Category Archives: South Carolina

S.C. Chamber chief on health care as a competitiveness issue

Today, I had two opportunities to bring up health care reform. One was when I went for my annual physical at mid-morning. Dr. Richard Sribnick, one of my internist’s partners, stopped to chat while I was in the lab fighting off the dizziness that always hits me when I have blood drawn (the nurse thanked him for distracting me).

He thanked me for running his recent op-ed piece — Dr. Sribnick has played a leading role in South Carolina’s effort to save Darfur — and offered the guess that I was getting a lot of feedback on my single-payer column. Sure, I said — and what was his opinion? Bottom line, he doubts that it’s the best way to go. He said he’d been at a meeting about new Medicaid rules the night before at a local hospital, and he thought the system sounded pretty messed up from a provider’s perspective.

But… he said that if the choice was between our current state of affairs and single-payer, he’d choose single-payer.

Earlier, our editorial board had met with representatives from the S.C. Chamber of Commerce. It was their annual "Competitiveness Agenda" meeting, at which they share with us their priorities for the coming legislative session.

Anyway, since they had been talking yet again about how competition today is truly international, I asked new chairman Jim Micali, chairman and president of Michelin North America, Inc., how S.C. businesses were affected by the fact that they have to pay for employee health care, while overseas competitors don’t shoulder that same burden.

His reply is contained in the video above.

Urgent calls lead to action on Darfur (I hope)

1 Reply

This morning, I received a copy of this e-mail:

Hi SC folks,
Today, as the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act was only one away from passing the Senate unanimously, Senator DeMint blocked the legislation from passage.

We are asking people in SC to make phone calls into his office to ask that he remove his hold. See below for a more details from Zahara Heckscher, our Divestment Campaign Manager.

Thanks,
Coby

Dear South Carolina Darfur Advocates,
As you probably know, Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act is a vital bill that protects the right of states such as South Carolina to divest public funds from companies that help fund the genocide in Darfur.

Senator DeMint of South Carolina is now the only Senator blocking passage of
this critical bill.

Please take two minutes to call his office right now.

Charleston
Phone: 843-727-4525

If that number is busy, or if you have time for more than one, you can call DC or any of the Senator’s offices where you have a contact.

Washington, D.C.
Phone: 202-224-6121

Message:

"I’m calling from __________(say your town and South Carolina so he knows you are a constituent) to request that Senator DeMint remove his hold from Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act . This bill is a critical bipartisan bill that puts pressure on the government of Sudan to end the genocide. We want to protect our state’s right not to invest in companies that help fund genocide."

Please shoot me a quick email after you call. If you learn anything interesting during your call, or if you know staff in his office, please let me know.

Please forward this message to others in SC
Thank you for all you do to help the people of Darfur.

Best,
Zahara Heckscher
Divest For Darfur Campaign Manager
Save Darfur Coalition

But before I’d even had chance to read that e-mail, our correspondent Rusty DePass had gotten on the horn to straighten things out:

I have talked with DeMint’s office (not with DeMint himself) and been
assured as I expected that he is completely in favor of this bill. He
does have some concerns, however, about the way Sen. Dodd wrote the bill
that may have prevented their respective staffs (not the two Senators)
from working out the problems. Jim has now been satisfied that those
concerns will be addressed as it moves forward and he has removed his
hold on the bill. What is happening in Sudan is truly a latter day
Holocaust.

So maybe now we’ll see some proper action.

Hal makes up his mind: It’s Huckabee

34 Replies

Back in this column, and in a followup post, I’ve been following Hal Stevenson’s very careful, prayerful process of discernment as he has tried to decide whom he would support in the primaries. That’s been a matter of concern to more folks than just Hal himself, given his leadership position with the Palmetto Family Council.

Anyway, Hal’s made up his mind, and for him it’s a logical choice:

Brad-

I promised to let you know when I decided to back a candidate for president.
I have indeed settled on mike huckabee. The campaign wants to prepare a news release but I told them I wanted to let you know first. I was very humbled by the respect you showed for my opinion and am grateful for the kind words. I am not asking you to write anymore about it, but wanted to make sure you knew. Without going into all my thinking on the subject, I guess the one big challenge for me with him was is he really viable- a conversation I had with a business associate in nyc (a self-described non religious person) who expressed interest in him and huckabee’s recent surge have convinced me that he can attract more than just evangelicals. Let me know if you would like to discuss further.

hal

So you read it here first, and for that I’m grateful to Hal.

As for the "is he really viable" part. Well, he certainly is now. It’s interesting to ponder on why, at this time. I mean, I’ve always like the guy, although I’ve had some reservations. I don’t think his tax plan is sufficiently well-considered, and I’m very concerned about the holes in his understanding of (or at least, expressed understanding of) foreign affairs.

David Brooks has an interesting column, which will appear on our op-ed page tomorrow, as to why, all of a sudden, that doesn’t matter. He posits that recent events — the success of the "surge," the NIE on Iran, the setback Hugo Chavez suffered in the Venezuelan referendum, and even the Annapolis peace meeting, have moved foreign affairs off the front burner. He goes so far as to suggest this is now a "postwar election."

I have two reactions to that: One, he’s probably right in that at this moment in time — not last month, and not next month — candidates such as Huckabee and Obama have been given a chance they would not normally have in a wartime election. Two, I think that if people really do think the world has gone away and we don’t have to worry about it any more, they are profoundly wrong. Even given those examples:

Iraq can collapse at any time, but even if things keep going well, we will be heavily involved there for years.
The NIE only did one thing — made it harder to keep up diplomatic pressure on Iran. It did not change the fact that the mullahs are busily enriching uranium as fast as they can, and can have the bomb as early as 2010.
Chavez is still in power, and the need to radically change our energy policies to reduce the power of him, the Iranians, Putin and many others is as urgent as ever.
Annapolis has very, very far to go before we have a right to be optimistic about even getting on the road to Mideast peace.

But yeah, I get how polls could be affected at the moment. And none of that should negate Hal’s perfectly reasonable endorsement of Huckabee.

I’ll add one thought, though: Hal says it sort of came down to either Huckabee or McCain. McCain, of course, benefits if you still think the world is a dangerous place — or at least a place that requires our committed attention. But if you think the war is over, McCain has put too many eggs in that basket to remain among the four — excuse me; it’s now five — contenders for the GOP nod.

By the way, Hal didn’t cite that as his reason for endorsing Huckabee. He said that when he talked to Huckabee, the candidate said of other campaigns, "They may want you, but I need you." And Hal is, to his credit, a guy who wants to make a difference.

And note what he says about his friend in New York: Part of Huckabee’s appeal to him is that he is someone who folks who would be turned off by a Pat Robertson endorsement could go for. That speaks to the reason I talked with Hal about this subject to start with — I wanted to know the thinking of a "values voter" who wasn’t going to sellout for an illusory sense of "winnability" the sort of thing that apparently led Robertson to Giuliani (and, apparently, Bob Jones III to Romney).

PATHETIC!

7 Replies

Can anyone see any level on which the failure of the city-government-structure committee to do anything, after years of limbo, is anything other than pathetic?

All the majority was trying to do was pass a watered-down proposal to have the mayor act a little bit like a mayor — not to have the kinds of powers that would justify holding him/her accountable for the city’s executive functions — and it couldn’t even do that.

Sure, the committee was stacked against change from the start — particularly with the three-quarters requirement — but think about it: In the world of committees, why do you delay a day, a week or a month (much less over two years) before having a vote? You do it to get your votes lined up, and make sure your votes can make the meeting.

But they couldn’t even do that. Worse, they couldn’t even pass a compromise to justify the committee’s hyperextended existence.

This is SO Columbia, so South Carolina. I love my state, but it’s the truth.

Edwards gets some respect from Katon — briefly

4 Replies

End of last week, I thought maybe there was a John Edwards surge in S.C. that I hadn’t heard about. That’s because state GOP Chairman Katon Dawson actually deigned to attack him, after months in which you would have thought that the only Democrat out there was Hillary Clinton:

COLUMBIA, S.C. – South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson today released the following statement on John Edwards’ visit to the Upstate:
“John Edward’s photo-ops in small-town South Carolina are little more than transparent campaign stunts that won’t fool voters in our state,” said Dawson. “Edwards couldn’t win South Carolina four years ago, and he has again made it crystal clear he is wrong for South Carolina – promising to raise taxes, socialize healthcare and abandon Iraq before it is secure.”

But everything was back to normal today.

Which raises the question — with him rising in the polls, and still no mention, does this mean Katon likes Obama? Or does he just not fear him?

Maya Angelou — when is HER show on?

1 Reply

Poor Zac over at Clinton HQ sent this out today, with timing that invites (probably intentionally, but set me straight on that if I’m wrong, Zac) comparison to the Double-O show yesterday:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 10, 2007

Contact: Zac Wright

Dr. Maya Angelou Hits SC Airwaves for Hillary
‘My Girl’ Radio Spot Airs Statewide
(COLUMBIA) – Dr. Maya Angelou took her support of Hillary Clinton to the South Carolina airwaves as Clinton launched her fourth radio spot in the state, entitled “My Girl.” The 60-second spot began playing on radio stations across the state over the weekend.

In the spot, Dr. Angelou describes her personal support of Hillary and focuses on Hillary’s experience as an advocate for families.

A complete transcript is included below. The radio ad can be heard online at: www.hillaryclinton.com/hq/southcarolina.

Maya Angelou: Hello South Carolina, this is Maya Angelou. Let me tell you about my girl… Hillary Clinton.
As a child, Hillary Clinton was taught that all God’s children are equal, so as a mother she understood that her child wasn’t safe unless all children were safe.
I know what kind of president Hillary Clinton will be because I know who she is. Hillary Clinton has always been a strong woman and a passionate protector of families. For 35 years, that’s exactly what she has been doing.
Each generation of African Americans stands on the shoulders of those who came before. Today, the challenges facing us threaten the dreams we have had for our children. We need a president with the experience and strength to meet those challenges.
I am inspired by Hillary Clinton’s commitment and courage… a daughter, a wife, a mother… my girl.

I’m Hillary Clinton and I approve this message.

###

So, how does that match-up play out? Oprah vs. Maya? I think I’d choose the endorsement that Obama got, if I were running for the Democratic nomination.

You’re a mean one, Mr. DeMint

11 Replies

And a good thing, too. But I’ve got to ask, is this the way to sell this? Grinch

… I promise to be your Grinch. What does that mean? I will stay "on guard," making sure they don’t try to slip anything past the American people.
$400 million dollar bridges to nowhere, multi-million dollar buildings
named after current congressmen and yes, believe it or not, a Hippie
Hall of Fame are all on their agenda to be snuck through before the
year ends…

Our junior senator is casting himself as the villain in a Yuletide drama over earmarks. Trouble with that is, I would think the guy who’s demanding some spending accountability would be the good guy.

Well, at least it’s an attention-grabber, and I suppose that’s the point. In this case, it’s also intended to be a money-grabber, as it’s a fund-raising gimmick for the senator.

Seems like there’s something contradictory in there somewhere — give me money so I can save you money — but then again, I guess that’s the whole basis of our economic system, and it would make more sense to me if I were a businessman. Which I’m not. Just in case you were harboring some serious delusions…

The Eclectic Sandlapping Palmetto Tree

4 Replies

The NYT today has a story keyed to the 20th anniversary of Bonfire of the Vanities, from the perspective of “how has New York changed since then?”

Thinking back on the way he wrote about the Big Apple, it occurs to me that if Wolfe would really like to write about bizarre, rococo foibles in a sociopolitical context, he should come to South Carolina. He’s done New York; he’s done Atlanta; now he’s doing Miami. All have been done to death. He should come to the home of neo-Confederates, Green Diamond, Bob Jones University, Jake (it’s pronounced “Jakie,” Mr. Wolfe) Knotts, an antebellum form of government, the nation’s most libertarian governor, Andre Bauer, Thomas Ravenel, John Land, Glenn McConnell (arguably the most powerful man in the state, Mr. Wolfe — pictured at right) and the Hunley — and, just a bit into our recent past, Lee Atwater, Strom Thurmond, Fritz Hollings, Jack Lindsay, Ron Cobb, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker… by comparison, even Rudy Giuliani seems boring.

It would be like Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test without the acid (who would need it?). Actually, come to think of that, I’d much rather see him write about us in his nonfiction mode — partly because the reality here is weirder than any fiction, and partly because I just prefer his nonfiction works, particularly Acid Test and The Right Stuff.

You know why Wolfe disappoints me as a fiction writer? He has no love for any of his characters. Think about it — is there a sympathetic character anywhere in Bonfire or the Atlanta book? It’s a very depressing view of humanity. By contrast, his detached-but-intimate style of journalism makes real people come into view in a way that is far more engaging.

Why Rusty likes Rudy

8 Replies

Rusty DePass sent in an op-ed submission recently explaining why he’s a Giuliani supporter, and why he thinks Rudy can win. We did not choose it to run in our limited op-ed space, as any such unabashed advocacy piece raises questions of failure to all the other campaigns. But I thought it was interesting, and I may use it as a launching pad for a column (right now, the competitors in my mind for a Sunday column are this, the topic of Rudy’s appeal in S.C.; a piece on single-payer taking off on the meeting we had with advocates earlier this week; and something on the Romney-as-JFK speech today).

In the meantime, I share it with you for your edification (and yes, if any key supporters for other candidates have pieces that I find equally interesting, I’m open to posting them here). Those of you who know Mr. DePass will agree with me that this is classic Rusty:

Why Rudy?

The core support for Rudy Giuliani is truly amazing. It may be hard for some to believe, but I am convinced this guy is for real! I think 2008 promises to be a genuinely unique election year, and Giuliani might just pull this thing off, even in South Carolina.

Most of us, of course, particularly in South Carolina, never gave a damn about New
Yorkers, but somehow the attacks of September 11, 2001, made those people Americans again—even the ones who weren’t Americans—and the attack on this country was, and still is, unthinkable. Giuliani’s leadership in its aftermath, as we all know and observed, was stellar.

New York City, of course, is the ungovernable city, and for eight years Giuliani ran it—not perfectly, but well, the way it had never been run before—and in many ways turned it around after decades of gross mismanagement. Frederick Siegel’s The Prince of the City is a critical but generally favorable assessment of Giuliani’s effort in getting a handle on how to govern a very difficult city. I recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about this incredible man.

When I decided to support Giuliani, I had to confess that I disagree with the guy on a number of issues, and they are important, though mainly social. But when I first became interested in politics, there wasn’t any such thing as “social issues.” Abortion was wrong and homosexuals weren’t trying to marry each other then. The issues were government efficiency, economics, excessive taxation, a strong defense, and governmental interference in our lives and businesses.

Our society has deteriorated a lot since then and unfortunately social issues have become the stock and trade of conservative candidates’ campaigns. Outraged citizens demanded it. I believe in freedom of choice because I believe in freedom, but I don’t believe the government has an obligation to endorse the choices you make.

I have a sneaking suspicion that 2008 is going to be the year when Republicans tire of this fascination with social issues and make their choice on other leadership qualities and policy positions. I don’t think we’re going to change our beliefs; we’re simply going to change our focus.

We need to get away from the rigid, moralistic approach to Republican campaigns and get back to basics, and this guy Giuliani has got the basics down. Not only is he a crime-fighting, Mafia busting prosecutor, he is a superb manager and leader, and on budget and taxation matters, he is as sound as they come. Moreover, he alone among the candidates for 2008, has a grasp of and commitment to the War on Terror. He knows why we are in it and why we must win it.

Frankly I’m a little weary of this “family values” thing. I’m not opposed to what is meant by “family values,” but there’s an “I’m better than you” quality in that approach that makes me uncomfortable.

Just as Jimmy Carter ruined the term “born-again Christian” for me, all the presidents since Reagan have abused “God bless America.” “Family values” needs a rest, too.

When you look at abortion, we really haven’t done so well. We can talk about opposing abortion all we want, but the facts are these: A conservative Republican president appointed the Supreme Court justice who wrote the Roe v.Wade opinion and since then we have had three conservative Republican presidents who have been staunchly “pro-life,” and Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. So I would aver presidents don’t have a whole lot of influence in this particular matter. Courts do.

And while we are speaking of courts, Giuliani has said he would appoint Supreme Court justices like Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia. Friends, he is telling us something. He’s on our side. A few more like those and the social issues will take care of themselves.

It is interesting that all the major Republican candidates but one have been divorced while all the Democrats are happily married the first time—like the Clintons. Whether your marriage is a sham or the picture perfect relationship, ultimately the issue of presidential leadership ability transcends family situations. Let’s not forget that Ronald Reagan was divorced and estranged from his children.

All of the Republican candidates are preferable to any of the Democrats, but we need a candidate who can win. Again, Giuliani seems to be the best bet. I sure would hate to watch Rodham and Gomorrah being inaugurated on January 20, 2009, and think to myself, “Well, at least we nominated the most ideologically pure candidate.”

Talkin’ in the Boys’ Room

2 Replies

On the way into Rotary today, I stopped in the men’s room at Seawell’s, and ran into Henry McMaster. I congratulated Henry on the good turnout he and other McCainiacs had out at the smokehouse in Lexington last week. With this post fresh in my mind, I observed to Henry that I continue to find it hard to believe that Republicans would actually want either Giuliani or Romney as their candidate.

As I was saying that, Trip King (late of Fritz Hollings’ staff, now working for the Biden campaign) walked in, and both of them agreed (surprise) with the observation — McMaster saying if Giuliani gets it, it will be the first time he can remember a GOP nominee who flat didn’t believe in some core values of the party he’s known, and Trip just shaking his head over those whacky Republicans in general.

Both took advantage of the chance to push their respective teams. Trip noted that polls show Biden would run neck-and-neck with either Giuliani or Romney — that was news to me — and Henry noted a fact I’ve already heard a number of times (sort of a McCain talking point), that polls indicate McCain would have the best chance to beat Hillary. (Trip, and another correspondent I’ve heard from today, were also pretty pumped about Biden moving up to fourth place in Iowa at the expense of Bill Richardson, for what that’s worth.)

They were right, and I went into Rotary thinking yet again, what are the Republicans thinking this year?

By the way, the photos were not taken in the men’s room. The above shot, with Henry circled, is at the smokehouse event; Trip is seen posing with fellow Biden staff at the College Democrats confab back in July.

Trip

The game is afoot!

Thank a soldier, whatever your first language may be

4 Replies

Yesterday at Rotary, one of the preliminary speakers told an anecdote, the punch line of which was one I’ve heard a number of times recently: "If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you’re reading it in English, thank a soldier."

I can assure you there was no ill intent toward anyone in the mind of the person who said that Monday. He simply meant to express the obligation that all of us owe to those who have worn the uniform of our country, and I agree with the sentiment. As for the actual words… well, as tends to happen during meetings, my mind starting riffing on what I’d heard, and it launched on two tracks. The first was that it seems that I started hearing that bit about "reading it in English" repeated more often about the time illegal immigration became such an emotional issue in this country. I suspect that I’m wrong; I’m sure I just started noticing the phrase, and hearing vague xenophobic echoes that weren’t really there, at about that time. After all, the two issues have no actual connection. Then I went down the second track: Is there any soldier alive today who fought in a war that prevented a situation in which we were likely to be speaking any language other than English? I started running through all the wars in my mind. Certainly we’d still speak English if we’d lost in 1783 or 1812. Maybe the Southwest was changed by the war with Mexico, but those guys have been dead a century and more. Certainly the world would be wildly different had we lost in 1919 or 1945, or the Cold War, but I suspect we’d still speak English — although maybe the REST of the world wouldn’t have switched to the English standard… Muoz1

Anyway, all this nonsense was swept away when the main speaker stepped to the podium. It was Sgt. José Muñoz, United States Army. (That’s him in the video above. I apologize for the quality; I shot it with my phone.) The first words out of his mouth were to beg forgiveness for his strong accent. He had been born in Mexico. He became a U.S. citizen earlier this year. He has done two combat tours in Iraq, and is about to go to Afghanistan. He joked that he joined the Army hoping to see more of THIS, his adopted country, but has seen little outside of Fort Bragg, while he has been all over Iraq, first with artillery, and later with convoy security.

Sgt. Muñoz was visiting us as part of the Pentagon’s "Why We Serve" speakers program. (That’s his official portrait below at left, much better than my phone version.) He said he didn’t fully understand at first why he was going to the Pentagon. He had never been there Hrs__munoz_photo
before. They just told him to show up in his Class A’s, so that’s what he did.

There was no particular political message other than the usual grousing about how "the media" always tell you the bad stuff that happens in Iraq. I just sat impassive through that, the way I always do (something that’s made easier by the fact that I know exactly what he means, and I know it has nothing to do with me). He had just come to tell why he, José Muñoz, is a United States soldier. He told of how, when he went into Iraq in the 2003 invasion, the Iraqi civilians treated him and his comrades like rock stars. Specifically, he said he felt like Ricky Martin. Later, it was more neutral, he said — they were looked upon just as a fact of life.

He also wanted to let everyone know that despite the fact that convoy security is extremely hazardous, his unit did not lose a single soldier during that deployment.

In response to a question that seemed to lead in this direction, Sgt. Muñoz volunteered the fact that his family came to this country legally. So that pretty much spoiled any pious little sermon I might offer on the immigration issue, seeing as how the angry people all insist that they don’t mind immigrants as long as they have their papers, and probably believe that if Sgt. Muñoz didn’t have his papers, he’d be essentially a different person (a sort of thinking I don’t follow, but that’s why I don’t get why this issue is as hot as it is).

In any case, suffice it to say that Sgt. Muñoz received a standing ovation. All present seemed to feel privileged to be in his presence.

Maybe we should add a corollary: "If you’re reading it in English as a second language, thank a soldier." I certainly made a point of thanking Sgt. Muñoz after the meeting. To me, and I believe to my fellow Rotarians, he’s a much bigger deal than Ricky Martin.

Muoz2

Which is worse: cronyism or bad judgment?

12 Replies

Read today’s editorial about last week’s explanation of the Bar exam mess, and then consider the following, about which we had a debate in yesterday morning’s editorial meeting:

Which is worse — the favoritism that many believed had been extended to the children of the connected, or just plain bad judgment, which in the end appears to have been the case? (And yes, I know many of you still believe there was favoritism, but for the sake of my question, pretend that you agree with me on this point of fact, so that we can hash out the dilemma I’m posing.)

I disagreed with my colleagues. They thought the court’s explanation, if one believed it (and we did), described a bad situation, but not as bad as if results had been overturned in response to phone calls by the powerful. I said it was worse. I said adjusting the results in response to calls from a lawmaker (the House Judiciary chairman, no less) and a judge was not inherently bad in and of itself, if those calls did indeed lead to finding some flaw with the system. In other words, if the action itself was not corrupt, it did not matter whether the impetus for the reconsideration gave the appearance of favoritism.

Yes, I know, most folks seem to assume that if the reconsideration was prodded by someone whose name we know, the adjustment has to be corrupt. But that isn’t true. And remember — there had been no substantive disclosure as to whether there was anything wrong with that section of the test or not. In the end, there apparently was nothing wrong with the testing, only the recording of the score in one instance. But most of the talk during the couple of weeks this issue ran was about who said what to whom, not the quality of the test.

But what the court says it actually did is to me worse than taking another look at the test because of some phone calls (which is what most of the hullabaloo was about). It discovered an error — one person who had been recorded as passing had actually failed that section, and therefore the overall exam. To me, there are only two options under such circumstances — let the result stand, and allow that one person to become a lawyer (in keeping with the rule that judgments are final), or give that one person the cruel news (and as one whose child became a lawyer in recent years, I realize how cruel a disappointment that would be) that the celebration had been premature, that he or she had failed.

What the court actually did was so nonsensical that I couldn’t quite take it in from our news account. I assumed I had read something wrong, so that my first question when we had our first post-holiday editorial meeting Monday morning was, "Tell me again what the court did." As it turned out, it had done exactly what I had thought I’d read: It decided to give that one candidate a free pass on that section of the test, and then gave everybody a free pass on that section, boosting 20 demonstrably unqualified people to the status of attorney at law.

When I had read it, I kept thinking that can’t be right. There’s no way that the court would turn 20 "fails" to "passes" because of a mistake on one. And yes, I can see how some would think it logical, and fair — to the test-takers. But the court has a higher responsibility to the 4 million people of South Carolina.

This was a serious error in judgment, and to me, worse than any inherent harm based on who made a call to whom.

Do you agree or disagree?

Ayres poll shows Romney, Giuliani, McCain in dead heat

1 Reply

Whit Ayres has some figures he’s releasing today from a poll he did for tourism interests. A side finding of the poll — which talked to 300 likely voters each in the S.C. Democratic and Republican primaries — is that the horse race has shifted.

Romney and McCain are within the margin of error (which is large — 5.6 percent — for a sample that small) of each other, with Giuliani between them. Essentially, they’re in a tie for first.

Thompson, who recently had been said to be in the lead, comes in fourth.

I heard about this from someone with the McCain campaign, who was justifiably pleased, as it showed his candidate doing better than in recent polls. He neglected to mention that McCain’s lead over Thompson is also within the margin. But if the poll is accurate, we’re looking at the post-announcement bounce for Thompson wearing off, and McCain apparently being the main beneficiary.

I hear our newsroom will have a story on this, so I await the details from that.

Daring adventures at Lexington Medical

1 Reply

Today, I was reminded of a recent contact report I failed to file at the time. It was our visit to Lexington Medical Center week before last. Mike Biediger, who runs the place, gave a tour to my boss, Henry Haitz; Mark Lett, the top editor in our newsroom; my colleague Warren Bolton; and yours truly. We got to see the hospital’s beautiful new North Tower with its capacious, well-designed rooms. We toured the operating rooms. We saw cool 3D computer scans of people’s vital parts. It was all most edifying, even though they didn’t actually let me cut on anybody.

I hadn’t written about it because I was determined to put together a video show of the tour, and haven’t found the time to edit my footage yet. But I was reminded that I should go ahead and post something today, when I took my Dad home from the place.

Ironically, less than a week after our tour, my Dad was a guest of the hospital, staying in that very North Tower we had toured. He’s been there most of the past week, and I had occasion to try out the comfortable daybeds they have built under the windows of each room. I had a nice snooze yesterday afternoon there; so I can report they work fine. Dad’s feeling much better now, by the way.

A literary footnote: Just before I went to get Dad, I was reading Zorro by Isabel Allende. I bought two copies of the book (one in English, the other in the original Spanish) at a discount sale at the beach over the summer. You might call it Peruvian pulp fiction. I was a huge "Zorro" fan as a kid — I speak of the old Walt Disney TV series. In fact my first watch was a Zorro watch (no Mickey Mouse for me), and I once had a toy épée with a piece of chalk on the end for writing Zs. Ms. Allende’s book was OK for light reading; I finished it just a few minutes ago. (Best part? She included both loyal sidekick Bernardo and lovable nemesis Sgt. Garcia as characters. Worst part? Possibly because it was written by a lady, it had too much romance and too few swordfights.) Anyway, just as I was about to go spring my Dad from the hospital, I was reading a part in which Don Diego was about to spring his father, Don Alejandro de la Vega, from a damp, dirty prison. It seemed like I saw a parallel there. Unfortunately, LMC’s new tower is much nicer than El Diablo prison, and there were no guards upon whom to scratch Zs, so as an adventure, it was a bust.

But it was nice to get Dad home.

Let’s talk bar exam

12 Replies

Sometimes, when I know we’re going to editorialize about something, and I’ve had that internal conversation, I forget to blog about it. Or I don’t have much to add to what the editorial says, and don’t blog about it for that reason.

Other times, I have some other stuff to say, but it would probably take a whole column to say it, and I don’t get time, or I want to save it for the column, and I don’t blog about it for THAT reason.

The first and third reasons sort of apply on the bar-exam thing, but we should delay no longer. Until I write that column, or something close to it, here’s our editorial on the subject from yesterday, so we can go ahead and get a thread going about it here:

Posted on Thu, Nov. 15, 2007
Court should better explain Bar exam actions

WE’D
LIKE TO BELIEVE House Judiciary Chairman Jim Harrison was merely trying
to alert officials to a potential problem with the Bar exam, and not
trying to pull strings on behalf of his daughter, when he called the
Supreme Court and the head of the testing board in apparent violation
of a new court rule.

We’d like to believe that Circuit Judge Paul
Burch’s call to that same official was merely to inquire about an
appeal procedure, and not to intervene on behalf of his own daughter.

And
it would be nice to believe that even if either man was trying to gain
an unfair advantage for his daughter, those actions had no effect —
that the court indeed threw out one section of the exam because “a
scoring error reported by the examiner” left it with no better options,
and not because, as Mr. Harrison’s daughter bragged on the Web, “We
worked really hard last week to make this happen.” That would mean our
Supreme Court has moved beyond the small-town, back-scratching,
who’s-your-daddy politics that still permeates the Legislature that
elects judges.

We’d like to believe all that, just as we like to
give our Supreme Court the benefit of the doubt in all situations —
something we tend to believe it deserves. But until the court better
explains its handling of this affair, we can’t.

We understand the
reluctance of judges to answer questions outside the courtroom, to
confine their explanations to formal opinions that address only those
matters that absolutely must be addressed. Judges’ words have special
meaning in our society, and a careless one can send the other two
branches of government off in directions they needn’t go.

But
when it regulates the legal profession, the Supreme Court isn’t acting
as the judicial branch of government. It is taking on an administrative
role — and in that realm, the public deserves answers.

The court
might have gotten away with its curt explanation for essentially giving
students a pass on one-seventh of the exam if it had actually issued
that explanation at the time that it granted that gimme. It did not,
and that raises more questions than the court has answered:

• What was this “scoring error” that the examiner reported, and how did he discover it?

• Was the examiner aware of the phone calls by Rep. Harrison and Judge Burch?

• What
was the failure rate on the section, and how did that rate compare to
1) the usual failure rate on that section and 2) the failure rate on
other sections?

• Will Rep. Harrison and Judge Burch be investigated for their possible violations of court rules?

Go
to any Web site where this whole mess is being discussed, and you’ll
find lots more questions — some of which are legitimate, some of which
are not. But the point is that the court created the environment in
which conspiracy theories thrive. And in the Internet age, that has
cast a shadow of suspicion over the 20 lawyers who benefited from the
change, over the entire legal profession and, most importantly, over
the court itself.

This leaves the court in the unfortunate
position of needing to go much further in explaining itself than it
normally would need to. But that is a small price to pay to restore the
crucial public confidence that this situation has threatened to
undermine.

The hunter, home from the hill

McCain on question about beating the ‘rhymes with rich’

10 Replies

Just got this from B.J. over at the McCain campaign:

Hey Mr. Warthen –
I think you might be interested in this. Here’s the deal: On Monday in Hilton Head at a Meet & Greet, some lady asked McCain, “How do we beat the bitch?” He responded. (See Video 1) Last night, CNN’s Rick Sanchez stooped to new levels of sensationalism in reporting the incident. (See Video 2). This morning, we released a statement from Buzz Jacobs, SC Campaign Manager. (See Below) Today at noon, McCain is holding a national blogger call and this is sure to be the hot topic. I thought you might want to get on that call, so if you’re interested, please let me know ASAP and I will send you the call info.

Thanks,
BJ

I told him, yeah, I might want to listen in on that. Anything y’all want to share prior to that? Personally, my immediate reaction is that I have but one complaint about the way Sen. McCain handled it: he spoke of the nomination of the "Democrat Party," not the Democratic Party. And I think the guy on CNN talking about it makes an ass of himself.

Also, here’s the release to which B.J. referred:

STATEMENT FROM SC CAMPAIGN MANAGER ON CNN REPORT
For Immediate Release
Contact: SC Press Office
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
COLUMBIA, SC — U.S. Senator John McCain’s South Carolina campaign manager Buzz Jacobs issued the following statement in response to a report aired last evening by CNN’s Rick Sanchez:

"It is disappointing that Mr. Sanchez would choose to engage in sensationalism in the hopes of generating a story. It not only reflects poorly on him, but on CNN. If Mr. Sanchez had even the faintest perspective on the race for the White House, he would know that Senator McCain has expressed his utmost respect for Senator Clinton numerous times on the campaign trail as he did at Monday’s event in Hilton Head."

###

My new pen pal

2 Replies

Just in the last few days, I’ve started getting routine releases via e-mail, such as this one, from Gresham Barrett’s office.

No indication why… But I have a hunch I’m going to have this new pen-pal at least through, oh, 2010. What do you think?

Taking the ‘Pulse’ of our mystery friends

12 Replies

This morning, I got this e-mail from the anonymous folks over at The Pulse of Columbia:

To: Our Friends in the City of
Columbia

From: THE PULSE OF
COLUMBIA

With “Charles in Charge”… it begs
the question “What About Bob”?

The
State
says we need the “Strong Mayor” system, but could Mayor Bob really run the City
of

Columbia

?

You tell us what you think at The Pulse of
Columbia!!

As
always,

Your Friends at THE PULSE

… to which I responded:

Who says Bob would be
the mayor? And would we even consider a change that would take effect before the
next mayoral election?

Here’s the reply I got:

Completely agree with
you on that one, Brad. We’re pushing right along with
you!!!

We’d really like to
see Council take the lead and give the voters a chance to decide what form of
government is best for

Columbia

. If we can educate the voting populous
out there about the importance of a good government structure, it would
dramatically improve the way the City does business and give Columbia the
fighting chance it needs to really be a fantastic
city.

The rally for change
is exciting. We need to continue moving the balls forward. Eventually they will
begin to roll on their own.

As long as you keep
pushing the message, we’ll continue posting it!!

In case you’re wondering who our "friends" at the Pulse might be, we’re in the same boat. Back when I first started hearing from them, I asked, and here’s the answer I got:

We’re are a group of
Columbia-area residents and business owners who’d like to see the City’s
leadership step up to the plate, like we have to do every day with our families
and businesses, and help our Capital City reach its potential. There’s so much
out there that we’d like to City to address, and we just hope to be a voice that
does that.

Kind of a long name, huh?

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits

Category Archives: South Carolina

S.C. Chamber chief on health care as a competitiveness issue

Urgent calls lead to action on Darfur (I hope)

Hal makes up his mind: It’s Huckabee

PATHETIC!

Edwards gets some respect from Katon — briefly

Maya Angelou — when is HER show on?

You’re a mean one, Mr. DeMint

The Eclectic Sandlapping Palmetto Tree

Why Rusty likes Rudy

Talkin’ in the Boys’ Room

The game is afoot!

Thank a soldier, whatever your first language may be

Which is worse: cronyism or bad judgment?

Ayres poll shows Romney, Giuliani, McCain in dead heat

Daring adventures at Lexington Medical

Let’s talk bar exam

The hunter, home from the hill

McCain on question about beating the ‘rhymes with rich’

My new pen pal

Taking the ‘Pulse’ of our mystery friends