Category Archives: Republicans

No, but he’s got time for THIS

If you read Elizabeth Holmes’ recent story in The Wall Street Journal, you know that the reason Mark Sanford couldn’t endorse John McCain back before the S.C. primary — and he was asked not once, but three times — was that his schedule was just so darned tight:

Mr. Sanford says the time commitment needed to fully support a
presidential campaign was too great, given his responsibilities as
governor and as a father. "If you hop in, it’s not like you can just
sorta hop in halfway," Mr. Sanford said in an interview. "If you gotta
do it, you really gotta do it."
… "You do not have an unlimited number of hours," he said.
…Even though the time commitment to campaign with Sen. McCain would be minimal — maybe a week — Mr. Sanford still refused.

I wonder what McCain — or any of the other GOP candidates who could have used a kind word from the gov back in those days — would think of this release I just got:

Contact: Danielle Frangos
For Immediate Release – April 23, 2008

KATRINA SHEALY ENDORSED BY GOVERNOR MARK SANFORD
LEXINGTON, SC – Governor Mark Sanford today endorsed Katrina Shealy in her campaign for State Senate.
“I’m supporting Katrina in this race quite simply because I believe she’s committed to the conservative ideals of lower taxes and limited government that people I talk to in Lexington County believe in very strongly,” Gov. Sanford said. “I believe Katrina will be a real leader in terms of working to make South Carolina a better place to do business, work, and raise a family, and to that end I’m pleased to endorse her.”
Katrina Shealy thanked the Governor for his endorsement, saying, “I am so pleased to receive Governor Sanford’s endorsement. The Governor’s support is truly a validation of my pro-business and pro-taxpayer message of fiscal responsibility. I look forward to working with the Governor to improve our state’s business climate and help create new jobs and opportunities for our hard working families. I believe the Governor’s support is a major step towards the Republican nomination for the State Senate.”
Katrina Shealy is the former Lexington County Republican Party Chair running for State Senate in District 23. Katrina resides with her husband Jimmy in the Red Bank area of Lexington County.
# # #

Well, I guess that we should all feel glad that the infamous "list" never materialized. If the governor’s just going after Jake Knotts, that’s way better than trying to remake the whole Legislature in his image.

One thing I will say for Jake, though — he did manage to find a few minutes in his busy Sanford-baiting schedule to endorse Sen. McCain, well before the primary.

Michael Koska, H77, Republican

7 Replies

10:31 a.m. — Michael Koska, a professional photographer, is an interesting candidate in a number of ways.

First, he’s a white Republican running in the district that has been represented by John Scott since 1990. That’s often a sign of someone making a purely symbolic, quixotic gesture. But he’s quite serious.

More than that, for someone running for office for the first time, he’s unusually well-informed and thoughtful about issues. His knowledge is born of experience.

He got interested in serving his community after hearing about a school teacher dying on a road he travels every day — Hard Scrabble. He found out that local government didn’t plan to fix the road for another 20 years. So he started a campaign to do something about it. He collected 10,000 signatures on a petition, and went to Sen. Joel Lourie and Rep. Bill Cotty for help. He got $400,000 to fix a problem right in front of the school, which he calls a "very small victory," as a true fix for Hard Scrabble will run $70 million. And, as he just discovered, that’s just the beginning of local road needs that we haven’t figured out how to pay for. (He said he almost ran two years ago after he heard Mr. Scott offer light rail as as answer to our transportation woes — but he discovered the filing deadline had just passed.) He’s for borrowing the money now to fix these problems, as it will only be more expensive later.

He’s also, as a small business owner, very interested in the state finding a way to provide affordable health coverage. He’s had to pay an exorbitant amount for insurance that doesn’t meet his needs — he was charged $20,000 for his wife to go through a perfectly normal, healthy childbirth. But he doesn’t dare try to switch policies because it took him so long to get this one.

And he recognizes the issue as one that goes far beyond his own case. He sees how small businesses in general are held back, which is a millstone around the state’s neck economically. He speaks of all the people who are trapped in jobs they can’t quit, because they can’t do without the insurance.

The video below shows the knowledgeable way in which Mr. Koska speaks of these issues.

On other matters:

He favors a move to a Cabinet system of state government.
Unlike me he may not love light rail, but he’s all for the state doing what it can (since the federal government has failed so miserably) to move us toward energy independence. "We’re financing both sides in the War on Terror." He’s for going nuclear (in terms of peaceful use, that is), and promoting electric cars.
In general, as a Ronald Reagan Republican, "I think taxes should stay as low as they can." But he refused to sign Grover’s pledge, bless him.

So you’re thinking I’ve gotta love this guy, right? Well, nobody’s perfect. He’s for private school vouchers. He thinks it would mean we’d have fewer public schools to build, and help with overcrowding.

Like I said, nobody’s perfect. Here’s the video (sorry about the wiggly picture — it’s the stripes on his shirt):

David Herndon, S.C. House Dist. 79

10 Replies

9:35 a.m. — David Herndon turned 40 a few months ago, looked around, and decided it was time to get involved with politics. His business (trucking) was in good shape, and his kids at an age that he could free up the time.

First, he replaced Sherri Few as chair of the Kershaw County GOP. Then, when he heard Bill Cotty would not seek re-election, and Ms. Few was the only Republican contender for the seat (at that time), he filed for that.

He cites two main differences between him and Ms. Few, who as you may recall ran against Mr. Cotty last time:

She’s the private-school voucher (or tax credit) candidate, and he stands in opposition to that. With three kids in public schools he says he feels like he’s got too much investment in them to give up now. He says his opponent’s support of private school "choice" isn’t overt, but all you have to do is look at where her money comes from. The current holder of the seat, of course, has been a favorite whipping boy of the out-of-state interests that have financed the private school "choice" movement in S.C.
He’s a businessman, who’s made a payroll and knows what it’s like to make his way in the real world. By contrast, Ms. Few’s main experience is in the nonprofit world, with "most of the money coming out of Washington."

Beyond his opposition to vouchers, however, Mr. Herndon doesn’t have much to propose in the area of education, beyond paying teachers better.

He does have other reforms he’d like to see. He’s one of those all-too-few candidates who brings up government restructuring before we can ask him about it. He would get rid of the Budget and Control Board, and reduce the number of constitutional officers.

He says that "in general" he’s against tax increases — except for the cigarette tax. He wants to bring more of "a business approach" to government, but his emphasis is less on taxes than on spending. He’s an advocate for setting priorities, and an opponent of such pork spending as the Green Bean Museum in Lake City.

He also wants to work to make health care coverage more accessible. He learned the hard way — through having a child with cancer — that health insurance "is one of the most important things a family can have."

Looking ahead to the general election, he said he sees himself as having an advantage over Democrat Anton Gunn, in terms of having lived in the district 30 years, and having his roots there.

Not everyone at the Journal is clueless about McCain and Sanford

6 Replies

My earlier post reminded me of something — a couple of weeks back, someone at the Journal was trying to reach me to talk about Sanford and McCain. Elizabeth Holmes and I traded phone messages, but never got in touch. Then I forgot about it.

Remembering that today, I sent Ms. Holmes a link to today’s post on the subject. She wrote a quick line back asking whether I had ever read her story, which I had not. I just found it. It ran on Saturday, March 29. I don’t know if this link will work for you or not, but essentially the piece drew the sharp contrast between 2000, when Sanford co-chaired McCain’s S.C. campaign, and 2008, when he wouldn’t give the McCain campaign the time of day:

Mr. Sanford didn’t endorse anyone during the primaries this year, after having co-chaired Sen. McCain’s bitter battle in South Carolina during the 2000 race. He brushed off requests for support by the McCain team at least three times, according to people familiar with the matter, including a period last year when the campaign was at a low.
The snub could cost him his chance at the vice presidency. "Loyalty is a big, big commodity in McCain-land," said a McCain aide familiar with Mr. Sanford’s involvement…

As for why there’s so much talk out there about Sanford in defiance of all reason… Ms. Holmes is hip to that as well. After the 2000 campaign, Mr. Sanford became governor, and as she notes, "As governor, he began speaking at conservative think tanks — such as
the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute — and continues to do
so."

Add to that the governor’s most ardent cheerleaders at the Club for Growth. The Club was pushing Sanford for national office as early as the Republican National Convention in 2004. Here’s an excerpt from a piece I wrote at the end of that week in New York:

Even our own Sen. Lindsey Graham and Gov. Mark Sanford were being mentioned. As I wrote earlier in the week, Sen. Graham spent the convention going between interviews like a bee going from flower to flower.
For his part, Mr. Sanford calls all the talk "the last thing in the world I’m looking at or thinking about." But that’s about all he’s got time to say about it because he’s too busy participating in things like a "Four for the Future" panel over at the Club for Growth.
On Wednesday, he invites the delegation to a soiree at a friend’s home on the Upper East Side. He urges them to come see "how a real New Yorker lives. They live in small boxes." His host’s home may be a little narrow, but if that’s a box, it’s from Tiffany’s — and it’s gift-wrapped.
At the reception itself, when the governor silences the assembled gathering to thank Howard Bellin for the use of his home, the host says, "I fully expect to be his guest at the White House in another four years."

One nice thing about the Club, though — maybe nobody else reads my blog, but they certainly do. This appeared on the S.C. chapter’s Web site roughly an hour (either 47 minutes or an hour and 47 minutes, depending on how their site treats time zones) after my last post went up.

So, let me close with a big shout-out to my pals at the Club, which believe it or not actually has a blog devoted to pushing Sanford as Veep.

‘Sanford as veep’ AGAIN? Geez, would you people give it a rest?

12 Replies

Back when I did the editorial stating fairly succinctly why naming Mark Sanford as running mate would be stupid for John McCain, and disastrous for the country, I got a call from a reader who said I was manufacturing the whole thing, that nobody mentioned it but us, and if I’d just shut up, it would go away.

I wish.

Unfortunately, even though most Republicans see no reason for McCain to choose Sanford, and those Republicans who actually know both men (that would be S.C. Republicans) mostly think such a move would be insane, there is one subfaction in the GOP coalition that continues to push him, against all reason and all odds. That is the economic-libertarian faction represented by the Club for Growth and The Wall Street Journal, among a few others.

Sanford_promo_2
The Journal‘s latest effort along these lines was to devote the big "Weekend Interview" to Mr. Sanford on Saturday, and to promote it from the front page, complete with a front-page, full-color caricature of
our gov. It’s fascinating the way the Journal — truly one of the best papers in the country — continues to sully its reputation by taking Mr. Sanford more seriously than does any paper in South Carolina, with the possible exception of the Post and Courier.

The Journal apparently justifies continuing to float this idea on a basis that simply isn’t true, that Mr. Sanford "is on nearly every Republican strategist’s shortlist for vice president this year." To back that up, the piece names three people: "Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove and Sen. Lindsey Graham (a stalwart John McCain backer) have all floated Mr. Sanford’s name for veep."

Sen. Graham is on that list because of the three, he’s the only one that anyone might believe has Sen. McCain’s ear. Well, I’ve shown you what Sen. Graham has to say about his old friend Mark’s status as a veep candidate or as a party leader of any kind; you may want to watch the video again.

So I don’t know where that’s coming from.

Anyway, the "hour-long interview" with the governor is said to have taken place at the State House; one must sincerely doubt that the interviewer bothered to ask anyone else about the governor on the way in or out of the building. That would have been damaging to the Journal‘s premise that the governor would be an asset to a national ticket. Of course, if you buy into the premise that Mr. Sanford is involved in a lonely, "prolonged fight against the political status quo in South Carolina," then you wouldn’t want to talk to any of those people, anyway.

But six years after he was elected, one has to be rather gullible to buy into that myth. The truth is that the State House is dominated by conservative Republicans who are much, much more representative of the national party and rank-and-file Republican voters (much less the independents that McCain must continue to appeal to) than Mr. Sanford ever has been or ever will be.

Yes, you can believe the myth if you don’t actually know him, and if you read the quote that starts the piece:

"Our system was put in place in large part based on the fear that a black man would be elected governor. So traditional functions of the executive branch were diffused . . . to mean that if a black man was elected governor, it wouldn’t matter anyway because he wouldn’t have any responsibility . . . That is an insane operating model."

And if you like that, you can read the much more extended version, written by me in 1991 as part of our "Power Failure" series (you’ll also learn that keeping the governor weak was not an innovation of the 1895 constitution, but the continuation of a 300-year South Carolina tradition). The governor read our reprint of that series back in 2002, and based much of his electoral platform on that. That’s why we endorsed the guy. But ever since he was elected, he’s put far more effort into his more marginal, anti-government libertarian proposals than he has into anything that would reform our system.

Several statements in this piece need to be addressed individually, to set the record straight (to the extent I can do such a thing, my pulpit being decidedly less bully than the Journal‘s):

After noting the rather obvious fact that no South Carolinian could help the GOP ticket, the author protests, "But Mr. Sanford is popular on the right because he understands markets." No. The truth is that he is popular among economic libertarians because he agrees with them, right down the line, perfectly. Such people are not the same as "the right," although they overlap with that set. And no one can be said to understand markets when he believes that distributing vouchers to people in a thinly populated, poor community that can’t attract a grocery store would lead to the spontaneous generation of an excellent private school.
"Mr. Sanford’s main governing problem is the state’s constitution." As someone who has been pushing for 17 years for the same restructuring reforms that Mr. Sanford says he’s for, I wish that were true. But Mr. Sanford’s main governing problem is that he can’t get along with other Republican leaders — and that doesn’t augur well for one who would lead his party nationally.
"…the state has leaned left on spending…" Oh, Good Lord have mercy. That’s so idiotic, so utterly marinated, rolled and deep-fried in fantasy, that it’s astounding a bolt of lightning didn’t strike the Journal’s presses as they pushed that one out.
"Over the past six years, he has helped shepherd through three big tax reforms: the state’s first cut to its income tax; a grand tax swap that slashed property taxes and increased sales taxes; and the virtual elimination of grocery taxes. That last one is not the tax cut Mr. Sanford wanted to spur investment. But he took what he could get…" Our "left-leaning" Legislature loves nothing more than to cut taxes. A session seldom passes without a tax cut; and the only suspense is what kind of cut will tickle lawmakers’ fancy that particular year. The governor can pretend that the Legislature keeps doing what comes naturally as some sort of response to him, but it’s just not true. (The closest it comes to truth is that some lawmakers pointed to the income tax cut as being kinda, sorta like a cut the governor wanted, and they used that as an excuse to say they don’t always ignore him. But even in that case, the cut what they wanted to cut, as they always do. But that’s the only instance in which it made sense for him to say he "took what he could get.")

Aw, geez, I can’t spend any more time on this, but if you’re able to call up the piece, you’ll find more absurd assertions than you can shake a stick at. Obviously, the only person this writer — the Journal‘s assistant features editor, if you can wrap your head around that — spoke to in South Carolina (or, perhaps, anywhere) for this piece was Mark Sanford.

And no matter what sort of goals it may have of bending the world to its ideological will, the Journal did its readers a disservice by publishing it.

‘Hillary-style attacks’

16 Replies

We at the UnParty continue to be fascinated at the ways in which party-line thinking warps perception…

You may have noticed that Democrats talk ominously and often about the coming "Republican attacks." There is much mumbling about "Swiftboating" and "Karl Rove," and other things that to bear no rational relationship to the fact that the Democratic nominee will be facing John McCain in the fall.

As is often the case with ideological mythology, almost anything is justified in the cause of warding off these dread calamities that lie ahead. Hillary Clinton uses the belief that such atrocities are on the way as an excuse to pound Barack Obama with various bludgeons that the wicked GOPpers will certainly hit him with sooner or later. The message here is that those monsters on the right have already thrown everything they have at HER ("having now gone through 16 years of being on the receiving end of what the Republican Party dishes out"), thereby giving her immunity or something. (I think you have to believe in the mythology to follow the reasoning.)

In the black-and-white world that gives rise to such thinking, there is no difference between Karl Rove and John McCain. Anyone who consents to be called a Republican is equally evil, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln. That McCain, who has been a victim of such excesses as the Democrats fear, might be different does not enter into the equation.

Will groups on the Right do unconscionable things against the Democratic nominee in the Fall? You betcha, just as MoveOn.org and its ilk will do to the Republican — a fact that purveyors of the Coming Debacle seem to overlook. What each side will do in the name of ideology will be reprehensible, as always — that’s why I’m an UnParty man. Sadly, I don’t expect much from Democrats and Republicans.

But sometimes, it just gets beyond ridiculous, such as when Joe Klein refers to "the Republican-style attacks that Hillary Clinton has been previewing…"

No, Joe. This is not a preview; this is real life, happening in real time. And it’s Hillary doing it. These are, quite obviously and demonstrably, "Hillary-style" attacks. Or perhaps we should say, "Stephanopoulos-style attacks." Here’s a sample, from Wednesday night’s debate:

And if I’m not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn’t done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died. So it is — you know, I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about. And I have no doubt — I know Senator Obama’s a good man and I respect him greatly but I think that this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising.

And it goes to this larger set of concerns about, you know, how we are going to run against John McCain. You know, I wish the Republicans would apologize for the disaster of the Bush-Cheney years and not run anybody, just say that it’s time for the Democrats to go back into the White House. (Laughter, applause.)

Unfortunately, they don’t seem to be willing to do that. So we know that they’re going to be out there, full force. And you know, I’ve been in this arena for a long time. I have a lot of baggage, and everybody has rummaged through it for years. (Laughter.) And so therefore, I have, you know, an opportunity to come to this campaign with a very strong conviction and feeling that I will be able to withstand whatever the Republican sends our way.

Not the SHE would say such things about Obama, he being such a good man, but you just can’t trust those damned Republicans. Folks, how simple do you have to be to miss the fact that SHE JUST SAID THESE THINGS?

What’s really pathetic is that they’ve got Obama buying into this line, and I would expect him to know better. Klein quotes Obama as saying, "That [debate] was the rollout of the Republican campaign against me in November…"

No, it was the real thing, happening in April, and it was Democrats doing it. Can’t you see that? Folks, this is why I trash parties all the time — they turn our brains to oatmeal.

You want to see a "Republican-style attack?" OK, here’s a real-life one that came in today:

Wednesday’s Democratic debate provided insight into Barack Obama’s positions on key foreign policy issues. As president he says he would immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq- even if he were strongly advised against this by our nation’s top military commanders. He would also hold direct talks with the Iranian regime- a regime that does not recognize Israel and is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Iran’s president has even called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

During the debate, Barack Obama once again refused to condemn former President Jimmy Carter- who publicly supports Obama- for holding talks with the Hamas terrorist group, a group supported financially, politically and military by Iran.

Barack Obama’s foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders. Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America."

We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq and will hold unconditional talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

John McCain’s foreign policy provides a stark contrast to the policies of Barack Obama. As president, John McCain will provide the leadership we need to win the war against Islamic extremists. We need your help today to reach out to Americans across the country to spread the message of John McCain’s plan for your national security. Please follow this link to make a financial contribution to our campaign today.

Yep, it’s another one of those McCain fund-raising e-mails I’ve been complaining about lately. It’s pretty critical, all right, but you’ll note that it’s built around policy differences. Nothing about bitter xenophobia in Middle America, or Bill Ayres, or Jeremiah Wright. And you know, McCain had to go out of his way to find something in that debate to comment on other than those things, since most of the debate centered on them.

That doesn’t mean McCain won’t point to the fact that he doesn’t see average Americans as bitter; in fact I think he already has. But now, he declines an obvious chance to join Hillary in piling on.

I just thought maybe somebody should point that out.

Dan Ross, father of S.C. GOP presidential primary, dies

Mike Sturkie, S.C. Senate District 23

2 Replies

10 a.m. — Michael Sturkie
is one of two challengers going up against Jake Knotts in the
Republican primary for this Lexington County seat. Mr. Sturkie has
lived in the district 26 years, and owns two businesses, S & T
Grading and Excavating, and S&T Landfill.

He says he thinks the
people of the district want more focus on "major issues," rather than
what he says is an overemphasis on "good ol’ boy issues." I asked him
for a definition of the latter (since a lot of folks use it, sometimes
meaning different things), and he meant "favoritism" in appointments
and such. Beyond that, he said of Mr. Knotts, "It seems like he’s
picking fights" all the time, whereas Mr. Sturkie said he would present
a lower profile: "I can take a back seat."

He suggests he would never
vote otherwise than in accordance with the wishes of his district,
whatever the facts, and believes more issues should be settled by
referendum rather than through representative government. He wants to
do away with property taxes altogether, and pay for everything with an
even higher sales tax. He said he’s "not looking to pad my pension,"
and would want to "fix" the overgenerous deal afforded lawmakers. Of
teachers, he said "they’re getting paid a lot less than they deserve.

Here’s the problem with John McCain

54 Replies

I‘ve been watching and listening as Democrats start cranking up ways to trash John McCain (while moaning about the evil "Swift-Boating" that they’re sure will come their nominee’s way). None of it has been particularly imaginative — equating him with Bush is a favorite, although it certainly stretches credulity.

For the most part, they miss the one thing that bothers me most — and no, it’s not his age. It’s his having bought into the Bush tax cuts, after having opposed them so strenuously in 2000, and for good reasons (he did favor cuts at the time — just not nearly as deep). Sure, once the cuts are part of the tax structure for several years, I can see how someone might accept them as a fait accompli, but I don’t. (Call me wacky, but whether we’re talking the war or entitlements or anything else, I think we should pay what our government actually costs.) Also, I would hesitate to go back to the old rates when we’re in an economic slowdown — but McCain’s change of position occurred before that.

This is not a deal-killer for me, any more than Barack Obama’s preacher is. It’s just something that goes on the ledger in the negative column.

So it’s kind of galling to see this on the latest McCain fund-raising e-mail:

My Friends,

Today, April 15th, marks the deadline when all Americans must file their income taxes. While many of us are aggravated and displeased when we see exactly how much of our hard-earned money goes to the federal government – if one of my Democratic opponents is elected in November, you can be certain your tax rate will increase across the board.

When we elect our next president in November, we will make a clear statement about the direction we want to take our economy and our tax system. As I have said before, this election will present Americans with a clear choice between my vision for our country and that of my Democratic opponents.

I believe today, as I have always believed, in small government, fiscal discipline and low taxes. I believe that tax cuts work best when accompanied by lower spending. And I make the promise to you that if elected president, I plan to make the present tax cuts permanent, lower corporate rates from 35% to 25% and end the Alternative Minimum Tax, which will affect millions of middle class families….

Then, of course, we get to the point of the message:

But I cannot succeed in my efforts without your immediate financial support…

In other words, Quick! Send me your money before those crazy Democrats spend it on universal health care or something…

Such moments are not the senator’s best.

Graham slaps down Sanford again — politely

15 Replies

You’ll recall Lindsey Graham’s rebuke to his old friend Mark Sanford last week over the governor’s continuing efforts to divide the Republican Party.

As you can see on the video, he was polite and used mild language, but the rebuke was fairly firm nonetheless. Obviously, the Senator had decided it was time for someone to act like a party leader rather than an insurgent.

Well, he’s done it again, this time over the South Carolina reaction to Real ID. This release came in late Monday:

March 31, 2008

Graham on REAL ID and South Carolina
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made this statement on South Carolina and REAL ID.
Graham said:
“I am pleased South Carolina has been granted an extension by Secretary Chertoff regarding REAL ID compliance. The decision was more than justified.
“The Governor has done an excellent job in explaining his concerns to federal officials, many of which I share. Our state already meets 16 of the 18 compliance benchmarks – about 90 percent — called for in REAL ID. Governor Sanford’s efforts to reform our state drivers’ license program has made the system more secure and efficient.
“REAL ID grew out of recommendations made by the 9-11 Commission over the need for more secure forms of identification. It was viewed as an effective means of cracking down on the use of fraudulent documents like those used by the 9/11 hijackers. In addition, REAL ID would make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to obtain employment by tightening acceptable forms of identification.
“I will do my part to help ensure the federal government addresses the unfunded mandate burden imposed on the states by REAL ID. Governors and state legislatures across the country are rightfully concerned about these requirements.
“However, in this age of international terrorism we must secure the homeland. We need better identification to protect air travel, access to federal buildings, institutions, and other high value terrorist targets.
“I believe we can accommodate the legitimate national security needs of our nation with the concerns raised by Governor Sanford and the state legislature.”

#####

As he said, there’s no excuse for unfunded mandates. At the same time, we need a better identification system for citizens, both for national security and immigration control reasons.

He points out that for all the hollering, South Carolina is already most of the way to compliance.

And as he concludes, we can address these important matters without all the ideological posturing and brinksmanship. We just have to act like grownups.

Tom Davis predicting Rod Shealy attack

24 Replies

A reader yesterday asked what I thought about the smear job, reportedly engineered by Rod Shealy, that hit Tom Davis this week at the outset of his attempt to unseat Sen. Catherine Ceips.

When I read about it, I just nodded. Tom, the subject of my column this past Sunday, indicated last week that he expected something of the kind, and that it would probably be worse than even he expected:

I hadn’t even thought about that, to be honest with you… I hadn’t even thought about what it’s gonna be like having a guy who wakes up in the morning who just wants to strip the bark off me. I mean, and that’s what Rod Shealy’s gonna wanna do… I’ve never been through a campaign. I’ve been told just to expect, whatever it is about you that you don’t want people to know, expect it to be known.

Tom thought it would be about something true about him — such as the fact that he was a Democrat when he was young — instead of this illegal-alien nonsense. But that’s Tom’s great liability in this race: He’s a Mr. Smith type. He’s a very open, candid, straightforward, sincere kind of guy (I would have added "thrifty, brave, clean and reverent," but you get the idea), so he figured whatever he was hit with would be something real.

So he was right: He hadn’t really thought through what it would be like with Rod Shealy after him. That’s because Tom Davis is incapable of thinking like Rod Shealy.

It’s a helluva thing, isn’t it, when honest people have to fear running for public office because of sleazy stuff that will be done to them that has nothing to do with their suitability for office?

Oh, but wait! Rod Shealy is reformed! It’s got to be true… PBS said so…

Anyway, in the video above, you’ll see and hear Tom talking about this subject.

Did Hunter Howard just substantiate the rumor?

Graham on Sanford, S.C. politics

16 Replies

Sen. Lindsey Graham made headlines today by rather dramatically breaking with his friend and fellow Republican Mark Sanford. Far from having a "list" of Republican lawmakers he’d like to get rid of, Sen. Graham gave a thumbs-up to the whole GOP field of officeholders in South Carolina.

So when he came by today to talk about Iraq, Iran, Europe and nuclear proliferation, before he left we inevitably got into S.C. politics, starting with a question from reporter John O’Connor about to what extent Mark Sanford is actually a veep contender.

Mr. Graham was careful only to say positive things about the governor, he did say something about himself that drew a contrast between the two of them. He said he was backing Republicans, regardless of whether he agreed with them totally or not, is because "I’m a party leader." Which of course suggests that certain other people are not, but he wasn’t going to say so.

He was much more forceful and articulate when talking geopolitics, of course. I plan to go back through the more substantive parts of the interview and see if I can can pull out a clip or two from those parts later. For now, I thought I’d share the part that dealt with today’s news story.

Democrats got a Senate candidate!

19 Replies

Well, lookee here… we keep hearing (although not all that much) about lesser-known Republicans running against Lindsey Graham on account of their being ticked at him over immigration. That’s old news.

But now I read that a Democrat — Michael Cone, a Charleston lawyer — is also interested. Here’s a story that was brought to my attention this morning. More to the point, here’s his Web site. And here’s a philosophical interlude from that site:

… Thomas Jefferson wrote that there are only two real political divisions between people: people are either Aristocrats or Populists, no matter the label they might hang upon themselves.
Essentially, an Aristocrat is someone who believes that the people of the United States should be represented in government by an elite group of privileged few who know what is best for the people. A Populist believes that the people themselves know what is best for them and that their representatives in government should represent the will of the people to the largest extent possible. Equal opportunity for everyone is not favorable for Aristocrats as they would lose power if they were not lifted above the people. Therefore, it is imperative for the Aristocrats to create artificial divisions among the people so that the people cannot come together to create equal opportunity for everyone.
I am a Populist….

Had you all in suspense there, didn’t I? You thought he was going to say he was an Aristocrat, I’ll bet. Or maybe not.

Anyway, not being that big a fan of Jefferson, I see the world in less simplistic terms, more as his protege Madison did. In other words, I believe in the republic that our Constitution established, which provides that regular folks get elected to Congress, go there and study the issues as most of us are unable to do, and become smarter about those issues before voting on them. I want government that’s a lot smarter than an opinion poll. But that’s just me; I’m weird.

Anyway, no word yet on whether he’s upset about immigration, too. Looks like he’s for the "FairTax," though.

An ‘exit interview’ with the governor’s right-hand man

7 Replies

Tom_davis_021

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
MY BEST CONTACT in the governor’s office left Mark Sanford’s employ last week, which is bad news for me. The jury is still out on whether it’s a good thing for South Carolina.
The jury in this case will be the voters of S.C. Senate District 46 in Beaufort County. Tom Davis, formerly chief of staff to Mr. Sanford, will oppose Sen. Catherine Ceips in the Republican primary in June. I have no idea which should win; we’ll have our hands full on the editorial board just trying to endorse in primaries for Midlands districts.
But Tom dropped by our offices on his way out of town last week, and I thought I’d share with you some observations from what one might term this “exit interview” — less for the light it sheds on a Senate contest, and more for what they tell us about the guy who’s been the governor’s point man for most of his time in office.
You will have gathered from previous columns that I am, shall we say, disappointed in this governor. But Tom Davis has always impressed me with his passionate support of his boss. He is so earnest and so insistent in his faithful advocacy — from taking flak from lawmakers without resentment to sending me e-mails so intensely detailed in their rebuttal of criticism that I have to set them aside until I can find the time — that you can’t help but respect and like the guy, even when you disagree.
The five issues he says he most wants to address distill some of the best things the governor has at least theoretically stood for (with a hint here and there of the worst). They also remind us how little has been achieved under this governor, despite Tom’s efforts:

1. Education funding. He would take all the money from the bewildering array of sources we have now — the EIA, the EFA, the whole EIEIO — and put it all into one stream, “so you can see where the money’s going and what it’s doing.” He’d have the money follow each child rather than districts and programs. This, of course, brings to mind the governor’s voucher and tax credits crusade. But it also points to the work that Tom has done reaching out to Education Superintendent Jim Rex. I’ve often been frustrated at the governor’s slowness to work personally with Mr. Rex on reforms they agree about, but Tom has definitely been the good cop on this one. Tom praises Mr. Rex’s efforts at public school choice, and says what’s needed to make the plan work is the funding reform he advocates.
2. “The way we tax.” Rather than get bogged down with the governor’s obsession with the income tax, Tom clearly advocates the comprehensive tax reform that our board has pushed for what seems like forever.
3. Government restructuring. The main reason we endorsed Mr. Sanford in 2002 was his embrace of our restructuring agenda — and his fecklessness on the issue played a role in our not endorsing him in 2006. Tom wants to try working for these crucial reforms from the very citadel of resistance, the S.C. Senate. And he understands that the state’s systemic problems extend far beyond just reducing fragmentation at the state level — he would stress prying the state’s fingers from the throat of local governments (my terminology, not his) so that the governments closest to the people can do their jobs.
4. Quality of life. One purpose of restoring the promise of Home Rule would be empowering local governments to fight sprawl. This is a natural outgrowth of the uncontrolled growth he’s seen in the Lowcountry, and an area where he and the governor have a lot more in common with Theodore Roosevelt than too many modern Republicans.
5. “The Ports.” One of the subjects of some of Tom’s most recent e-mails has been his fierce insistence that I am wrong when I say the governor hasn’t accomplished much. His evidence is the deal that he, Tom Davis, has helped engineer between our governor and Georgia’s over a new Jasper County port. He acknowledges this has been his “silo” at the governor’s office and perhaps looms larger in his mind than other people’s. But he maintains, with some justice, that there are few things more important to South Carolina’s economy than the health of its ports.

Tom argued a bit with us about vouchers. He says that movement has led to such promising developments as Mr. Rex’s open enrollment initiative. I say it’s brought any efforts to improve public schools to a grinding halt, consuming all the political oxygen that could be going to fight for such things as merit pay for teachers and district consolidation — things the governor has said he favors, but has done little to promote.
Tom said that if elected, he would actively push those things. That would be good. It would be even better if Mark Sanford would.

Sanford focusing no energy on veep possibility? Get real, Joel

22 Replies

Did you see this quote from Joel Sawyer of the governor’s office in today’s paper?

Joel Sawyer, a Sanford spokesman, said the governor finds the interest in him “very flattering” but views it as pure speculation.”
“It’s nothing that he has been focusing any of his time and energy on,” Sawyer said.

Oh, really? Come now, Joel. Take a look at Saturday’s editorial page in The Wall Street Journal:

The Conservative Case for McCain
By MARK SANFORD
March 15, 2008; Page A10
…Fortunately, the presidential election offers us a real choice in how to address the fiscal mess. To use a football analogy, we’re at halftime; and the question for conservatives is whether to get off the bench for the second half of the game.
I sat out the first half, not endorsing a candidate, occupied with my day job and four young boys at home. But I’m now stepping onto the field and going to work to help John McCain. It’s important that conservatives do the same…

This piece would be bizarre on several levels even without the otherwordly rumors about Sanford as a possible veep choice (which persist in spite of all logic). Mark Sanford is not a rah-rah, sis-boom-bah kind of Republican. His disdain for standard party boosterism is a noteworthy part of who he is. If fact, he’s not a team player of any kind, party or otherwise.

Add to that the fact that he did sit the game out when it counted, when every other Republican of statewide stature was taking a risk by taking a stand — DeMint for Romney; Graham, McMaster and Harrell for McCain (even when McCain looked down and out). Finally, when he did "endorse" the inevitable nominee, he did so in the most desultory, back-handed, even outright insulting kind of way — with Joel having to be asked, and essentially responding that yeah, OK, the governor supported him, why not…

Finally, there’s the odd conceit in the piece about Mark Sanford being some sort of national "conservative" leader who can step in and give the thumbs-up. Mark Sanford’s national constituency is the Club for Growth and other libertarians, NOT the kind of traditional conservatives who were voting for Mike Huckabee in the last weeks of the process. I read that, and I picture Mark Sanford the loner suddenly stepping into a roomful of conservative activists and saying, "OK, guys, let’s get behind McCain," and the others in the room say, "Who’s this guy? Where’d he come from?"

And what would be his motivation to suddenly pop up and do something that out of character? I can imagine no purpose other than trying to give the McCain folks the impression that he, Mark Sanford, is the kind of guy who has that kind of juice with the people in the party whom McCain needs to get right with. Mark Sanford’s mind works in mysterious ways, so there might be some other explanation.

But until we hear it, I find the assertion that the governor has exerted NO energy toward trailing his coat for the veep nod to be incredible.

Oh, yeah: You don’t want to miss the ending of this piece, which is so out of character that you have to check the footer to make sure this is the same Mark Sanford (and indeed, it says "Mr. Sanford, a Republican, is the governor of South Carolina."):

The contrast between the two opposing teams is stark. It is time for the entire conservative squad to step onto the field. Who will join me in helping our team get the ball and move it down the field?

Who will join ME, the unquestioned team player and leader, in getting out there and winning one for the McGipper? As though anyone ELSE but Mark Sanford has been sitting on the bench…

What can you say to that but, "Boola-Boola?"

Peggy’s got it wrong this time

14 Replies

Peggy Noonan’s column today puts forth a promising analogy — I mean, "promising" in the literary sense of presenting a device that looks like it will work in making her point — of a neighborhood with two houses. One is neglected, dilapidated, old, and people are so used to seeing it they don’t even notice it any more. The other is still under construction, a source of excitement, the cynosure of eyes.

The old house is the Republican Party with John McCain at its head, the other is the Democratic. The analogy only works, of course, if Obama gets the Democratic nomination — hard to see anyone looking upon a Clinton candidacy, which would certainly be a rehash of old battles, as fresh and new. But Ms. Noonan glosses over that part, because it’s not her point.

Her point is, what does McCain need to do to get people excited about him? And her answer, or rather her suggestion of what is missing, is ideology… no, wait — she says it’s "philosophy," and she believes there’s a huge difference: "Not an ideology—ideology is something imposed from above, something
abstract dreamed up by an intellectual. Philosophy isn’t imposed from
above, it bubbles up from the ground, from life." Yeah, OK. So which is "a thousand points of light?" The latter, I suppose — or neither.

Perhaps I should quote that entire passage:

In the most successful political careers there is a
purpose, a guiding philosophy. Not an ideology—ideology is something
imposed from above, something abstract dreamed up by an intellectual.
Philosophy isn’t imposed from above, it bubbles up from the ground,
from life. And its expression is missing with Mr. McCain. Political
staffs inevitably treat philosophy as the last thing, almost an
indulgence. But it’s the central fact from which all else flows. Staffs
turn each day to scheduling, advance, fundraising, returning the
billionaire’s phone call. They’re quick to hold the meeting to agree on
the speech on the economy. But they don’t, can’t, give that speech
meaning and depth. Only the candidate can, actually.

Philosophy is the foundation. All the rest is secondary, a quick one-coat paint job on a house with a sagging roof.

Anyway, one thing that neither McCain nor any candidate I would support needs is "philosophy." Please, Lord, spare us another Reagan. And no "kinder, gentler," either.

For me, the foundation is character, and all the rest is secondary, with "philosophy" coming somewhere near the rear of the procession.

John McCain believes in America, and the ideas that undergird it, that lift it up above mere nationalism as practiced through most of modern history. He has gone to the mat, and far beyond, for his country, and will never fail to do so in the future. Take that, and throw in a leavening of Teddy Roosevelt-style reformism, and you’ve got John McCain. Don’t give me any more philosophy, beyond the old-fashioned kind of "conservatism" I have previously extolled. It’s a kind of conservatism that gets bored or even impatient with talk of "philosophy," like a crusty old guy who knows who he is in a roomful of people discussing the latest fashions.

(Ms. Noonan objects to Mr. McCain’s fondness for Hemingway. But let
me quote Hemingway, and address it toward her call for
"philosophy:"Let’s not talk about it… You’ll lose it if you talk
about it.")

The older I get, the more I like candidates with characters I can trust — honor, integrity, a moral sense — who want to do what works to make the world better, without the taint of ideology. You might say, don’t you need philosophy to define "better," and I would say most of us would recognize it if they saw it. We’re talking pragmatism. Look at comprehensive immigration reform. It pleased no political philosophy, but just happened to be the one approach that makes common sense (a point Ms. Noonan acknowledges, while failing to see how pragmatic and unphilosophical it was). Comprehensive reform means you look at the whole problem, and consider all the practical angles, not just those pleasing to a philosophy.

Yes, some would object (on philosophical grounds, no less) to some of my definitions of "better," definitions I believe McCain shares. McCain is rooted in the American Century, and in his own life got a bellyful of what it’s like for this nation to be "humbled" over its foreign actions. I see another, greater American Century — one in which our nation is truly engaged in the rest of the world, diplomatically, economically, in humanitarian terms and yes, militarily — as vastly preferable to, say, a Chinese Century. Or a century in which the whole world slides back away from liberalism (in the geopolitical sense, not the way it’s misused in our domestic politics), a victim of chaos and distrust sown by atavistic impulses.

Whoa, I’m getting dangerously close to "philosophy" here. Best back off and say that I’d rather vote for somebody I trust, period.

Katon’s response to Friday’s Sanford edit

13 Replies

Be sure to check tomorrow’s op-ed page for Katon Dawson’s indignant response to Friday’s editorial. Here’s a taste:

The Governor and Republican legislators have made South Carolina a better place to live, work and raise a family. Not surprisingly, leaders and lawmakers across the country have taken notice of Governor Sanford’s leadership -– as they have taken notice of other great leaders in South Carolina like our U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint and the entire Republican team in Columbia.

Katon does his best, as a good party chairman should, to paint a picture of Republicans in South Carolina as one big family, with the gov and GOP lawmakers pulling in the same direction and things like that. And he does it as well as anyone might. Be sure to check it out.

Wilson: Earmarks bad after all

9 Replies

Just received this release via e-mail:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 11, 2008

CONTACT: Ryan Murphy

Wilson Pledges No Earmark Requests

WASHINGTON – Congressman Joe Wilson (SC-02) announced today that he will not seek earmark requests in any Fiscal Year 2009 appropriations bills.

“The American people are fed up with a Washington that fails to respect the taxpayer’s wallet,” said Wilson. “There remains no single set of standards to which all members of Congress abide by when requesting funding for local projects. This has led to a process that is broken and wasteful. Therefore, I see no choice but to enact an immediate one-year moratorium on all earmark requests from my office. I am proud to stand with many of my colleagues in supporting this call for a moratorium and ultimately the establishment of a truly transparent and accountable system that provides a set standard for everyone in Congress to follow, where all earmarks are publicly disclosed to the American people.”

NOTE: Last year, Congressman Wilson publically disclosed all earmark requests made in Fiscal Year 2008 to his constituents. This year, he has cosponsored H.Con.Res. 263, which would create a Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform, provide a report to Congress on the practices of earmarks, and calls for a moratorium on earmarks until the report is presented to Congress.

###

You may recall (then again, you may not, since it was only watched 161 times) that in 2006, I posted this video of Joe explaining why it’s hard to be "pure" on earmarks, what with the system being the way it is.

Seriously, we all understand that one man’s pork is another’s worthwhile project. But this is no way to set priorities for federal spending.

Anyway, here’s that 2006 video:

Editorial to McCain: Don’t even think about it

57 Replies

After hearing Mark Sanford’s name mentioned first (although in a dismissive way) among possible running mates for McCain on NPR Thursday morning, I proposed to my colleagues that we should say the following in today’s paper. I had said it in passing in a column, and had elaborated on the blog, but since the newspaper backed McCain for the nomination, it seemed incumbent upon us as a board to try to warn him off a bit more formally. Here’s today’s editorial:

McCain should look elsewhere for running mate

WE TAKE GREAT satisfaction, and pride, in the knowledge that South Carolina’s choice for the Republican presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain, has now secured his place on the November ballot.

As we said in our endorsement before the Jan. 19 South Carolina primary, Sen. McCain stood out clearly among his GOP rivals. His experience, integrity, independence of mind and courage — physical, moral and political — put him in a class by himself. South Carolina did the nation a great favor when it gave Sen. McCain the momentum he needed at a critical moment. It did another one in expressing its enthusiastic preference for Sen. Barack Obama, whom this newspaper also endorsed.

Unfortunately, the momentum Sen. Obama picked up here momentarily stalled Tuesday night, leaving the Democratic contest unsettled. But as the Democrats head to Pennsylvania, the Republican nominee has the leisure to face another challenge: choosing a running mate.

South Carolina can do Sen. McCain — and, more importantly, the nation — another favor. We can point out in no uncertain terms that Gov. Mark Sanford would be a disastrous choice.

The political reasons why this is so are painfully obvious. He would bring nothing to the ticket beyond his relative youth, which is not that rare a commodity. He would not bring the disgruntled cultural conservatives who voted for Mike Huckabee in recent weeks. Mr. Sanford’s appeal is confined to the more extreme economic libertarians who despise Gov. Huckabee. Our governor is constantly at odds with the sort of Republicans who are more typical of the national base. And if the GOP ticket can’t win South Carolina without a South Carolinian on the ballot, it might as well quit now.

But while those might be concerns for Sen. McCain, they are not ours. We are alarmed at even the suggestion that Mark Sanford might be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. This nation desperately needs effective, engaged, committed leadership on a range of critical fronts, from Baghdad to Wall Street and at many points between. Mark Sanford approaches elective office with the detachment of a dilettante, as though it simply does not matter whether anything is accomplished. His six years in Congress are remembered for a futon and a voting record replete with empty, ideological gestures. As governor, he has proven himself utterly unable — or perhaps worse, unwilling — to lead even within his own majority party. He is easily the most politically isolated governor we can recall. He is startlingly content to toss out marginal ideas and move on, unruffled by the fact that most of his seeds fall on rocky ground.

Fortunately, a universe of better options is available to Sen. McCain. If he wants a Southern governor who appeals to the missing portions of his base, Gov. Huckabee stands before him. If he wants someone to make up for his relative weakness on the economy, Mitt Romney is in the wings. If he’s mainly concerned with the political imperative to deliver a critical state, Florida’s Charlie Crist was there for him when it counted (Mark Sanford finally, on Thursday, endorsed him after the nomination was secured).

You’ve come too far to blow it now, Sen. McCain. We wouldn’t steer you wrong on this. Please, look elsewhere for your running mate.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits