Category Archives: South Carolina

Our Valerie gets Thomas Ravenel onto the front of the Wall Street Journal

Here’s a link to the front page story in the Wall Street Journal today about Thomas Ravenel and his troubles, written by our own Valerie Bauerlein, late of The State.

I’m proud for Valerie whenever she gets a front-page byline at the WSJ, and I’m almost as proud for Thomas for being honored with one of those patented line drawings of his very own mug. Here’s hoping you can actually link to it. (Unless you’re a subscriber, you probably can’t, but don’t whine to me; I don’t run the WSJ.)

Anyway, as a recounting of the Ravenel saga to folks elsewhere who don’t know about it, the story’s fine. Trouble is, the WSJ is big-time, and editors there don’t put you on the front page if all you’ve got is an interesting story about what’s going on back in South Carolina. No, you’ve got to stick in some stuff about Vitter, and Gov. Perdue, make it look like a regional story, which makes it almost as important as something going on in New York. And then it has to have a nut graf. All God’s stories got to have a nut graf, or else they’re never, ever going onto the front page of a self-respecting newspaper like the WSJ.

And that’s where I have to quibble. Trouble is, the Ravenel tale doesn’t have a nut graf, in WSJ terms. So when you force one onto it, it sounds kind of funky. Here’s the one on Valerie’s story:

The indictment is just one of the political headaches across the South that are making Republicans look more vulnerable than they have in years to losing ground in the region’s legislatures and statehouses. Though there isn’t any sign of them losing their dominance in the region, the once-formidable "Solid South" coalitions they forged in the 1980s and 1990s to end a century of Democratic dominion have given way to messy schisms and infighting. Today, they look a lot like the bitterly divided Democrats of three decades ago.

Well, OK, yeah — in the sense that it’s pretty much the same people, or their kids, or the people they would have been today (however you want to look at it). In the South, the GOP is the White Man’s Party. Everybody knows that. And white guys used to run the Democratic Party, because it was the only party around, and white guys ran everything there was.

Add to that the fact that historically, there hasn’t been much of a gender gap in the South Carolina electorate (compared to nationally), and you get a situation in which most voters (since more than two-thirds of the voters are white) identify themselves as Republican — that is, among voters who identify themselves with a party.

Majority parties (and by the way, Republicans are not an actual majority of the electorate, but just a plurality, but that tends to work much the same) tend not to be monolithic. The Democratic Party wasn’t, and isn’t. Nor is the GOP, now that’s it’s no longer a bunch of ideologues satisfied to be in the minority, so long as they’re "right" as they define "right." (You know, like the Libertarian Party today.) So you get "messy schisms and infighting," but that’s not newsworthy. That’s life. Actually, it’s probably more likely to be par for the course in a party that party as white as the GOP.

After 53 years of life, I’ve learned that white guys tend to have one thing in common: They don’t see themselves as having anything in common. They don’t see being white guys as a cause per se. They certainly don’t feel any particular loyalty to other white guys because they are white guys; nor do they feel any particular reason to agree with other white guys because they are white guys. In fact, one reason they probably aren’t Democrats is because they’re put off by Identity Politics; it’s not their thing. They don’t get it. This is one of the things that makes some Republicans sound so racist or sexist. (You know how they’re always griping about black people talking about race, or women talking about gender. Feminists say they "just don’t get it," and that’s true, because women know from white guys. Of course, some of them ARE racist and sexist, but a lot of it is just being cursed with a White Guy cognitive style.)

So basically, if you’re a white guy in the White Man’s Party and your name is, say Thomas Ravenel (or Mark Sanford or Lindsey Graham or any other name you care to pick out of the air), you’re kidding yourself if you think the other white guys in the party are going to agree with you or stick up for you just because you’re one of them. Once enough of these chaps get together to form a majority, look for lots of messy schisms. And infighting.

So it’s not news. And it certainly doesn’t mean the GOP in S.C. is going the way of the Democratic Party of 30 years ago — that is to say, out of power. No party is going the way of the Democratic Party of 30 (or perhaps we should say 40, or 50, years ago, to take us to the days when a South Carolinian was about as likely to be a Republican as he was a Buddhist) years ago, because that only happens if there is only one party.

Of course, come to think of it, the White Guys in the Republican Party mostly think that theirs IS the only party, in that they’d rather open a main vein than be a Democrat, but we’re quibbling here with our own quibbling…

Anyway, Valerie knows what she’s about, so she sets things right by the end of the story. Mind you, the nut graf didn’t say the GOP was actually in trouble in the South (as much as I may wish it, and all other parties, were about to be Gone With The Wind). But if not to suggest that, why have a nut graf? Cause all God’s stories got to have a nut graf, fool, which takes us back to where we were, which was where?

Oh, yeah. Valerie makes it all right in the end, correcting any misconceptions you may have inadvertently formed as a result of reading the nut graf. And for those of you who think party means anything, she introduced a delicious irony by having Don Fowler debunk your worries about the GOP:

The Republican turmoil has raised some Democratic
hopes that parts of the South may no longer be as lockstep in support
of the Republican Party. But Donald L. Fowler, a former chairman of the
Democratic National Committee and the husband of Carol Khare Fowler,
South Carolina’s Democratic Party chairwoman, cautions that Republican
fatigue doesn’t yet necessarily portend broad Democratic comebacks,
particularly in South Carolina.

He says it would require a major demographic shift,
such as an influx of people from other parts of the country, and a
major economic change, such as a depression, to change the landscape.

"At least where we are now, Democrats don’t have the
wherewithal to take advantage of the split in the Republican Party,"
Mr. Fowler said.

I like the standard Mr. Fowler set, because it was hyperbolic while being no exaggeration — saying that it would take a change such as, say "a depression" for Dems to be able to take decisive advantage of this "schism." That’s cool because that sums up Southern politics so beautifully: hyperbolic, without being an exaggeration.

MacGyver on patrol in Afghanistan

18 Replies

Our citizen-soldier correspondent today sent us our first glimpses of his Team Swamp Fox on patrol in the vicinity of Kandahar.

Here are excerpts from his report, which I include here in PDF format:

While our work at times may involve direct action against the enemy, we achieve our biggest victories by building relationship with the people. And that
takes time… lots of it….

A child’s heart is a loving heart… The children are always the first to great us and they have no doubt been conditioned a bit as US soldiers at times give treats while they pass but it always reminds me of my alma mater’s, the University of South Carolina’s motto – “Education humanizes the heart and does not permit it to be cruel.” I have never seen that pronounced so clearly and with such exclamation as when I pass each day and village and people here. And I believe the converse of that is true. A heart of hatred has to be trained and conditioned to hate… Those that would follow the Taliban and intentionally kill themselves and those completely innocent with them have to be taught to hate us and others like us. Despite our different languages and cultures and vastly different wealth… as peoples those things really important in life we share. The value of our families and our communities and a desire for the opportunity for our families to live and grow in a safe, healthy, peaceful and secure environment.

Children

If you’re here because of that box on the op-ed page…

2 Replies

… that promised "other opinions, the chance to register your thoughts, plus video from Tommy Moore’s endorsement interview with The State’s editorial board," then you’re at the right place.

First, in case you haven’t read Tommy Moore’s op-ed piece that the box went with, "Why I left the Senate for the payday lending industry," please go do so.
Then, check out Warren Bolton’s column on Mr. Moore’s decision, which takes a decidedly different view.
Here’s a video clip from our editorial board’s endorsement interview with Mr. Moore, back when he was running for governor last year.
Here’s our endorsement of then-Sen. Moore. (Hey, you should have seen the other guy. Some choice.)
Here’s a release about, and a link to, an ETV interview with Mr. Moore after his announcement this week.
Check out the press release from Mr. Moore’s new employer, CFSA, announcing his new job.
Finally, here’s my own initial, rather visceral reaction to that news. Something you might find more interesting is the way some of my readers responded.

If you have thoughts of your own to share, or requests for further information or resources, this is the place.

Rudy and the party animals

1 Reply

Rudy Giuliani is a straight-shootin’ law-and-order man, the guy who hounded the Mob (going after all Five Families at once!) and cleaned up Gotham, but when you look at his associates, you see some people who really know how to party.

First his state chairman, and now his Southern campaign chair. I don’t even want to know what his national chairman’s been up to, whoever that is.

But this business is not all fun and games. As the WashPost’s Dana Milbank reports, David Vitter has been sort of scarce since the news broke. And with good reason:

His wife, Wendy, told Newhouse News Service in 2000 that if her husband cheated on her, she would react less like Hillary Clinton and more like the Manassas woman who cut off her sleeping husband’s penis in 1993. "I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary," Wendy Vitter said. "If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me. I think fear is a very good motivating factor in a marriage."

No wonder they say he’s run off to hide in the Big Easy.

But that wasn’t the most interesting part of that item, from a South Carolina perspective. Check out this very strange comment that our own Sen. Jim DeMint offered when asked by reporters about the Vitter story:

"All of us have to look at it and say that we could be next. We all think that we’re not vulnerable to something like that happening, but the fact is this can be a very lonely and isolating place."

Say what?

Lindsey Graham, stand-up guy

25 Replies

Immigration

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
LINDSEY Graham is a stand-up guy.
I just thought somebody should say that before sensible, thoughtful folk completely forget about all the hollering we’ve recently heard about his advocacy of the defunct immigration bill.
The ones doing the hollering won’t forget, or so they say. Remember the Angry White Male, who rose up and swept Newt Gingrich and his cohorts into power in Congress in 1994? Well, that guy is alive and well, and he’s really, really ticked off at Lindsey Graham. And John McCain.
Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment is being broken all over the place, right over Sen. Graham’s skull. Some sample comments from my blog:

“Snake in the grass, closet liberal, supercilious, condescending, I-know-better-than-you-little-people Lindsey Graham. Government is the only business I know of in which the people who run it continually attempt to tell the customers why they’re wrong.”
“Lindsey Graham has betrayed his conservative promises and has voted with the liberal democrats 18 times (from Jan 1st through Jul 1st).”
“‘Buenos Dias! You have reached the office of Senator Lindsey Graham. Press 1 for assistance in Spanish. Otherwise, hang up you racist bigot. Muchas Gracias!”’

And so forth.
Speaking of the blog — I set them off again when I posted a link to an article in National Review that said, “I hope the American people, at least, step back from the obsessive play-by-play pre-season election analysis and reflect on Senator McCain’s actions for what I believe they were: One of the purest examples of political courage seen in Washington in a very, very long time…”
Joelindsey
That was written by Sen. Tom Coburn, who opposed Sens. McCain and Graham on the immigration bill, but had the intellectual honesty to admire the extremely rare fortitude they exhibited in their stance.
But aside from Sen. Jim DeMint going out of his way to be gracious and magnanimous after crushing this initiative by the colleague who usually overshadows him, there is little appreciation for the quality that Sen. Coburn admired. “Lindsey Grahamnesty was not elected to be courageous,” said one of my bloggers. “He was elected to vote on behalf of the people of South Carolina. If he can’t do that, maybe he should go be courageous somewhere else.”
But courage is too rare and precious a commodity in our politics for anyone to dismiss it. How long has it been since you saw somebody from South Carolina take a tough, leading position on a major national issue, without regard to the consequences?
Lindsey Graham is a smart guy, about as smart as they come. Whatever the issue, it is a delight to hear him expound upon it. Does anyone really think he didn’t realize in advance how constituents would react? Even if he didn’t realize the magnitude of this tidal wave of opposition, once it broke over him, did he back off? No.
That’s doing what you believe is right in spite of the cost. Sens. Graham and McCain have repeatedly demonstrated remarkable political courage, on this and other issues — standing up to the Bush administration on torture, reaching out to Democratic moderates to smooth the path for the president’s judicial nominees. Time and time again, they have done what they believed to be right, and explained their actions with intelligence and conviction.
Those of you who are so livid right now can dismiss that all you want, but you are wrong to do so. You’re also being rather foolish. The “Gang of 14” deal is what led to John Roberts and Samuel Alito joining the Supreme Court. And dream all you want, you just rejected the one best chance you had of seeing any substantive action on illegal immigration.
I was dismayed to see the two senators step out on immigration in this way at this time.
After all, the only people who considered illegal immigration to be a front-burner issue were the sort of angry fantasists who believe it’s possible to round up 12 million people who don’t want to be found, and deport them.
I asked John McCain about it: Why this? Why now? He thought it was important to national security. He said “we can’t have 12 million people in the United States of America who we don’t know who they are or where they are and what they’re doing.”
Sen. Graham agreed. And nothing was going to stop them; they were determined “to stand on principle, and try to solve problems,” as the South Carolinian puts it at such times.
I was reminded of how rare principled courage was on this issue (and others) when I called around to local Republicans for comment. I got some good ones — not for attribution.
“There’s no shortage of plain old racism” in this issue, said one of these brave souls. “God forbid you should say it out loud, though. Lindsey said it out loud.”
“Courageous? I think it was stupid,” said another. “I think it was the most stupid thing I’ve ever heard of.”
At the same time, that second tower of strength predicted that the people who keep promising they’ll “never vote for Lindsey Graham again” will do just that, because “nobody worth anything will run against him.”
Possibly. But the 2008 Senate election may answer once and for all whether, in this finger-in-the-wind putative republic of ours, political courage is the one unforgivable sin.

One happy beach bum

2 Replies

This forwarded message was waiting for me this morning. As I begin another long Friday, it’s good to know that somebody out there is happy and satisfied:

This photo is titled “Tax Change Worries Officials.” I am holding the March 18th, 2007, edition of The State on the beautiful shores of Cherry Grove. School systems no longer can rely on residential property taxes; instead they are at the mercy of the State: more pleasing words I have never read in The State.

Please forward this email & photo to Cindi Scoppe for me.
Many thanks for your prompt courtesy and intelligent attention. Best wishes for a long, hot summer.

Robert Collins
Irmo SC

Party on, Robert.

Was I mean to Grady, or just ‘factual?’

12 Replies

Patterson2

Tammy Stokes over at "Seeding Spartanburg" has filed a post* that among other things, states the following:

Thomas Ravenel won that position for one reason and one reason only.
He had an R behind his name. It wasn’t his experience or his track
record of being a fine, upstanding South Carolinian who could bring
vast knowledge and positive change to the Treasurer’s office.

It was because he ran as a Republican. And with the support of
the SC GOP, they proceeded to drag his opponent Grady Patterson’s name
through the mud in a desperate attempt to unseat one of the only
remaining elected Democrats in our state. Some of the dirty insults —
especially the personal attacks on Patterson’s age — were embarrassing,
hurtful tactics especially when the person who unseated Patterson is
now facing federal drug charges less than 7 months later. Looks like
someone with maturity and experience would have been a better choice
after all.

Personally, I find Tammy’s remarks embarrassing and hurtful. Not really, but she does cause me to revisit an idea that others have brought up in the past, and which I’ve almost entirely dismissed with a clear conscience:

Was I mean to Grady Patterson when I posted this video, and this one? Some folks think so. I know for sure that Trav Robertson, who was the ex-treasurer’s closest political assistant (mentioned in this post, and pictured in the background above), thinks so. Each time I run into him these days, he tells me what an awful person I am, specifically because of the videos. I’d like to know what y’all think.

Back before the Ravenel blowup and the Nazis praising the Confederate flag, the "He makes up stuff" clip was either my first or second most-viewed on YouTube.

That’s no moral or ethical defense, of course, but it verified an assumption I had when I put the footage up: Voters would be interested.

I further believed that their interest would be legitimate. I felt that as long as I had the video, and a means of sharing it, I should. There are certain subjective cues you pick up on in a face-to-face interview that play an inevitable part in your judgment of a candidate, but which are hard to get across to readers in a way that they both pick up on and find credible. Sometimes, the ways in which we set out our reasoning in endorsements are theoretically sound, but fail to get across that indefinable something — just how weird this candidate was, or how dumb that one seemed.

In Grady Patterson’s case, there was something about the impression he gave that caused me to think, "Here’s a good man who has given his life to public service, but it is well past time for him to retire and let others do the work." It would have been far better to see him off with a warm retirement party, with lots of grateful speeches for his contributions, than to turn him out of office so ignominiously, losing to that obnoxiously cocky young Thomas R.

Well, I did say some stuff sort of like that. But it seemed far more useful to the voters if I would just show them. (Otherwise, they might assume I was just looking at a calendar, and inferring that he should retire.) The video clips enabled me to do that.

So what do you think? Did I do right? I think I did.

How they voted on the pork

1 Reply

No surprise: The "Competitive Grants" program was vetoed by the governor and easily survived said vetoes. There are a bunch of separate items that make up the Competitive Grants program — implementation items (one for the CG program in PRT, one for the CG program in Commerce and one for the CG program in the BCBoard and one administrative item), and three funding lines. What follows are:

1. The Legislature’s "fix" of the program.
2. The governor’s message explaining why he vetoed the implementation items.
3. The votes to override his vetoes.

1. Legislative "fix." The underlined language was added in this year’s budget, the strike-throughs were deleted, and the rest remains as it was laste year:

63.37.    (BCB: Grants Review Committee) On and after January 1, 2006, there is created within the Budget and Control Board the Grants Review Committee for the purpose of awarding competitive community grants to counties and municipalities. The committee shall consist of five members with one member appointed by each of the following officials: the Governor, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate, and the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives. The officials may make initial appointments to the committee and the committee members may organize prior to January 1, 2006. Members shall serve two-year terms coterminous with the appointing official. The committee must adopt rules of procedure and elect a chairman from the membership of the committee.
   The committee must meet at least twice annually to review applications for grants submitted by counties and municipalities. All applications must conform to and all grants must be awarded pursuant to criteria established by the committee. Grants must be awarded in amounts determined by the committee from funds appropriated by the General Assembly. Staff for the committee must be provided by the Budget and Control Board.
   Applications for grants of one hundred thousand dollars or less must be processed administratively by the staff pursuant to criteria established by the committee. Applications for grants to exceed one hundred thousand dollars must be reviewed for approval by the committee.
   The committee shall establish guidelines, which shall include but not be limited to:

1) Priorities for funding, to include but not be limited to, Department of Health and Environmental Control orders and consent decrees, the ability to match grant funds, and a focus on community festivals;
2) A signature of sponsorship on each application by a member of the General Assembly who represents the county or municipality applying for the grant or the signature of the Governor;
3) Applications for consideration must be in the form prescribed herein and adopted by the committee for any award made effective July 1, 2007;
4) Counties and municipalities must report annually on the expenditure of the funds received until the funds are expended;
5) Final financial reports must be received by the committee within ninety days of the completion of the project along with a description of the results achieved in the interest of the community; and
6) The Budget and Control Board Office of Internal Audit shall have access to all Grants Review Committee records as it deems appropriate.

The committee should ensure that its process is efficient and minimizes unnecessary or duplicative paperwork.

——————————————

2. Governor’s Veto message on the implementation items:

Veto 81 Part 1B, Section 9.44, Department of Health and Environmental Control, page 380; Competitive Grants.
Veto 82 Part 1B, Section 26.6, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 400; Competitive Grants.
Veto 83 Part 1B, Section 27.23, Department of Commerce, page 404; Competitive Grants.
Veto 84 Part 1B, Section 63.35, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Competitive Grants.
Veto 85Part 1B, Section 63.37, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Grants Review Committee.

This program has been in operation for longer than a year now with more than $20 million being doled out to various entities around the state. Through the process, there have been questions linked to several of the awards and whether there were efforts made to circumvent the process established by the General Assembly.

Further, at the writing of this message, there are approximately 2,200 projects totaling over $350 million in requests for a program that would have, at most, $69 million to award. Half of the grants were submitted over a year ago and have not been considered by the Committee, and it does not appear that they will.

In a little over twelve months, this so-called competitive grants program has become backlogged at the rate of five times the allotted money without a merit-based review process. We believe that this program should be ended once and for all.

——————————————-
3. Votes

IN THE HOUSE

VETO 81– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 9.44, Department of Health and Environmental Control, page 380; Competitive Grants.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 76; Nays 31

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                Allen                Anderson
Anthony             Bales                Bannister
Barfield             Battle                Bowers
Brady                Branham             G. Brown
R. Brown             Chalk                Chellis
Clemmons             Cobb-Hunter          Coleman
Cooper                Crawford             Davenport
Funderburk          Gambrell             Govan
Gullick             Hamilton             Hardwick
Harrell             Harvin                Haskins
Hayes                Hiott                Hodges
Hosey                Howard                Jefferson
Jennings             Kennedy             Knight
Limehouse             Loftis                Lowe
Mack                McLeod                Miller
Moss                J. H. Neal          J. M. Neal
Neilson             Ott                   Parks
Perry                M. A. Pitts          Rice
Rutherford          Sandifer             Scarborough
Scott                Sellers             Skelton
D. C. Smith          F. N. Smith          G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith          J. R. Smith          W. D. Smith
Spires                Stavrinakis          Umphlett
Weeks                Whipper             White
Whitmire             Williams             Witherspoon
Young

Total–76

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine          Bedingfield          Bingham
Bowen                Cotty                Delleney
Duncan                Edge                Frye
Hagood                Haley                Harrison
Herbkersman          Huggins             Kelly
Kirsh                Leach                Lucas
Mahaffey             Merrill             Mulvaney
Pinson                E. H. Pitts          Shoopman
Simrill             Stewart             Talley
Taylor                Thompson             Toole
Viers

Total–31

So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 82– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 26.6, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 400; Competitive Grants.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 83; Nays 20

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                Allen                Anderson
Anthony             Bales                Bannister
Barfield             Battle                Bedingfield
Bowen                Bowers                Brady
Branham             G. Brown             R. Brown
Chalk                Chellis             Clemmons
Clyburn             Cobb-Hunter          Coleman
Cooper                Crawford             Davenport
Frye                Funderburk          Gambrell
Govan                Gullick             Hamilton
Hardwick             Hayes                Herbkersman
Hiott                Hodges                Hosey
Howard                Jennings             Kelly
Kennedy             Knight                Limehouse
Lowe                Lucas                Mack
Mahaffey             McLeod                Merrill
Miller                Mitchell             Moss
J. H. Neal          J. M. Neal          Neilson
Ott                   Parks                Perry
Rice                Rutherford          Sandifer
Scarborough          Scott                Sellers
Shoopman             Skelton             D. C. Smith
F. N. Smith          G. M. Smith          G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith          W. D. Smith          Spires
Stavrinakis          Taylor                Toole
Umphlett             Vick                Viers
Weeks                White                Whitmire
Williams             Witherspoon

Total–83

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine          Bingham             Cotty
Delleney             Duncan                Edge
Hagood                Haley                Harrison
Huggins             Kirsh                Leach
Mulvaney             Pinson                E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts          Simrill             Stewart
Talley                Thompson

Total–20

So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 83– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 27.23, Department of Commerce, page 404; Competitive Grants.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 85; Nays 18

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                Allen                Anderson
Anthony             Bannister             Barfield
Battle                Bowen                Bowers
Brady                Branham             G. Brown
R. Brown             Chalk                Clemmons
Clyburn             Cobb-Hunter          Coleman
Cooper                Davenport             Edge
Funderburk          Gambrell             Govan
Gullick             Hamilton             Hardwick
Harrell             Harvin                Haskins
Hayes                Herbkersman          Hiott
Hodges                Hosey                Howard
Jefferson             Jennings             Kelly
Kennedy             Knight                Leach
Limehouse             Loftis                Lowe
Lucas                Mack                Mahaffey
McLeod                Merrill             Miller
Mitchell             Moss                J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal          Neilson             Ott
Parks                Perry                Pinson
M. A. Pitts          Rice                Rutherford
Scarborough          Scott                Sellers
Simrill             Skelton             D. C. Smith
F. N. Smith          G. M. Smith          G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith          W. D. Smith          Spires
Stavrinakis          Taylor                Umphlett
Vick                Viers                Weeks
White                Whitmire             Witherspoon
Young

Total–85

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine          Bedingfield          Bingham
Cotty                Delleney             Duncan
Frye                Hagood                Haley
Harrison             Huggins             Mulvaney
E. H. Pitts          Shoopman             Stewart
Talley                Thompson             Toole

Total–18

So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 84– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 63.35, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Competitive Grants.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 81; Nays 26

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                Allen                Anderson
Anthony             Bales                Bannister
Barfield             Battle                Bowers
Brady                Branham             G. Brown
R. Brown             Chalk                Chellis
Clemmons             Clyburn             Cobb-Hunter
Coleman             Cooper                Davenport
Edge                Funderburk          Gambrell
Govan                Hamilton             Hardwick
Harrell             Harvin                Hayes
Herbkersman          Hiott                Hodges
Hosey                Howard                Jefferson
Jennings             Kelly                Kennedy
Knight                Leach                Limehouse
Lowe                Lucas                Mack
Mahaffey             McLeod                Miller
Mitchell             Moss                J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal          Neilson             Ott
Parks                Perry                M. A. Pitts
Rice                Rutherford          Sandifer
Scarborough          Scott                Sellers
Simrill             Skelton             D. C. Smith
F. N. Smith          G. M. Smith          G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith          W. D. Smith          Spires
Stavrinakis          Taylor                Vick
Weeks                Whipper             White
Whitmire             Witherspoon          Young

Total–81

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine          Bedingfield          Bingham
Bowen                Cotty                Crawford
Delleney             Duncan                Frye
Gullick             Hagood                Haley
Harrison             Huggins             Kirsh
Merrill             Mulvaney             Pinson
E. H. Pitts          Shoopman             Stewart
Talley                Thompson             Toole
Umphlett             Viers

Total–26

So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 85– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 63.37, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Grants Review Committee.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 77; Nays 24

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                Allen                Anthony
Bales                Bannister             Barfield
Battle                Bowers                Brady
Branham             G. Brown             R. Brown
Chalk                Clemmons             Cobb-Hunter
Coleman             Cooper                Davenport
Edge                Frye                Funderburk
Gambrell             Govan                Hardwick
Harrell             Harvin                Haskins
Hayes                Herbkersman          Hiott
Hodges                Hosey                Howard
Jefferson             Jennings             Kelly
Knight                Leach                Lowe
Lucas                Mack                Mahaffey
McLeod                Miller                Mitchell
Moss                J. H. Neal          J. M. Neal
Neilson             Ott                   Parks
Perry                Pinson                M. A. Pitts
Rice                Rutherford          Sandifer
Scarborough          Scott                Sellers
Simrill             Skelton             D. C. Smith
F. N. Smith          G. M. Smith          G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith          W. D. Smith          Spires
Stavrinakis          Taylor                Vick
Weeks                White                Whitmire
Witherspoon          Young

Total–77

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine          Bedingfield          Bingham
Bowen                Cotty                Crawford
Delleney             Duncan                Hagood
Haley                Hamilton             Harrison
Huggins             Kirsh                Merrill
Mulvaney             E. H. Pitts          Shoopman
Stewart             Talley                Thompson
Toole                Umphlett             Viers

Total–24

So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 195– OVERRIDDEN

Part IB; Section 73; Proviso 73.12; Page 516; Item Number 78(A); P28; Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; Competitive Grants; $3,000,000.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 84; Nays 19

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                Allen                Anderson
Bales                Bannister             Barfield
Battle                Bingham             Bowers
Brady                Branham             Breeland
G. Brown             R. Brown             Chalk
Chellis             Clemmons             Clyburn
Coleman             Cooper                Crawford
Edge                Frye                Funderburk
Gambrell             Govan                Gullick
Hamilton             Hardwick             Harrell
Hart                Harvin                Haskins
Hayes                Herbkersman          Hiott
Hodges                Hosey                Huggins
Jefferson             Jennings             Kelly
Knight                Limehouse             Lowe
Mack                Mahaffey             McLeod
Mitchell             Moss                J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal          Neilson             Ott
Owens                Parks                Perry
Pinson                E. H. Pitts          M. A. Pitts
Rice                Rutherford          Sandifer
Scarborough          Scott                Sellers
Skelton             D. C. Smith          G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith          J. R. Smith          W. D. Smith
Spires                Stavrinakis          Taylor
Toole                Umphlett             Vick
Weeks                Whipper             White
Whitmire             Williams             Young

Total–84

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine          Bedingfield          Bowen
Cotty                Davenport             Delleney
Duncan                Hagood                Haley
Harrison             Kirsh                Leach
Loftis                Lucas                Mulvaney
Shoopman             Thompson             Viers
Witherspoon

Total–19
———————————-
VETO 212– OVERRIDDEN

Part IB; Section 73; Proviso 73.12; Page 517; Item Number 79(A); P32; Department of Commerce; Competitive Grants; $500,000.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 86; Nays 12

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                Allen                Anderson
Bales                Ballentine          Bannister
Barfield             Battle                Bingham
Bowen                Bowers                Brady
Branham             G. Brown             R. Brown
Chalk                Chellis             Clemmons
Clyburn             Cobb-Hunter          Coleman
Cooper                Crawford             Edge
Frye                Funderburk          Gambrell
Govan                Haley                Hardwick
Hart                Harvin                Haskins
Hayes                Herbkersman          Hiott
Hodges                Hosey                Howard
Huggins             Jefferson             Kelly
Knight                Leach                Limehouse
Lowe                Lucas                Mack
Mahaffey             McLeod                Mitchell
Moss                J. H. Neal          J. M. Neal
Neilson             Ott                   Owens
Parks                Perry                Pinson
E. H. Pitts          M. A. Pitts          Rice
Rutherford          Sandifer             Scarborough
Sellers             Shoopman             Simrill
Skelton             D. C. Smith          F. N. Smith
G. M. Smith          G. R. Smith          J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith          Spires                Stavrinakis
Taylor                Toole                Vick
Weeks                Whipper             White
Whitmire             Williams

Total–86

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bedingfield          Cotty                Davenport
Delleney             Duncan                Gullick
Hagood                Kirsh                Mulvaney
Thompson             Umphlett             Viers

Total–12

So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

———————————————

VETO 236– OVERRIDDEN

Part IB; Section 73; Proviso 73.12; Page 517; Item Number 86(F); F03; Budget and Control Board; Competitive Grants; $3,000,000.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 81; Nays 17

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                Allen                Anderson
Bales                Bannister             Barfield
Battle                Bedingfield          Bingham
Bowen                Bowers                Brady
Branham             Breeland             G. Brown
R. Brown             Chellis             Clemmons
Clyburn             Cobb-Hunter          Cooper
Delleney             Edge                Funderburk
Gambrell             Govan                Hamilton
Hardwick             Harrell             Harvin
Haskins             Hayes                Hiott
Hodges                Hosey                Howard
Huggins             Jefferson             Jennings
Kelly                Knight                Leach
Limehouse             Lowe                Lucas
Mack                Mahaffey             McLeod
Mitchell             Moss                J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal          Neilson             Ott
Owens                Parks                Perry
Pinson                E. H. Pitts          Rice
Sandifer             Scarborough          Scott
Sellers             Simrill             Skelton
F. N. Smith          G. M. Smith          G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith          Spires                Stavrinakis
Taylor                Vick                Weeks
Whipper             White                Whitmire
Williams             Witherspoon          Young

Total–81

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine          Cotty                Crawford
Duncan                Frye                Gullick
Hagood                Haley                Harrison
Kirsh                Merrill             Mulvaney
D. C. Smith          Thompson             Toole
Umphlett             Viers

Total–17

So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

IN THE SENATE
VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 81 Part 1B, Section 9.44, Department of Health and Environmental Control, page 380; Competitive Grants.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator ALEXANDER moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 40; Nays 5

AYES

Alexander                Anderson                Ceips
Cleary                   Courson                Cromer
Drummond                Elliott                Fair
Ford                   Gregory                Hayes
Hutto                   Jackson                Knotts
Land                   Leatherman             Leventis
Lourie                   Malloy                   Martin
Matthews                McConnell                McGill
Moore                   O’Dell                   Patterson
Peeler                   Pinckney                Rankin
Reese                   Ritchie                Ryberg
Scott                   Setzler                Sheheen
Short                   Thomas                   Vaughn
Williams

Total–40

NAYS

Bryant Campsen Grooms
Hawkins Verdin

Total–5

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 82 Part 1B, Section 26.6, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 400; Competitive Grants.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator McGILL moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 40; Nays 5

AYES

Total–40

NAYS

Bryant Campsen Grooms
Hawkins Verdin

Total–5

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

Message from the House

Columbia, S.C., June 28, 2007

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto by the Governor on R.175, H. 3620 <http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/3620.htm> by a vote of 85 to 18:

R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 83 Part 1B, Section 27.23, Department of Commerce, page 404; Competitive Grants.
Respectfully submitted,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 83 Part 1B, Section 27.23, Department of Commerce, page 404; Competitive Grants.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator McGILL moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 40; Nays 5

AYES

Total–40

NAYS

Bryant Campsen Grooms
Hawkins Verdin

Total–5

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

Message from the House

Columbia, S.C., June 28, 2007

Mr. President and Senators:

R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 84 Part 1B, Section 63.35, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Competitive Grants.
Respectfully submitted,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 84 Part 1B, Section 63.35, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Competitive Grants.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator McGILL moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 40; Nays 5
AYES

Total–40

NAYS

Bryant Campsen Grooms
Hawkins Verdin

Total–5

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

Message from the House

Columbia, S.C., June 28, 2007

Mr. President and Senators:

R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 85 Part 1B, Section 63.37, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Grants Review Committee.
Respectfully submitted,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 85 Part 1B, Section 63.37, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Grants Review Committee.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator McGILL moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 40; Nays 5

AYES

Total–40

NAYS

Bryant Campsen Grooms
Hawkins Verdin

Total–5

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 145 Part IB; Section 73; Proviso 73.12; page 514; Item Number 65(H); J04; Department of Health and Environmental Control; Competitive Grants; $2,800,000.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator ALEXANDER moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 39; Nays 6

AYES

Alexander                Anderson                Ceips
Cleary                   Courson                Cromer
Drummond                Elliott                Fair
Ford                   Gregory                Hayes
Hutto                   Jackson                Knotts
Land                   Leatherman             Leventis
Lourie                   Malloy                   Martin
Matthews                McConnell                McGill
Moore                   O’Dell                   Patterson
Peeler                   Pinckney                Rankin
Reese                   Ritchie                Scott
Setzler                Sheheen                Short
Thomas                   Vaughn                   Williams

Total–39

NAYS

Bryant Campsen Grooms
Hawkins Ryberg Verdin

Total–6

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 195 Part IB; Section 73; Proviso 73.12; Page 516; Item Number 78(A); P28; Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; Competitive Grants; $3,000,000.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator LEATHERMAN moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 39; Nays 6
AYES

Alexander                Anderson                Ceips
Cleary                   Courson                Cromer
Drummond                Elliott                Fair
Ford                   Gregory                Hayes
Hutto                   Jackson                Knotts
Land                   Leatherman             Leventis
Lourie                   Malloy                   Martin
Matthews                McConnell                McGill
Moore                   O’Dell                   Patterson
Peeler                   Pinckney                Rankin
Reese                   Ritchie                Scott
Setzler                Sheheen                Short
Thomas                   Vaughn                   Williams

Total–39

NAYS

Bryant Campsen Grooms
Hawkins Ryberg Verdin

Total–6

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 212 Part IB; Section 73; Proviso 73.12; Page 517; Item Number 79(A); P32; Department of Commerce; Competitive Grants; $500,000.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator McGILL moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 39; Nays 6

AYES

Alexander                Anderson                Ceips
Cleary                   Courson                Cromer
Drummond                Elliott                Fair
Ford                   Gregory                Hayes
Hutto                   Jackson                Knotts
Land                   Leatherman             Leventis
Lourie                   Malloy                   Martin
Matthews                McConnell                McGill
Moore                   O’Dell                   Patterson
Peeler                   Pinckney                Rankin
Reese                   Ritchie                Scott
Setzler                Sheheen                Short
Thomas                   Vaughn                   Williams

Total–39

NAYS

Bryant Campsen Grooms
Hawkins Ryberg Verdin

Total–6

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

Get your mind right, Luke

8 Replies

Assuming I wanted to make a movie about the S.C. prison system, even if I had a sort of magical, all-time, dead-or-alive set of actors to choose from, I don’t think I would have thought of the late Strother Martin to play Corrections chief Jon Ozmint.

But there’s an eerie similarity between what Mr. Ozmint had to say about denying food to rule-breakers…

"Our rule is simple … any inmate is allowed to decline the opportunity (to eat, exercise, shower or have visitors) by failure to comply with our reasonable requirements," Ozmint wrote in the e-mail. "Eating is a voluntary activity and any inmate may refuse to eat."

… and what the legendary character actor said as the "Captain" in "Cool Hand Luke:"

"What we’ve got here is… failure to communicate. Some men you just
can’t reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he
wants it… well, he gets it. I don’t like it any more than you men."

You see, as the Captain so clearly explained, Luke didn’t have his mind right. He could have followed the rules, but he chose to spend the night in the box and wear those chains and get whupped up ‘side the head. He chose all that when he back-sassed a free man (the Captain himself, no less) and when he kept gettin’ rabbit in his blood.

If you don’t understand that, then you don’t got your mind right, and maybe you’d best start gettin’ all of your dirt off Boss Godfrey’s yard, boy.

If they won’t reform DOT, what WILL they reform?

8 Replies

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
ABANDON hope, all ye who seek common-sense reform from the S.C. General Assembly.
You think maybe they’d raise the state’s cigarette tax, the lowest in the nation at 7 cents a pack, especially considering that more than 70 percent of poll respondents say do it?
You’re not from around here, are you?
So how about this ridiculous business of the voters having to elect all these functionaries whom most of them couldn’t name if their lives depended on it? The indictments (and in one case, guilty plea) of two of these poorly vetted politicos over the last couple of years should make changing this situation a no-brainer, right? Or how about putting some of these agencies run by virtually autonomous boards under someone who is elected?
Dream on, Pollyanna.
I’ll confess that I dared to dream thus, just a few short months ago. It looked like this was the year for reforming at least one chunk of our fragmented, unaccountable state government.
For 15 years, this editorial board had been saying we should follow the advice of every commission, study or casual observation of our system by anyone who was not vested in the status quo: Put the elected chief executive in charge of the executive branch, and have the Legislature tend to legislating.
But not since the partial restructuring of 1993 that was pushed by a very determined governor dealing with a scandal-weakened Legislature had the idea made headway against the host of insiders who make it their business to resist change.
Then at the end of 2006, we were faced with something that was not a civics-textbook abstraction: A critical mass of voters understood that the state Department of Transportation was a mess, and that the way things were, no one could hold it accountable for its sins.
The director answered to the Transportation Commission, and the commissioners did not clearly answer to anyone. They were elected by lawmakers, which is bad enough — when you owe your job to 170 people, who’s accountable? No one. The flow chart was further sliced, diced and scrambled by having each commissioner elected by a different subset of lawmakers — those who represented a particular congressional district (and we all know how crazily those are gerrymandered).
But couldn’t a conscientious director with a clear vision for setting and sticking to rational statewide road-building priorities rise above all the horse-trading parochialism inherent in such a system? Theoretically?
Sure. But in the real world, a legislative audit of just a third of the agency’s spending found tens of millions of dollars wasted on questionable contracts. It found high-level nepotism and cronyism. It found that the agency had manipulated the books in order to deceive the Legislature.
Some lawmakers had tried to stick up for the agency’s director, but that was an untenable position. She resigned. Some lawmakers then said: Behold! The problem is solved! She’s gone!
But that didn’t work, either. So there was much rumbling about bringing this maverick agency into line for once.
Even better, a governor who had first been elected on a government-restructuring platform had just been re-elected promising that this time (unlike the first four years), he was actually going to get the job done.
For the first time in years, there was reason to hope that most autonomous, least accountable of agencies would be turned over to the governor, one person whom all the state’s voters could hold responsible for its performance. Lawmakers were in no position to defend the status quo this time, not if the governor really pushed them on it. For once, he had the leverage.
But he didn’t push them on it. The man who was legendary in his first term for ticking off legislators with his capricious ideological rigidity decided that in this situation — with all the political and moral force clearly on his side for once — he would meet lawmakers halfway before the dickering even started.
And halfway, with a Legislature that collectively didn’t really want to change anything, is a long way to go — especially when the lawmakers are constantly backing away from you.
He said, just give me a director I can hire and fire, and you can keep your governing commission. Just please have the commissioners elected by the whole Legislature, so that there’s a chance that they’ll consider broader priorities.
The short explanation of what happened over the next six months was that lawmakers nodded and backed away, nodded and backed away, until we ended up with this: The governor will be able to hire and fire a director, and can even call that individual a secretary, just like in a sure-enough Cabinet.
But the governing board will still be picked by lawmakers broken up into congressional districts, keeping the agency firmly grounded in down-home back-scratching.
Speaking of the commissioners, what were they doing during all this backing and shuffling? Lying low? No way; not these boys. They were electing one of their former brethren to replace the “disgraced” director who had left with a sweet severance package, and openly lobbying lawmakers not to change the setup.
The Legislature doesn’t come back for six months. That’s plenty of time for us starry-eyed types who want to see our beloved South Carolina get its act together to get over our disappointments and start hoping for positive change again. But today, with the next chance for action so far off and fiasco so recent, I thank you for indulging me in this sad consideration of the way things actually are around here.

Don’t forget — tomorrow’s our anniversary!

33 Replies

Received this e-mail from one of the folks working against the tide to raise the cigarette tax:

Dear Brad,
      This Sunday, July 1 marks the 30th anniversary since South Carolina’s last cigarette tax increase. (July 1, 1977)
      The South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative is very appreciative of the editorial support that The State has lent to this issue for many years, and particularly this year. I know that John O’Connor is already working on a story about the cigarette tax to run this Sunday, and I’d like to ask you to consider writing an editorial to accompany that article and to highlight this unfortunate anniversary. Obviously, we had hoped that we could get this legislation passed before the July 1 date, but we are certainly thankful to be closer to an increase than we have been in 30 years.
      As you know, the SC Tobacco Collaborative and our member organizations (American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, South Carolina Cancer Alliance, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, etc) strongly support an increase that would bring our state’s cigarette tax to the national average. When we started this legislative session, the national average had just reached $1.02. While our legislature was in session, four other states passed cigarette tax increases, meaning that the national average has climbed to $1.06. We’re not just falling further behind each year that we fail to pass this tax — we are literally falling further behind each month that we fail to pass this tax. Most notably, Tennessee passed a 42-cent tax increase, which will bring their cigarette tax to 62 cents per pack, and increase the southeastern average.
      The South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative will continue to build our grassroots support over the next six months. We are greatly optimistic that the Senate will pass this tax very early next session and will do everything we can to keep this issue in front of legislators and the citizens who vote for them.

Don’t hesitate to call if you have any questions!

Thanks,
Kelly

Kelly Davis
Cigarette Tax Campaign Coordinator
SC Tobacco Collaborative

This message was sent on Thursday, but I’m just reading it at a little before 9 p.m. Friday. Sunday’s page is gone, and I can tell you it contains no editorial on this subject (although I do make a passing reference to it in my Sunday column). I haven’t the slightest idea whether the newsroom will have a story on this or not Sunday. One can only guess about such things. In fact, such outside sources are more likely to know what the newsroom’s doing than I am (by design), but they can’t possibly know for sure.

But I do know this — as the memo says, no action can be taken for another six months. Time enough to write about it between now and then.

Driving Mr. Bauer: The Sequel

5 Replies

UPDATE on Gov Lite Driver: The House by a smaller margin overrode the veto of the PROVISO for the chauffeur. The possible logic: The money line included other stuff; as long as the PROVISO was removed, there would be no security detail (Just an extra $90,000 in the lt gov’s office with no particular use, and possibly unavailable to be spent, although I’m not sure) … So here’s THe vote to override the PROVISO:

VETO 95– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 72.110, General Provision, page 502; Lt. Governor Security Detail.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 77; Nays 21

Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew                Allen                Anderson
Anthony             Bales                Bannister
Barfield             Battle                Bingham
Bowen                Bowers                Brady
Branham             Breeland             G. Brown
Chalk                Chellis             Clemmons
Clyburn             Cooper                Cotty
Davenport             Delleney             Edge
Frye                Gambrell             Govan
Gullick             Hardwick             Harrell
Harrison             Harvin                Haskins
Hayes                Hiott                Hodges
Hosey                Jefferson             Jennings
Kelly                Knight                Leach
Mack                Mahaffey             Merrill
Miller                Mitchell             Moss
J. H. Neal          J. M. Neal          Neilson
Parks                Perry                Pinson
M. A. Pitts          Rice                Sandifer
Scarborough          Scott                Sellers
Simrill             Skelton             F. N. Smith
G. M. Smith          G. R. Smith          J. R. Smith
Spires                Talley                Taylor
Toole                Umphlett             Vick
Weeks                Whipper             White
Williams             Witherspoon

Total–77

Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine          Bedingfield          Crawford
Duncan                Funderburk          Hagood
Haley                Hamilton             Huggins
Kirsh                Loftis                Lowe
Lucas                McLeod                Mulvaney
E. H. Pitts          Shoopman             D. C. Smith
Stewart             Thompson             Viers

Total–21

So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Capt. Smith checks in from Kandahar

3 Replies

Here’s another of Capt. James Smith’s PDF updates to family and friends back home, from Kandahar Airfield, a forward base in the fight against the Taliban.

The photo above, taken on Saturday, shows him and "Ink" on the hood of his M114 Up-Armored Humvee.

Here’s some quick-and-dirty, unedited video of Fred Thompson at a state Republican Party luncheon today at the Townhouse.

I’ll try to post something a little more polished later.

The light was a little low, and my camera kept adjusting its exposure to the white jacket that the lovely Mrs. Thompson — who was between him and me (that’s her holding what I assume is their child in the foreground of these clips), but we amateurs do what we can.

Note the size of the crowd, the response, etc. The party had a full house for this not-yet-official candidate.

McAlister won’t throw stones at Ravenel

30 Replies

Bob McAlister sent me this heads-up about an entry on his blog:

Brad: I hope that my latest post on Ravenel (Leave the stones on the ground) gets passed around somehow for one reason: I want Ravenel to see it. You never know what God will do with something as innocuous
as a blog.

While I urge you to go to his blog and read it there and comment, for you slackers, here’s the full text of the post:

Leave the stones on the ground
They’re picking up the stones.
Now that The State has confirmed Thomas Ravenel is entering a drug treatment
program, bloggers and partisan alike will be aiming for his head. Count me out. I did not support him and do not know him, but I’m not fit to condemn him. Neither is anyone else.
Condemn his actions? Yes. Express outrage that he violated a public trust? Yes. But condemn a fallen man? No. Every individual is capable of doing terrible things.
If he is an addict and did what he is accused of, he should resign from office and take his punishment. But he should also understand that God’s grace and forgiveness await him if only he accepts it, and that a new life filled with infinite possibilities can be his future.
That’s my hope and prayer for him. As for the stone throwers, Jesus has a message for you (John 8:7). Look it up.

I agree. Thomas Ravenel seeks healing, and may God grant it to him. In the meantime, the criminal justice system should grind on, and should deal with him as it would with anyone.

And yes, most certainly, now that he has made this acknowledgment, he should resign so that a permanent treasurer can take his place.

A working class hero is something to be

7 Replies

Check out this excerpt from the Associated Press about our governor’s signing of the Workers’ Compensation bill for which the business community has been clamoring for years:

"This bill really is about the working man," Sanford said as he signed the bill at a gated housing development in this city off Interstate 385 near Greenville. "If you look at the numbers, about 25 percent of that house right there that the working man will one day buy, goes into costs associated with an out-of-control workers’ comp system. And that is a real tax on working people across South Carolina that will be dealt with in this bill."

If you didn’t get it the first time, read it again.

It’s "about the working man." So of course, Mr. Common Touch signed it in a gated community. But that’s where all the working men will live in the future, you see.

That leaves me wondering: If that’s true, then who will live outside?

Divided We Fail

12 Replies

Just about every morning, I run into my friend Samuel Tenenbaum at breakfast, and we talk about various wonkish things, and have a high old time ingesting caffeine and blueberries.

And just about every morning, he mentions that it’s past time I should write about AARP’s program, Divided We Fail. Essentially, it’s an effort by AARP to get candidates in the presidential campaign talking about important domestic issues such as health care.

Shortly after he started working at AARP — and Divided We Fail is his particular mission — I dropped by his office and shot this video (with my phone, sorry about the low quality), which is essentially his answer to my question, "What are you doing here?"

At around that same time, Jane Wiley and others from that organization came by to see the editorial board and talked to us about the same thing. And we have yet to write about it, whereas others who don’t run into Samuel all the time have already written about it. That’s Jane pictured below. (If I shot video at that meeting, I’m having trouble finding it now.)

Well, we’ve had the Legislature winding down, etc., and all sorts of other excuses. But Samuel (and Jane, in her lower-key way) is (are) right to nag me about it.

This is one of several efforts going on in our state that do the very same thing, only with different issues. I wrote previously about the folks trying to raise the profile of global warming in the campaign. There’s also something going on backed by Bono of U2 and saving-the-world fame, and something else pushed by Bill Gates and his lady. I plan to do a column on the whole phenomenon, now that it’s summer.

But in the meantime, check out the grainy video, as Samuel summarizes it better than I could, and then look at the Web site.

I will return to this subject. Yes, I will…

Jane_wiley

Bash Wingate for this if you must find something

16 Replies

You want something to criticize Ken Wingate for, Democrats and other knee-jerk critics? How about his promise to denounce the extremist out-of-state group All Children Matter if it got involved with his campaign to unseat Sen. Joel Lourie, which he then failed to keep?

This was a great disappointment to me, because all other dealings I had had with Mr. Wingate gave me the impression that he was a man to keep such a promise.

Here’s why I wrote about it at the time:

LOURIE VS. THE ANTI-SCHOOL OUTSIDERS
Published on: 10/31/2004
Section: EDITORIAL
Edition: FINAL
Page: D2
BY BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR

THE S.C. SENATE District 22 race is not about Ken Wingate and Joel Lourie any more.
That’s because an out-of-state group with an extreme agenda has dumped what looks like more than $100,000 into the race in the last week. (That’s $80,000 we know about in TV ads, plus a couple of mailings that likely cost more than $10,000 each.)
Even when it was just between Mr. Wingate and Mr. Lourie, two men I’d known and respected for some time, I had already made up my mind that I preferred Joel Lourie. So had our editorial board. We had good things to say about Mr. Wingate, but had to go with Mr. Lourie’s stellar record.
Also, while we thought Mr. Wingate might be OK on education, we knew Mr. Lourie would be one of the Senate’s staunchest advocates for schools.
Mr. Wingate has good things to say about his support of schools, but also has a disturbing affinity for the "choice" movement. That, combined with his close association with Gov. Mark Sanford – for whom "choice" is the only kind of education reform – gave us pause.
It also attracted the support of the Michigan-based All Children Matter. This group doesn’t care about Ken Wingate or Joel Lourie or you or me or any of the people of South Carolina. It cares only about advancing its agenda. And since it doesn’t mention its agenda in its ads (for the good reason that it is unpopular), I’ll define it: Advancing a national movement away from the notion that states have a responsibility to provide good, accountable public schools. In South Carolina, the group backs the governor’s proposal to take money that would otherwise go to run public schools and use it to pay some parents to send their kids to private schools.
It doesn’t want to do this through open debate, because it would lose. Instead, the group uses stealth tactics in an attempt to stack the Legislature with people who will do its bidding. It believes, with good reason, that Mr. Wingate will be more malleable to its purpose. By contrast, there is probably no one running for legislative office this year who is less likely to do this Orwellian-named group’s bidding than Joel Lourie.
It doesn’t matter to All Children Matter that few Senate districts in South Carolina are more supportive of public education than District 22 (and with good reason, given the excellence of the schools in the district). That just gives the group more motivation to talk about something other than its real agenda in its ads.
It is clearer than ever that Mr. Lourie is the better candidate for District 22 (as Republican Barney Giese asserted in endorsing the Democrat last week). I already had reasons to believe that. To those I must now add my disappointment with Mr. Wingate.
Several weeks ago, Mr. Wingate told me that if All Children Matter weighed into this race, he would denounce it. He now refuses to do so, using the Clintonian logic that since All Children Matter has a South Carolina presence, this does not constitute an incursion by outsiders. Yet the group had two South Carolinians representing it before he made his promise. I asked him if he had any evidence demonstrating that "All Children Matter of South Carolina" today consists of anything more than a Post Office box and the two individuals he and I both knew were involved before. "I am under the impression that there is more of a presence than that," he said. "I’m not going to start reeling off names."
But set that aside, because this is no longer about Ken Wingate and Joel Lourie. It’s about whether the voters of District 22 will be persuaded to go along with a group that would undermine their public schools.
Mr. Lourie believes that if that happens, it will not only mean his defeat. It will be a huge boost for the narrow agenda of All Children Matter. If it can use its money to defeat one of the strongest advocate of public schools in one of the most pro-school districts in the state, it will intimidate the rest of the Legislature into supporting it.
I’m afraid he’s right. And for the sake of the rest of South Carolina, I sincerely hope the people of District 22 won’t let that happen.

All Children Matter is a part of the anti-public school movement that we’ve seen manifested in other groups, such as SCRG and CIA. There’s a pattern — driven and funded from out of state, highly ideological, striving to remake our Legislature in its image, and misleading about intentions when it does get involved in the electoral process.

These groups have a much greater potential to harm South Carolinians, black and white, than the League of the South could in a thousand years. They are determined, they are well-financed, and they strike at the very heart of our state’s greatest hope for the future.

Now, do I think this disqualifies Ken Wingate to be our interim treasurer? No. Do I think it makes him a bad person? No. But I figured I should bring it up, because I had to see a guy criticized for the wrong thing.

Democrats bash Wingate about the wrong things

50 Replies

Political parties don’t stop to think twice very often. They should.

Yesterday, not four hours had passed after Gov. Mark Sanford announced that Ken Wingate would step in as interim treasurer, and the state Democratic Party already had a singularly nasty release out pounding away at the guy.

Parties do that, I suppose. But it’s grotesque when Democrats and Republicans in South Carolina engage in the kind of trashy, slash-and-burn rhetoric that we normally see out of Washington on those 24-hour TV "news" channels. It’s like children imitating their dysfunctional parents.

This one is particularly egregious because it’s off-base. It accuses Mr. Wingate, by strong implication, of being a hateful racist. Here’s how it does that:

Wingate’s appointment brings a new cloud of suspicion over the
Treasurer’s office, however. In 2002, when he was running in the
Republican gubernatorial primary, the S.C. League of the South endorsed
Wingate.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the league a
"neo-confederate hate group." The group "opposed removing the
Confederate flag from the State House dome in 2000," and "opposes state
funding for education" (The State, 10/1/2004). The league "also
supports secession as an option for protecting states’ rights."

Wingate has repeatedly refused to denounce his association with the hate group or express disagreement with their positions.

At the end, there’s a quote from party chair Carol Khare Fowler that says in part:

Ken Wingate has refused many times to denounce his association with a
hate group, and for that reason he should not be considered for the
interim position. I don’t know why anyone would want to be associated
with a group that expresses so much hatred and division, and I can’t
understand why the Governor would appoint someone who does. I hope
Governor Sanford will rescind the appointment and strongly consider
someone who isn’t a hate group candidate

Well, golly, he must be a pretty hateful guy then, huh? Well, not so as I’ve been able to notice. But then, I get exposed to actual hateful people a good bit — out in the world and right here on my phone and in my e-mail — and I’ve had trouble seeing a resemblance between them and Ken Wingate. As I said before, he’s a pretty decent sort.

The League of the South is a serious bunch of yahoos. (Just ask them; they’ll tell you they’re serious.) They would like to see South Carolina secede again. They want to see the United States flag removed from state government buildings. I am not making this up.

But they are at least smart enough to avoid overtly racist statements (and if I missed something on their Web site, or you have some other proof, show it to me; I don’t mind being corrected, and it won’t be a terrible shock). Yes, I think disbanding the United States is a hateful idea, in that it would be disastrous for the whole world, including South Carolina, which remains too large to be an insane asylum. And yes, it is disingenuous at best to pretend that the Confederacy would have existed without this state’s powerful desire to keep black folks in bondage. Such willful obtuseness is also hateful.

But to leap from that to Ken Wingate being hateful — and that’s what the release is trying to make us think — is a reach. And a hateful one, if you despise scorched-earth partisanship as much as I do.

Here’s what Mr. Wingate had to say in 2004 when confronted about the League’s former endorsement of him in 2002:

I don’t know anything about them, their issues, their policies, what they
try to do or what they’re involved with…. I have not sought the endorsement of the League of the South in this race
or, as I recall — and it’s been more than two years ago — in that race.

Not exactly a ringing denunciation, but neither is it an expression of appreciation to the League for its "help."

That’s not to say that Ken Wingate doesn’t deserve criticism for some of his past associations. I’ll have more about that later.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits

Category Archives: South Carolina

Our Valerie gets Thomas Ravenel onto the front of the Wall Street Journal

MacGyver on patrol in Afghanistan

If you’re here because of that box on the op-ed page…

Rudy and the party animals

Lindsey Graham, stand-up guy

One happy beach bum

Was I mean to Grady, or just ‘factual?’

How they voted on the pork

Get your mind right, Luke

If they won’t reform DOT, what WILL they reform?

Don’t forget — tomorrow’s our anniversary!

Driving Mr. Bauer: The Sequel

Capt. Smith checks in from Kandahar

More video: Thompson on Margaret Thatcher, Charleston firemen

Video: Fred Thompson in Columbia

McAlister won’t throw stones at Ravenel

A working class hero is something to be

Divided We Fail

Bash Wingate for this if you must find something

Democrats bash Wingate about the wrong things