bat for McMaster (as well he should)

4 Replies

The Hill reports that John McCain is going to be raising funds for Attorney General Henry McMaster's (yet undeclared) bid for governor in 2010:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is hitting the fundraising circuit to return the favor to a local Republican who proved a key supporter in the 2008 primaries.

McCain and many of his top advisers will throw a fundraising reception on behalf of Henry McMaster, the South Carolina attorney general who backed McCain during his run for president in 2008.

The event's host committee includes McCain loyalists like one-time senior advisors Charlie Black, former campaign manager Rick Davis and former Republican National Committee deputy chairman Frank Donatelli. McCain will make an appearance, a spokeswoman confirmed.

And well he should, because Henry was right with him through thick and thin in his most recent presidential bid. He and Bobby Harrell, all the way, even when people were counting McCain as out of the GOP race. Note the video from above (this is the slightly more extended version of my most-viewed video of all time, at 59,850 views), in which Henry warmed up the crowd for McCain one night in the Vista in 2007 (the night of the first S.C. presidential candidate debate, as I recall).

GOP dark horse steps forward

8 Replies

This just came to my attention, and in keeping with my efforts to begin chronicling the 2010 gubernatorial election (because the sooner we can get a new governor, the better), I share it with you:

{BC-SC-Governor-Nelsen, 2nd Ld-Writethru,0320}
{Furman professor plans GOP bid for SC governor}
{Eds: UPDATES with quotes, details from Nelsen, Bauer. ADDS byline.}
{By JIM DAVENPORT}=
{Associated Press Writer}=
   COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – A Furman University political science professor announced plans Thursday to be the first GOP candidate to formally enter the 2010 race for South Carolina governor.
   Brent Nelsen says he'll file paperwork Friday to set up his Nelsen for Governor Committee and launch a series of economic summits around the state that aim to come up with plans to increase employment and spur economic development.
   Nelsen has never run for political office and said he wants to put into practice some of the things he has taught. He wouldn't say how much he expects to raise in the next six months to wage a credible campaign in a primary that most expect will cost millions to win.
   "I'm going to have enough money in the next six months to make a run for this," Nelsen said. "I'm not going to put a dollar figure on it."
   Republican Gov. Mark Sanford is limited to two terms and leaves office in 2011. His tenure has been marked by high jobless rates – at 9.5 percent in December, South Carolina had the nation's third worst unemployment rate.
   Other GOP candidates flush with campaign cash and with better-recognized names in state politics have said they're interested but not yet ready to announce plans. Attorney General Henry McMaster is interested but isn't expected to enter the race before spring. Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer said Thursday he's probably running, but is too busy for now to announce his intentions. U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett has begun lining up advisers for a possible bid.
   Democrat state Sen. Vincent Sheheen of Camden already has filed 2010 campaign forms so he can begin raising money, making him the only other candidate formally in the race for governor. Other Democrats considering bids include House Minority Leader Harry Ott of St. Matthews and state Sen. Robert Ford of Charleston.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Prof. Nelson isn't quite as viable a candidate as the subject of my Sunday column, Vincent Sheheen. Nor, and this is more to the point, as viable as the most active GOP candidate-to-be, Attorney General Henry McMaster. But I pass on this report nonetheless, so that you might make of it what you will.

For more on Dr. Nelson, I refer you to this piece he wrote for us recently, which appeared on our Saturday Online Extra on Jan. 17:

S.C. GOP must reform itself
By BRENT F. NELSON
GUEST COLUMNIST
The S.C. Republican Party is in trouble. If the party fails to seek new ideas and reach out to new voters, its dominance of state politics will end. It’s time to start a new debate within the party.
    Ironically, Republicans still look strong. The party holds eight of the nine elected state offices. Republicans control the state House and Senate by comfortable margins and have both U.S. senators and four of six U.S. representatives. Just as important, South Carolina remained “McCain red” in a presidential election that saw big gains for Democrats almost everywhere.
    But scratch the surface, and significant cracks appear in the GOP’s foundation. The most obvious problem is the dysfunctional relationship between the Republican governor and the Republican Legislature. To be fair, Columbia’s broken politics stems from a state constitution that hamstrings the governor, denying him the power to implement a coherent policy. But Gov. Mark Sanford has been unable — or unwilling — to employ the customary gubernatorial tools to shepherd his proposals through the Legislature. That Legislature is indeed overly protective of its anachronistic privileges, but he often uses that resistance as a pretext for political posturing of his own, rather than engaging opponents in a search for common ground. The party has gotten away with this petty bickering, but the state now faces the third-highest unemployment rate in the country, declining competitiveness and poor educational performance. Someday voters will notice.
    And Republicans face a cascade of worrying electoral trends. Only 54 percent of South Carolinians picked John McCain for president, down 10 points from Ronald Reagan’s vote in 1984. McCain’s showing is no anomaly but another point marking a rather steady decline for Republican candidates (not counting the three-way elections of 1992 and 1996). In the 2008 contest, the Republican vote dropped in 43 of 46 counties. Declines averaged 3.6 percent but were even greater (4.4 percent) in the 11 largest counties.
    The worst news comes from important demographic categories. In 2004 George Bush won every age group in South Carolina, including 18-29 year olds; John McCain managed to win only those 45 and older. Fifteen percent of African-American voters voted for Bush in 2004; only 4 percent chose McCain. Hispanic voters are too few in South Carolina to analyze, but Hispanics increased their share of the electorate from 1 percent in 2004 to 3 percent in 2008. Nationally Obama won 61 percent of the Hispanic vote, and South Carolina was probably no different.
    Is all lost for S.C. Republicans? Absolutely not — but the party must adjust to the new realities. Republicans must reach beyond white, married, religious voters — a shrinking base. To avoid becoming the next red state gone blue, Republicans must attract more young people, minorities and not-so-religious whites. Accomplishing this without losing the GOP’s conservative base will be tricky, but not impossible.
    Here are three suggestions.

— First, the party must stress what it is for rather than what it is against. It is no longer enough to be against government, taxes, gun control, abortion, gay marriage and immigration. Uncommitted voters want to know the alternative. Republicans should focus on establishing the conditions necessary to “human flourishing.”
Strong government should establish clear boundaries for behavior and then stand back and allow responsible citizens to act freely. Public officials must identify the social causes of poverty and low educational achievement and work with churches and neighborhood organizations to strengthen families and their communities.
We need politicians who can find compassionate ways to balance the need for employers to gain access to hard-working labor, citizens to feel comfortable in their neighborhoods and immigrants to realize the American dream. Governments cannot make humans flourish, but they can make the necessary room for this to happen. That is a conservative vision.
— Second, Republicans must reconnect with young adults, Hispanics and African-Americans. Many in these groups are social conservatives who fail to see in Republicans a concern for the economic and cultural issues important to minorities. Republicans must convince these voters that the party is committed to
the flourishing of all South Carolinians.
— Finally, the party must stop fighting and start solving problems. Education, enterprise and environment might be three places to start. The state must dramatically narrow the education gap between the richest and the poorest; it must regain its globally competitive position; and it must manage responsibly the natural beauty of this state.

If S.C. Republicans focus on human flourishing and government that works, new supporters will help reverse the party’s decline.

Dr. Nelson chairs the political science department at Furman University. He is a lifelong Republican.

Governator vs. Sanford

32 Replies

Just in case you missed this little interaction between our own governor and the one out in Collie-forn-nee-ah, I bring it to your attention:

Schwarzenegger and Crist are at odds with South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, the chairman of the Republican Governors Association. Sanford called the package a huge mistake and warned that the nation will hit a tipping point by stacking up trillions and trillions in debt.

In an appearance Sunday on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Schwarzenegger took a shot at Sanford.

"Well, Governor Sanford says that he does not want to take the money, the federal stimulus package money. And I want to say to him: I'll take it," Schwarzenegger said. "I'm more than happy to take his money or any other governor in this country that doesn't want to take this money, I take it, because we in California can need it."

After leaving the meeting at the White House Monday, Sanford shot back.

"It's a difference of opinion that makes the world go round," Sanford told reporters.

Valerie’s story on Sanford, stimulus

29 Replies

Somehow I missed, until a release from Jim Clyburn's office, the story that our own Valerie Bauerlein co-wrote in The Wall Street Journal Saturday about Mark Sanford and the stimulus.

Headlined "GOP Governor Sees Danger in States Accepting Stimulus Money," it mostly said what we already knew here in Columbia about the governor's posturing for his national fan club at the expense of South Carolina. But a small detail in the story jumped out at me. It didn't tell me anything new, but it grabbed me nonetheless:

When the fate of the stimulus bill was still uncertain last week, Mr. Sanford traveled to Washington on Feb. 4 to ask Republican senators to fight it. Most Washington Republicans, in the House as well as the Senate, lined up against the initiative, drawing a sharp distinction with Democrats — though three moderate Republicans joined with all 58 Democrats to propel the recovery package out of the Senate.
Other Republican governors have been more favorable toward the plan. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, for example, broke with party leaders by stumping for the proposal with Mr. Obama in Fort Myers on Monday.

Did it hit you, too? I'm talking about this part: "Mr. Sanford traveled to Washington on Feb. 4 to ask Republican senators to fight it…"

We're talking about a guy who, even if you go by HIS account, hasn't been able to find a minute since 2003 to meet with the Employment Security Commission of his own state (he can threaten to fire them, but he can't sit down and talk with them). We're talking about a guy who is notorious for not working with lawmakers of his own party, who meet one floor above his office — even though he CAN find time to carry piglets up there so they can poop all over the nice new carpet.

This same guy finds time to run up to Washington and lobby Republicans up THERE to do what they were going to do anyway, so he can posture for the WSJ as though he had something to do with it.

Meanwhile, back home, he's forcing all sorts of people to go to all kinds of lengths to prepare to work around him because of his sorta, kinda threat to be an obstacle (as Valerie puts it, he's being "coy" about it) to stimulus funds coming to South Carolina, which is ALSO all about him and his posturing.

Of course Valerie reminds us at the end of just how influential Mark Sanford is with Republicans:

But even in Republican-led South Carolina, Mr. Sanford may have difficulty holding the line. Leaders of the GOP-controlled state legislature concede Mr. Sanford's point, but would want to at least accept the $480 million for roads, bridges and other infrastructure the state is eligible for.

Of course they would. That's because they care about South Carolina more than they care about ideological posturing.

Not that ‘Morning in America’ hubris again…

24 Replies

Just got this e-mail a little while ago from a reader (I guess it was a reader, anyway):

The headlines today said that McCain claims Obama "must" consult with the GOP on stimulus talks. That's not true, any more than saying that Ronald Reagan was required to allow Dems much input in his 1981 plans. On election eve 1980, even old democrats like me realized that the public had said no to government spending, said no to government meddling and no to more regulations. I believed the public was wrong, but also understood that Reagan's mandate was to proceed as he'd promised.

Thirty years later, Americans' have decided that we need government, government to stop us from dying from eating peanut butter, government to stop bankers from stealing from us, and government to provide jobs until the economy picks up. That's Obama's mandate, and to do anything else would be to back off from his promises. McCain is wrong. He and his party lost. Obama wants to be nice and extend an olive branch to the losers, but it is not necessary that he does so. What's necessary is he goes forward with his plans.

To which I felt compelled to answer as follows (slightly edited, as I read back over it):

Interesting you should mention 1981. I'm still ticked off that Democrats back then took just the attitude that you're calling for. Tip O'Neill and the rest said, well, Reagan won the election, so let's give him anything that he wants. This, after four years of that same Democratic Congress not giving Jimmy Carter ANYthing he wanted.

I'm still mad about it. I'm still mad about how the whole world just rolled over for Reagan. Much of the media was full of that "Morning in America" hoopla, and I felt like …. well, have you ever been the only person in the room who was not drunk or stoned, and everybody around you thought everything was just SO funny, and you just thought they were all very irritating? Not much fun, huh? Well, that was me in the Reagan era.

I don't feel that way this time. I sort of thought Reagan's win in 1980 was the end of the world — not because I was anti-Republican, but because I had liked Jimmy Carter so much (I don't like him as much as I did then, but I really liked him then). I don't feel that way at all about Obama. Out of all the people running for president last year, McCain and Obama were my first and second choices. So while I'm sorry McCain didn't win, I'm glad Obama didn't lose. I'm highly ambivalent on that score.

But one reason I DO like Obama so much — and liked him so much more than Hillary — is that he IS about post-partisanship. (That's one of the main things I liked about McCain, too.) He's nothing like Reagan; he's far less the ideological warrior. And if he doesn't work with McCain (something which, to his credit, he's already demonstrated a willingness to do), then he's not the guy that a LOT of people voted for. I would expect exactly the same from McCain — a willingness to work across the aisle — had he been elected.

And I have little patience for Democrats who act the way the Reaganites did in the early 80s — We won, so we'll do what we damn' well please. Unfortunately, I do hear that from some. Like "Morning in America" revisited. And I didn't like that triumphalist bull the first time, not one bit.

And if you don't care about bipartisanship, think about this: There's a good chance this stimulus will fail. There's a good chance ANY stimulus would fail. So how would you feel about it if, once the stimulus fails, the GOP recaptures Congress, and then goes around telling Obama and the world that "We won, so we don't have to listen to you?"

Far better that we have a stimulus plan that both parties buy into. It's a little late for that, but it WOULD have been far better. It's never good to have one of the two major parties politically invested in the nation failing…

(I'll add one more thought: I would not say that Obama "must" work with McCain et al. I'm just saying that to the extent that he can, he should. This is not to say that if you've tried to bring the GOP along and they've just refused and you truly believe your plan is the right one, you don't go ahead — just as I thought it was right for us to go ahead into Iraq without France, Germany and Russia on board. But I am saying that if you can possibly swing it, bipartisan is WAY better for the country.)

Joe sez it’s all that dope we’re doing

16 Replies

The Sanford administration keeps looking for explanations for the fact that we have too much unemployment in South Carolina. First, when the Employment Security Commission ran out of money for jobless benefits (the function of the tax being cut awhile back, combined with — duh — dramatically rising unemployment), he said it's gotta be the ESC's fault; they must be inefficient or something.

Now, his Commerce Secretary's come up with an alternative explanation: It's all that dope. From the AP:

South Carolina Commerce Secretary Joe Taylor has added a new wrinkle to the nation's third-highest unemployment rate by saying drug use is keeping people from getting jobs.

Taylor briefed Gov. Mark Sanford and his Cabinet on today about why he pushed the Employment Security Commission to document why people are out of work and how frequently they claim jobless benefits.

Taylor says the state needs to teach people that failed drug tests will keep them out of work for months. He says recruiting businesses to places with high drug test failure rates doesn't help.

The commission's three members face a Monday deadline to turn over information to Sanford or risk being fired. Sanford says his office will review the data before he decides their fate.

South Carolina's jobless rate was 9.5 percent in December.

Call it the Michael Phelps theory…

Of course, this has the state spin cycle up at full throttle. I first heard of the Taylor comment when I got this response from the S.C. Democrats:

Fowler Calls for Apology from Sanford for Commerce Secretary Slurs

COLUMBIA, S.C. – South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler on Monday called upon Gov. Mark Sanford to apologize for Secretary of Commerce Joe Taylor's slurs against South Carolina’s unemployed workers.

According to The Associated Press, Taylor who Sanford appointed as Secretary of Commerce in 2006, told the governor and others attending his cabinet meeting Monday that South Carolina workers are having trouble finding jobs because of their drug use.

“Instead of looking for real solutions to our state’s unemployment crisis, the governor and his cabinet are flailing around desperately, looking for any excuse that will divert blame during this time of crisis. The Secretary of Commerce is supposed to be the state’s ambassador for recruiting new businesses, but Sanford’s pick has been a failure. Taylor’s comments reflect Gov. Sanford’s desperation to distract attention from South Carolina’s deep unemployment problems, and demonstrate his own poor management skills in supervising the Department of Commerce, which is part of his cabinet,” said Fowler.

“Sanford would rather slur the reputation of South Carolina workers than own up to his own failings and risk his ambition to be president. He and Taylor seem to have no evidence backing up the accusations of drug abuse, they just throw it out there in hopes it will stick.”

South Carolina’s unemployment rate was lower than the nation’s almost every year from 1975 through 2000. But the state’s average yearly jobless rate has been significantly higher than the nation’s since Sanford took office. In December it stood at 9.5 percent – the nation’s third highest, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I can't wait to hear the rest of this story…

(And no, that's not a photo of Joe demonstrating, a la Ross Perot, how drug use and unemployment converge on a chart. It just looks like it. That's a file photo.)

Graham helps me make my mind up about stimulus (It’s bad.)

54 Replies

First you might want to watch the above video, but if you can't be bothered, at least read what Lindsey Graham had to say to Democrats yesterday:

You can blame George Bush all you want to, but he didn't write this bill, y'all did. This is your bill. It needs to be America's bill. And we may get three or four Republicans to vote with you, but let me tell you what the country is going to inherit if we pass this bill in terms of substance and process. We're going to lose the ability as members of Congress to go to the public and say, Give us some money, let us borrow more of your money to fix housing, because this bill stinks.

The process that's led to this bill stinks. There is no negotiating going on here! Nobody is negotiating! We're making this up as we go! The polling numbers are scaring the hell out of everybody, and they're in a panic. They're running from one corner of the Capitol to the other to try to cobble votes together to lower the cost of the bill to say we solved the problem. This is not the way you spend a trillion dollars!

Here's the thing about this that makes up my mind on the bill he was commenting on: As he said in the interview that followed that clip at the start of the above video, Lindsey Graham believes we need a stimulus. He's not one of these GOP ideologues who opposes all spending and supports all tax cuts. And he, a very smart guy who speaks authoritatively from the sensible center — you know he'll work with the Democrats when they make sense, and stand with the rest of the GOP against them when they don't — indicts the legislation most persuasively.

Before, I was just worried about the legislation. Now, I believe that passing nothing (for now; before long something needs to pass) is better than passing the bill the House and Senate Democrats have been pushing.

DeMint gets face time

48 Replies

Here's an irony for you:

The story today on the stimulus bill is about how such Senate moderates as Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Republican Susan Collins of Maine are reshaping the legislation. And yet who's getting his picture in the papers? Jim DeMint, who is nobody's notion of a moderate.

He appeared, looming large, on Page 3 of The Wall Street Journal with a story headlined "GOP Wields More Influence Over the Stimulus Bill." That's the picture above. Which sort of makes you think Jim DeMint is one of those "wielding more influence." In fact, his image is being used on the promo for "top stories" on the paper's Web site. But… he's not mentioned in the story. So the picture, apparently, gives a false impression.

I haven't looked at the print version of The New York Times today, but I saw this story on the Web, headlined "Centrists in Senate Push to Cut Billions From Stimulus." Guess whose picture adorns it (along with others; it's a group shot)? Yep — non-centrist Jim DeMint. Then guess who is NOT mentioned in the story? You got it.

Hey, fellas — you want to try coordinating with the guys in photo next time, so that your art actually GOES WITH the story?

In case you wondered how this happened: Well, it's a story with a lot of moving parts, and different media folk are following different parts of it. Those photos are from The Associated Press. The running AP story on the stimulus DOES mention DeMint — as having played a leading role in an unsuccessful effort…

Despite bipartisan concerns about the cost, Republicans failed in a series of attempts on Wednesday to cut back the bill's size.

The most sweeping proposal, advanced by Sen. Jim DeMint, a Republican, would have eliminated all the spending and replaced it with a series of tax cuts. It was defeated 61-36.

… which means he's no longer a part of the story of the developing bill. But the picture remains.

This marks one of those rare occasions when our junior senator steals a march on our senior one, mediawise. Our senior senator was at the same press conference as DeMint (see below). But he wasn't in either of the pictures chosen by the two aforementioned papers. Nor was he mentioned in either of their stories, or the AP story.

So much for Lindsey Graham, media hog extraordinaire.

Just an interesting little irony that I noticed in all my reading on the subject, and thought I'd share…

Parties playing nice

26 Replies

Y'all know how I'm always trashing the parties, but when they do something even halfway nice, I do notice. And I was struck by the statement that DNC Chair Tim Kaine put out about Michael Steele becoming his opposite number:

My congratulations to Michael Steele on his election as chairman of the Republican National Committee. Together, we have the honor of leading our respective Parties during one of the most important periods in our country’s history. I look forward to working with Chairman Steele as we set out to put partisanship and the politics of the past aside to get our economy working again. The American people have sent a clear message that the challenges we face are too great for us to get bogged down by outmoded ideological divides. They have challenged us to work together to find practical solutions that will put this country back on the right track. President Obama and the Democratic Party are answering that challenge, and I hope Chairman Steele will join us.

That might not sound like much, but normally the parties don't issue statements about their opposition that it not nasty or catty or worse. So this was an improvement. Yeah, I know — his definition of "putting partisanship aside" means that he wants Mr. Steele to do what the Democrats want. So you can't call this message bipartisan in a strict sense.

But he put it in an unusually nice way, and that's something. Not one slash of the claws. No, if your Aunt Emily sent out a note like this it wouldn't be especially nice, because she's nice all the time. But this is progress for the parties. And we praise children when they take those first baby steps…

Katon comes in second

3 Replies

Just a moment ago I noticed that Katon Dawson didn't get that job he was gunning for. As y'all know, I really don't have much to say about the parties and whom they choose to lead them. Although there are many fine individual people in each party — and I'm sorry to hear that Katon got disappointed this way — I'd just as soon the parties both sort of dry up and blow away.

I guess it's nice that they picked the black guy instead of the "Barack the Magic Negro" guy. And it's nice for the home team, just speaking chauvinistically, that Katon came in second rather than getting totally crushed. But that's as far as my thoughts take me.

But I thought y'all might have something to say about it, so I pass this on:

BC-Republicans,14th Ld-Writethru/743
Eds: UPDATES throughout, ADDS photo links.
GOP elects first black national party chairman

By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican Party chose the first black
national chairman in its history Friday, just shy of three months after
the nation elected a Democrat as the first African-American president.
The choice marked no less than "the dawn of a new party," declared the
new GOP chairman, former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele.

Republicans
chose Steele over four other candidates, including former President
George W. Bush's hand-picked GOP chief, who bowed out declaring,
"Obviously the winds of change are blowing."

Steele takes the
helm of a beleaguered Republican Party that is trying to recover after
crushing defeats in November's national elections that gave Democrats
control of Congress put Barack Obama in the White House.

GOP
delegates erupted in cheers and applause when his victory was
announced, but it took six ballots to get there. He'll serve a two-year
term.

Steele, an attorney, is a conservative, but he was considered the most moderate of the five candidates running.

He
was also considered an outsider because he's not a member of the
Republican National Committee. But the 168-member RNC clearly signaled
it wanted a change after eight years of Bush largely dictating its
every move as the party's standard-bearer.

Steele became the
first black candidate elected to statewide office in Maryland in 2003,
and he made an unsuccessful Senate run in 2006. Currently, he serves as
chairman of GOPAC, an organization that recruits and trains Republican
political candidates, and in that role he has been a frequent presence
on the talk show circuit.

He vowed to expand the reach of the party by competing for every group, everywhere.

"We're
going to say to friend and foe alike: 'We want you to be a part of us,
we want you to with be with us.' And for those who wish to obstruct,
get ready to get knocked over," Steele said.

"There is not one inch of ground that we're going to cede to anybody," he added.

"This is the dawn of a new party moving in a new direction with strength and conviction."

His
job is to spark a revival for the GOP as it takes on an empowered
Democratic Party under the country's first black president in midterm
elections next fall and beyond.

He replaces Mike Duncan, a former
Inez, Ky., banker who abandoned his re-election bid in the face of
dwindling support midway through Friday's voting.

Two others who
trailed farther back in the voting eventually followed suit, former
Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell and Michigan GOP chairman Saul
Anuzis.

In the sixth and final round of voting, Steele went
head-to-head with his only remaining opponent, South Carolina GOP chief
Katon Dawson. Steele clinched the election with 91 votes; a majority of
85 committee members was needed.

Just eight years after
Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress, the GOP finds
itself out of power, without a standard-bearer and trying to figure out
how to rebound while its foe seems to grow ever stronger.

The
Democratic Party boasts a broadened coalition of voters — including
Hispanics and young people — who swung behind Obama's call for change.
At the same time, the slice of voters who call themselves Republican
has narrowed. The GOP also has watched as Democrats have dominated both
coasts while making inroads into the West and South, leaving
Republicans with a shrunken base.

Despite the run of GOP losses,
Duncan had argued that he should be re-elected because of his
experience; his five challengers called for change and said they
represented it.

As he left the race, Duncan thanked Bush and said of his two-year tenure: "It truly has been the highlight of my life."

Another
candidate, former Tennessee GOP Chairman Chip Saltsman, withdrew from
the race on the eve of voting and with no explanation, saying only in a
letter to RNC members, "I have decided to withdraw my candidacy."

Saltsman,
who ran former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's failed presidential
campaign last year, saw his bid falter in December after he drew
controversy for mailing to committee members a CD that included a song
titled "Barack the Magic Negro" by conservative comedian Paul Shanklin
and sung to the music of "Puff, the Magic Dragon."

Now, about that ‘zero Republican votes’ thing…

51 Replies

The last time they did this, I had no doubts that the Republicans were wrong. When not one of them voted for Clinton's Deficit Reduction Act in 1993, it was about as pure an example as I can recall of partisan mule-headedness and populist demagoguery. Not to mention the fact that they were wrong on the issue. Argue cause and effect all you like, the passage of that legislation WAS followed by dramatic deficit reduction. And the way the GOP went to their home districts and told everybody about how those awful Democrats had raised their taxes was unconscionable. Especially when South Carolina Republicans said it — most people in S.C. did not see their taxes increase, unless you count the 4-cent rise in gasoline tax. And what importance can you honestly attach to 4 cents a gallon when monthly fluctuations in price are usually far more than that? (Of course, you know what I think about gas taxes.)

I remember actually watching TV news — something you know I don't often do — during that vote. Somebody had Al Gore on live, and Al was as stiff and awkward and priggish as only he can be as he talked about how wrong the Republicans were not to support it, with the roll call going on in the background (I'm thinking it was the Senate; in any case not one Republican in Congress voted for it). But he was right.

This time, I'm not as sure. I'd LIKE for our elected representatives to get together on anything as big as spending $819 billion, rather than splitting along partisan lines. I mean, if we're going to do it, let's do it together — doing it divided increases the chances that it the stimulus will fail. I say that because Phil Gramm had a point — so much of the economy is psychological. If the country sees this as THE plan that everyone agrees on, the country is more likely to have its confidence boosted. If it sees every member of one of the two major parties (for now) decry it as a waste doomed to fail, we could be looking at some self-fulfilled prophecy.

That said, I don't know but what a Republican — or UnPartisan, or anyone else — who says this plan isn't going to do the job doesn't have a point. After all, Paul Krugman says it won't, and he's no Republican.

On the other hand, their reason why this package isn't quite the thing is all bass-ackwards. They complain that only about a third of it is tax cuts. Well, I'm worried that a third of it IS tax cuts, and that those tax cuts will have zero effect on stimulating the economy. I haven't seen figures yet on exactly what the tax cuts will mean to the average American, but as I pointed out before, in an earlier version, the amount we're talking about would have given each worker only about $9 a week — which is just barely enough to go to a movie. By yourself. If you don't buy popcorn.

If you're going to have a stimulus package, either SPEND enough to really kick-start the economy (and this doesn't appear to be enough), or target tax cuts to where they are likely to stimulate some real activity. Unfortunately, in trying to provide something for everybody — and then going to woo the GOP in person — Obama may have produced a solution that doesn't do enough of anything. And then, after all that trouble, you fail to get the bipartisan support that you were trying to buy with that $300 billion in tax cuts.

As for what you will probably hear them yammer about most on TV news (and in the rest of the blogosphere) — what partisan political effect this vote will have — I don't have a dog in that fight. Whether the Republicans have cooked their own goose by voting against a plan that will work, or set themselves up to be blamed for it NOT working, or are poised to recapture the House because they were the only ones to see it wouldn't work, or whatever… I don't care. I'd like to see both parties suffer in the next election, just on general UnPartisan principles. Unfortunately, I might get my wish: The stimulus could fail, and both parties be blamed — but that be the least of the nation's worries. You know what I'd be worried about right now if I were a Republican? I'd worry that my caucus just invested its hopes in economic failure — just as Harry Reid et al. bet all their chips on our failing in Iraq. That's not a position you want to be in — your nation having to fail for you to be right. But that's their lookout, not mine.

For my part, I hope the stimulus works. Or that something we do soon works. And as long as it does, I don't care who gets the credit — even a political party.

How porky can stimulus be, if Clyburn’s not getting his bridge?

14 Replies

There's a certain irony — not necessarily a contradiction, but irony — in the fact that Republicans are pinning their opposition to the ginormous stimulus bill the House passed yesterday on allegations that it's just a bunch of pork for Democrats' home districts…

… while the favorite public works proposal of the third most-powerful Democrat in the House is NOT included.

Yes, I get it that Jim Clyburn says it's not for a lack of political will to fund it, but rather a matter of those pesky environmentalists tying it up with a lawsuit. He maintains that if it weren't for the blasted tree-huggers, he'd have gotten the span between Lone Star and Rimini funded.

But it's still ironic. If this project that he has wanted so badly for so long can't make it into an unprecedented, extraordinary $3.2 billion infusion of federal funds into South Carolina, it's probably missed its best chance ever.

As for what IS in the $819 billion extravaganza, I have not audited it to see whether it's pork or not. It does occur to me that just about anything that would meet the standards of what the stimulus is supposed to be — extra spending, on stuff the federal government would not normally spend on, "shovel-ready" and labor-intensive — it would probably be something that someone could legitimately call "pork" if they are so inclined. Think about it: What IS pork? Generally, it means something spent in some elected representative's district that would not meet normal standards of being a national spending priority (or state priority, when we're talking pork on that level of government). Well, presumably if it were something that had been determined to be a national priority, it would have been funded already.

Bottom line, I don't know what the percentage of overlap between the two sets (good stimulus projects on the one hand, "pork" on the other) would be — say, 80 or 90 percent, just to venture a wild guess? — but it seems like there would be very strong correlation.

Or am I missing something?

Anyway, I made that point to a colleague earlier today, and he said, "Yeah, well what about this mandate that NASA spend on fighting global warming — that's not a job-producer." I said, "well, it would probably mean jobs for the engineers and techno-geeks required to implement it." He said, "but NASA already has engineers." And I said, "Yes, but if what I was reading in The Economist this morning is correct, a lot of them would otherwise be losing their jobs because Obama doesn't want to follow through on the Bush goals of going back to the Moon and on to Mars." That's gotta mean some latter-day Werner von Brauns joining the unemployment lines. (Which is a whole nother debate I may raise in a separate post.)

I don't know; we're probably both right. Which means Democrats can say this is a great stimulus bill, and Republicans say it's a bunch of pork, and nobody be lying…

Well, at least he was civil about it…

37 Replies

South Carolina's senators split — again — today on the confirmation of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Guess which one voted against? (Hint: It was NOT the guy Obama's going to be looking to for foreign policy advice.) But he managed to be quite civil about it, saying:

The memorandum of understanding signed by the foundation leaves a lot of discretion to Senator Clinton. During her confirmation hearing, Sen. Lugar presented a request for more acceptable disclosures, and Sen. Kerry, as chairman, supported these recommendations. Unfortunately, Sen. Clinton has not agreed to follow even these modest recommendations.
For these reasons, I will be voting against the nomination, but I will do so with nothing but sincere hope and goodwill toward our new Secretary of State, and pray for her success as she takes the helm of the State Department.

Meanwhile Lindsey Graham put out this statement:

Graham Supports Clinton for Secretary of State
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement after Hillary Clinton was confirmed as Secretary of State. The vote in the Senate was 94-2.
    “Hillary Clinton will serve our nation well as Secretary of State. She understands the enormous domestic and international challenges facing our nation. In choosing Hillary Clinton, President Obama has selected a person of great substance, skill, and intellect.
     “President Obama won the election and has earned the right to put his team in place. The presidential campaign is over but the wars our nation is engaged in are not. Our young men and women around the world in harms way need an advocate on the world stage.”
            ####

Of course, he and Hillary have always gotten along pretty cordially.

How would I have voted? Well, as you know, I didn't think this was the best call Obama has made. Some other job, yes, but I don't think secretary of state is the best place to put your chief rival. The SecState should be understood as completely subordinate to the president, and that seems a tough role for her.

But in the end, Graham says it well: This is the president's call. If this is who he wants, barring some really compelling reason to reject her, I say get her in place as soon as possible. Yeah, I think the Clinton foundation thing is a problem. But then Bill is always a problem for Hillary. No matter how much disclosure, there would be a problem. Not enough to vote "no" for me, though.

A visit from the speaker

10 Replies

Well, it's begun.

The Legislature convenes next Tuesday, and in anticipation of that, House Speaker Bobby Harrell came by to see us yesterday afternoon.

On his mind were the following:

Number one, the economy. Emphasizing the state's alarming unemployment rate, he said he recently met with Commerce Secretary Joe Taylor to express the speaker's willingness to provide him with whatever tools he needs. After I brought up his past criticism of the agency, Mr. Harrell insisted that we not report him as being critical of Commerce now. The closest he came to anything disparaging was the observation that Commerce had been "scoring points, not winning the game" lately. Other than that, he was Mr. Supportive.
Employment Security Commission. You may recall that before Christmas, Mr. Harrell said, "It is inconceivable that Governor Sanford hasn’t already made this
request of the federal government, and it would be tragic if he allows
jobless benefits to run out, particularly at this time of year." Now he was at pains to point out that he believes the agency should supply the info the gov wants, and he said he'll sign a letter next week calling for an audit. This is not inconsistent; it's not far from our position — yes, the agency should provide such info readily, no, the governor shouldn't play "chicken" with unemployment benefits.
Cigarette tax. As one who once opposed the increase outright, Mr. Harrell now counts himself among those reconciled to its inevitability. The sticking point, as always, is what it should be spent on. (As you now, our position is that whatever you spend it on, it should be passed, because it undoubtedly will reduce teen smoking.) He noted that he supported the governor's veto last year on that score. He would like to see the money (and the federal Medicaid match) spent on making health insurance more available to small businesses. He said Oklahoma has recently shown a way to do that — it would require a waiver from the feds.
Education funding formula. My notes were sketchy here, but he was talking about revamping the whole funding system. I'll check with Cindi later to remind me what he said about this; in the meantime consider this a placeholder — I mention it only so that you know it was one of the things that was on his mind. All my notes say is "Education formula… The whole pot… They've been melting… a lot." And I confess that makes little sense to me, much less to you.
Roads. He wants more money for road maintenance, but he does not want to raise the gasoline tax, which is how we fund roads in SC. He would instead devote car sales taxes — what little we get in sales tax, given the $300 cap — to roads. He did not specify what he would NOT fund from the general fund to do that.
Restructuring. He promised to push for a Dept. of Administration.
Tax reform. He said a BRAC-style tax reform commission would be a good idea, but he offered two amendments to what biz leaders have advocated. Rather than have no legislators on the commission, he would have about a fourth of the panel be lawmakers. His reasoning is that lawmakers could school other members as to the feasibility of the ideas (which sounds suspiciously like a way to keep out good ideas the Legislature doesn't like, but maybe that's just me and my suspicious nature). He also said that rather than making it impossible for lawmakers to amend the plan, he would allow for amendment with a big supermajority — say 75 percent. His stated reasoning on that is to prevent some minor technical flaw from sinking the whole plan. He believes the supermajority requirement would eliminate the danger of narrow interests killing the overall plan. One more point on tax reform: He thinks it should be done in two stages — deal with the host of sales tax exemptions first, then the rest of the tax structure.

Those are the main topics he brought up. In answer to questions, he said:

A payday lending bill — one to more tightly regulate the industry, but not out of existence — will likely come out of the session.
He likes the governor's idea of eliminating the corporate income tax — an idea he traces to Ronald Reagan (at which point all Republicans murmur "Peace Be Upon Him" or something equally reverential). But he doesn't like the idea of eliminating economic incentives.
In response to our noting that the governor seems to want to step up his voucher efforts, the Speaker said he's supportive, but doesn't think it will pass.
Roll call voting. He defended his rules change to increase transparency, which he believes addresses the "key concerns" — such as spending legislation, the budget overall, anything affecting lawmakers' pay or benefits, ethics or campaign finance and the like. He totally dismissed the idea that his handling of Nikki Haley and Nathan Ballentine was out of line, or anything personal. As for his not telling Nikki in person he was kicking her off the committee, such has "always been done by sending a letter."
Cindi was just starting to ask about the one thing liable to occupy most of the House's energy this year — passing a budget in light of plummeting revenues — when the Speaker said he had to leave for another interview for which he was already late (Keven Cohen's show). Rest assured Cindi will follow up. (If I'd realized how short on time we were, I would have insisted we start on that overriding topic earlier.)

One more thing worthy of note: This was the first time Mr. Harrell asked to come in for a pre-session board meeting. Predecessor David Wilkins did it as a more or less annual ritual, bringing his committee chairs (including Mr. Harrell) along with him.

Another view on Nikki and the Speaker

5 Replies

We’ve heard from different sides of the divide — or one of the divides — that split S.C. Republicans on the subject of Speaker Harrell’s heavy-handed treatment of Nikki Haley and Nathan Ballentine. Now I see that Tim Kelly, who is no kind of Republican, has also weighed in on Nikki’s behalf:

There are probably about six things in life that I agree with Mark
Sanford on – and it would still take me about a day-and-a-half to
figure out what they are – but his efforts to introduce more
transparency and accountability into South Carolina government is
definitely at the top of that list. About the only argument I have
against his efforts to restructure government to give the governor
actual control over the executive branch is that we could end up with
Mark Sanford exercising that control….

So far, not a lot of votes out here in the real world for the Speaker on this…

Nikki Haley’s letter

36 Replies

Nikki Haley sent me a copy this morning of a letter she sent out to her fellow lawmakers Wednesday. You remember what happened to Nikki on Wednesday, right? Here it is:

December 3, 2008

Dear Colleagues:
I feel compelled to share with you some events that occurred earlier today.
This morning, I was informed that I had been assigned to serve on the Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee and, honestly, I was a little surprised given the differences the Speaker and I have had recently over "on the record" voting. As I said to you when I took the floor yesterday none of this was personal it was all about policy and to his credit the Speaker set aside those disagreements – or so I had thought.
It is no secret I had intended to run for Chairman of LCI, but given the events of the past few weeks I recognized that I was no longer in a position to achieve that goal. I called Representative Sandifer and the Speaker on Monday night to let them know I was dropping out of the race. This morning, I attended the LCI Committee meeting and closed nominations for committee chair asking that we vote Representative Sandifer by acclamation.
After the meeting, I returned to my office. Within minutes the Speaker’s chief-of-staff hand-delivered a letter to me from the Speaker informing me that I had been reassigned to serve on the Education and Public Works Committee. Needless to say I was disappointed.
The Speaker wanted to send a message and I got it loud and clear. That message is this; if we as individual representatives disagree with the Speaker over policy about which we feel passionately and share those disagreements publicly, we will be punished for doing so. The actions he took today are in direct response to my aggressive pursuit of "on the record" voting. I believe I acted in the best interests of the people I represent and because of my actions I was removed from a committee on which I had served honorably.
The Speaker and other members of House Leadership will undoubtedly take issue with my account of what happened. But, make no mistake, the manner in which I was assigned to LCI and then reassigned to Education and Public Works was intended to embarrass and punish me for working to pass a comprehensive "on the record" voting bill.
I wanted you to know that this punishment handed down by the Speaker will in no way affect the manner in which I go about trying to increase transparency in the Legislature, bringing reform to state government, and working to improve the lives of the people we represent.

Sincerely,
Nikki Haley

And so, to quote the governor, "to be continued…"

I replied to Nikki that I’d put her letter on my blog. Unlike certain other bloggers, I don’t have to worry about what the Speaker will do to me. But you know what — Nathan’s not letting it shut him up, either.

A blog goes silent

3 Replies

As a sort of sidebar to my last post — remember how Nathan Ballentine took up the cudgels for Nikki on his blog? Well, you don’t see that any more.

Suddenly, just as you might wonder with greater curiosity than ever what Nathan might have to say about all this, he goes silent. The Speaker has thoroughly shut him up, apparently. Or maybe it’s like with me — he’s busy living his life, and hasn’t gotten around to posting about it yet. Which do you think it is?

Meanwhile, Earl Capps, who is not under the Speaker’s thumb, is still writing about it. He’s using a rather reserved tone, though.

Well, I guess he showed THEM who the big ol’ hairy Speaker is

12 Replies

One day not too long ago, a business-leader type, discussing reform legislation of some sort, said within my hearing that if David Wilkins were Speaker of the S.C. House today, you’d see some action on the bill in question — implying that Bobby Harrell isn’t the Speaker his predecessor was.

Well, I may not be holding my breath to see restructuring, or comprehensive tax reform, or a rise in the cigarette tax to the national average, or anything else we sorely need pass the House, but yesterday Bobby Harrell left no doubt who the big ol’ hairy speaker was — at least, not in the minds of Nikki Haley or Nathan Ballentine, or anyone else who might consider opposing him in any way.

The full AP story:

Date: 12/3/2008 7:51 PM

BC-SC–Speaker-Committee Ousters,2nd Ld-Writethru/682
Eds: UPDATES with quotes, details from House speaker, legislators.
SC House speaker: It’s nothing personal
By JIM DAVENPORT
Associated Press Writer

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) _ Two Republican House members say GOP House Speaker Bobby Harrell ousted them from committees in reprisal for their push to increase on-the-record voting and open criticism of practices in the lower chamber.

But the Charleston Republican, who won his second full term leading the GOP-dominated chamber Tuesday, said there’s nothing to complaints from Reps. Nikki Haley and Nathan Ballentine.

"I think everything that I did in these appointments was appropriate," Harrell said.

"What he’s doing is a complete power play," said Ballentine Wednesday after being booted from the House’s Education Committee to the relative backwater of the Democrat-controlled Medical, Military and Municipal Affairs Committee. "Here’s what happens if you try to step out on my watch."

Ballentine and Haley had allied with Gov. Mark Sanford, a frequent Harrell critic, to push for more on-the-record voting.

Harrell derided the effort, noting the House does plenty on the record already. When Sanford, Ballentine and Haley appeared at news conferences promoting the idea, Harrell said he supported more roll-call voting, but more was needed than "just pandering to voters and grabbing for headlines."

"House leadership is sending a message: If you open your mouth, you’re going to get your head chopped off," Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer said.

Haley said she crossed Harrell this year by bucking his efforts to scuttle tougher payday lending regulation and irked him again by questioning House practices that allowed approval of a retirement pay increase for legislators on a voice vote earlier this year.

Haley started the week campaigning to be the first chairwoman of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee, a prestigious committee because it handles business legislation, but dropped her bid Monday night.

On Tuesday she tried to head off Harrell backed rules on roll-call voting she said didn’t go far enough. On Wednesday, Harrell appointed her to the LCI committee, but then hours later had his lawyer deliver a letter booting her to the Education Committee.

"I went against the speaker on something he was publicly against: votes on the record. And I was not just demoted, but he attempted to embarrass me and humiliate me in the process," Haley said. "What he proved in these last two days is that he is a speaker who is more concerned about his personal image than he is about policy in this state."

Besides, Harrell said, the "Education Committee is not a demotion. Education is the most important issue facing South Carolina."

Harrell said Haley needed to move because of the chairman’s race. "When you have two people who run for chairman, sometimes it’s easier for one or both of them if they aren’t on the same committee after the chairman’s race is over."

Harrell said he took the same tack two years ago in a competitive race for the Education Committee chairmanship. However, Haley was the only committee member booted after one of the three committee races that were competitive Wednesday

Harrell said Ballentine brought his move from the House Education Committee to the Medical, Military and Municipal Affairs Committee on himself.

Ballentine listed his three choices for new session’s committee assignments as "LCI, LCI, LCI. I couldn’t put him on LCI or believed there are other members who should be on LCI," Harrell said. "He clearly doesn’t like Education, so I moved him from that committee to where we did have a vacancy or a space available and that was 3-M."

But there were openings on the commerce committee. Harrell tapped freshman and fellow Charleston Republican Rep. Tim Scott for one of them.

Ballentine said the last reassignment to the 3-M committee came when a member of the Judiciary Committee got into an altercation with that committee’s chairman a few years ago.

Harrell couldn’t recall a similar move, but said none of it was personal or in retaliation.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

Nikki, being a polite South Carolina lady, understated the case when she said, "he attempted to embarrass me and humiliate me in the process." He didn’t attempt. He did it. My good buddy Joel was far closer to the mark when he said, "If you open your mouth, you’re going to get your head chopped off."

Speaking of Joel… Some of y’all think I’m hard on the governor. Well, I can’t hold a candle to Bobby in that regard. Nikki Haley’s "sin" was to associate herself with the governor in his constant posturing — you know, his personal narrative that HE wants to do what’s right, and the legislative leaders don’t. Actually, that’s not what irks them. What irks them is the WAY he does it. Rather than sitting down with them and trying to accomplish his goals, he traipses around the state posing for TV cameras and presenting himself as the Font of Virtue, and everyone else as Part of the Problem.

The thing is, Nikki and the gov are right about the need for more transparency in legislative voting. I’m not 100 percent convinced that EVERY vote needs to be a roll call — there’s an awful lot of them, and most of them are of minor significance — but I appreciate that Nikki has gone beyond the ideological goal of requiring just the spending bills to be by roll call, to include ALL legislation.

And you see what she gets for her trouble. The Speaker appropriates the issue by pushing something that he calls transparency (and she doesn’t), and not only frustrates her wish to be chair of the LCI committee, but removes her from the committee altogether.

There’s an UnParty angle in this, too. There were murmurings among the GOP faithful that Nikki might actually welcome Democratic support in her bid for the chair. Perish the thought! And perish Nikki, as far as they were concerned.

And Nathan Ballentine? As Nikki paid for the sin of consorting with the governor (and maybe even Democrats — gasp!), Nathan’s sin was supporting Nikki.

So Bobby may or may not be able to use his power to do any great good for South Carolina — but he can sure use it to crush anyone who opposes him. He can’t do anything about the governor, but he can do what he wants to Nikki and Nathan. So he did. And believe you me, everyone took note.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits