Category Archives: South Carolina

The Nerve’s Rick Brundrett makes CJR, courtesy of Corey Hutchins

Leave a reply

I remember Rick Brundrett as a reporter in The State‘s newsroom. He left the paper about the same time I did. He now reports for The Nerve, the online publication run by the S.C, Policy Council. Which means he’s written a good bit about Bobby Harrell lately.

Corey Hutchins writes about Rick in the latest edition of Columbia Journalism Review. Here’s a passage that quotes somebody else who’s been writing a good bit about Harrell:

“The Nerve is not the propaganda arm of the Policy Council. We are a news site, so I’m covering it as a news story,” he continued. “But, that being said, I can’t ignore that our parent organization is the one that initiated this and I can’t ignore statements that have been made public by our president. I can’t ignore documents that were filed by the parent organization. I wouldn’t do that if I were a mainstream journalist, and I’m not going to do it here … I’m in, quote, ‘the alternative media’ world now, but I’m still doing what I consider to be traditional journalism and following traditional journalism practices.”

That’s an accurate description of his work, according to those have followed his writing through the years. And, though I wrote a pretty critical piece about the Policy Council shortly after it launched The Nerve a few years ago, it’s one I agree with. While I didn’t say so explicitly then, I worried, like others, that The Nerve and its writers would become weaponized journalistic functionaries of its parent organization. I’ve since come around. Brundrett’s copy can sometimes take a prosecutorial tone, but he plays it straight.

“He seems to be still following the same sort of rules that we do in mainstream journalism,” says Cindi Scoppe, the opinion page editor of The State, Columbia’s daily paper, where Brundrett worked from 1998 to 2009. If there’s an ideological bent to his work, she says, it’s in his selection of stories: The Policy Council, which crusades for ethics reform and seeks to reduce the legislature’s power, is clearly invested in the Harrell investigation, and The Nerve has been all over it. But that’s not much different from Scoppe’s own approach as a columnist—and the story is one that any journalist focused on how power is exercised here would grab on to.

As Scoppe told me about the Harrell-Wilson duel, “Frankly, if you tell any good reporter ‘Go look at this,’ and you’re Ashley Landess, you’re going to be happy with what they come up with.”…

Does it matter that Harrell’s PAC contributed to ethics panel members? Uh, yeah, I think so…

3 Replies

While I believe Kenny Bingham is saying what he truly believes when he says he would not be swayed by past contributions from a PAC associated with Speaker Bobby Harrell, I’m gonna have to come down on the side of those who would say that this means the House Ethics Committee should in no way be passing judgment on their boss:

The five Republican members of the 10-member House Ethics Committee — which House Speaker Bobby Harrell wants to decide allegations against him — have received some $13,000 in campaign contributions from a political action committee associated with the Charleston Republican.

Those committee members, who have received contributions from the Palmetto Leadership Council PAC, include Ethics Committee chairman Kenny Bingham, R-Lexington. In 2008, 2010 and 2012, Bingham received $1,000 contributions each election cycle from the Palmetto Leadership Council….

Actually… I would question the impartiality of the panel even if no one on it had received a dime from the PAC. But the money raises sufficient additional questions that the House ethics cops should leap to recuse themselves and let other competent authorities deal with this matter. Such as, you know, the attorney general…

Oh, and on a related matter…

It looks like whoever did the coding on John Monk’s story had a bit of a Freudian slip. The story appears on the website under “Crime” instead of under “SC Politics.” Very interesting…

crime

This just in: Craft beer bill on fast track

16 Replies

 

levitation_small

This came in a little while ago from Wesley Donehue over at Push Digital:

ICYMI: Craft Beer Law Change on Fast Track

Columbia, SC-May 16, 2014:  “South Carolina is on the verge of passing the most progressive craft beer production laws in the country”,  from the Greenville News (5/15/14).

It’s hard to believe that just three weeks ago the possibility of passing the Stone Bill was nearly impossible, but thanks to grassroots efforts and a lot of emails to the SC General Assembly we made magic happen.

Why is the Stone Bill so important?

1. It will loosen antiquated beer laws in efforts to attract California-based company, Stone Brewing , who is planning a $31 million eastward expansion, to South Carolina.

2. It will create more than 250 jobs.

3. South Carolina breweries will finally have the chance to be competitive with the booming craft beer industry taking off around the country.

To pass a bill this fast in South Carolina is practically unheard of and with the potential of a $31 million investment and hundreds of new jobs it would be a mistake for the General Assembly not to pass the Stone Bill.

For more information visit scbeerjobs.com, or contact Wesley Donehue at 843.460.7990

Unsubscribe

###

But — and here’s what I’m unclear on — are we still in the running for Stone, or is this aimed at other, similar opportunities?

Legislative shocker: Bills sometimes don’t receive sufficient scrutiny

5 Replies

The “shocker” headline is, of course, ironic.

SC Democrats seem to thing they have a big “gotcha” in state GOP Chairman Matt Moore’s that “At times, things pass the legislature without much debate and scrutiny.”

Personally, that doesn’t seem like much of a news flash. But the Dems are making of it what they can:

BREAKING VIDEO: SCGOP Chairman Says GOP Majority Ineptly Passes Bills Without Scrutiny

 

Columbia, SC – Today, SCGOP Chairman Matt Moore stated that GOP leaders and elected officials in the state legislature regularly pass bills without looking at what’s in them.

 

In a press conference trying to distract from the mismanagement at Governor Haley’s DSS, the SCGOP chairman was asked about the massive Republican support for a bill the SCGOP was trying to use to criticize Sen. Vincent Sheheen. Moore said: “At times, things pass the legislature without much debate and scrutiny.”

SCDP Executive Director Conor Hurley released this statement:

“The comments by the SCGOP Chairman today are stunning and highly concerning. Exactly which bills has the SCGOP’s majority pushed through the House and Senate without knowing what’s in them? How long has this abdication of duty been happening? And, is it all GOP members as Chairman Moore implies, or just a select few?

“For the Chairman of a party to first call a press conference to attack his own members for being soft on crime, and then to claim that they are essentially incompetent at their jobs – the SCGOP and Haley campaign must be pretty desperate to distract from Governor Haley’s refusal to fix the mismanagement at her Department of Social Services that has allowed children to tragically die. The people of South Carolina deserve answers.”

 

###

USC dean sends out memo re academic freedom

6 Replies

This was sent out to faculty by USC Arts and Sciences Dean Mary Anne Fitzpatrick this morning:

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO ALL YOUR FACULTY

TO: Faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences

Dear Colleagues:

In the past few months, academic freedom has become a hotly debated issue in our state. I need not rehearse all of the controversies that have erupted over certain reading assignments and performance events, as you are no doubt aware of them.

These controversies provide us with a valuable opportunity to affirm our most fundamental and profound principles. First, as university faculty, we can and we must be dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and truth in our disciplines, and second, it is our right and our responsibility as faculty to determine the curriculum of our academic programs.

It is not often that academic freedom is the subject of numerous media reports and broad discussion among citizens. We should therefore welcome this chance to explain who we are as an intellectual community, our purpose and aspirations, and our vision “to transform the lives of our students and improve the world they will inhabit by creating and sharing knowledge at the frontiers of inquiry.”

I proudly invite you to read one such explanation written by Professor Ed Madden, a faculty member in the Department of English and the director of our Women’s and Gender Studies Program. Published in The State as a guest column on May 1, 2014, his explanation is both eloquent and moving.

http://www.thestate.com/2014/05/01/3419090/madden-is-this-a-pornographic.html

As your dean, I am deeply grateful for your commitment to our vision and for all that you do for our students.

Cordially,

Mary Anne

At first glance, I thought the memo was going to be about the national debate going on now about intellectual freedom on campus — the one sparked by all the student protests of invited graduation speakers. The WSJ had yet another op-ed piece about it this morning, this one headlined “Bonfire of the Humanities.”

And having made that mistake, now I have an appetite to read what academic leaders in this state might have to say about that national trend. Has anyone seen anything like that?

In the meantime, I suppose y’all could discuss this memo…

Frank Underwood should be able to push through an earmark to repaint Peachoid

13 Replies
The Peachoid in better days.

The Peachoid in better days.

Dire news from Gaffney:

Gaffney’s Peachoid — a one-million-gallon water tank and the city’s most recognizable landmark — will be temporarily repaired after chunks of paint peeled from the crevice with this winter’s fluctuating temperatures.

Gaffney Board of Public Works owns the Peachoid, which was erected in 1981 and has been repainted twice.

BPW General Manager Donnie Hardin said areas of paint — about six to 10 feet in diameter — started peeling from the Peachoid recently, mostly due to freezing and warmer temperatures through the winter.

“With extreme cold, fluctuating temperatures, it caused more damage than normal,” Hardin said. “Two areas flaked off the tank, and we’ll have those repaired in two to three weeks.”…

I just hope they’re not planning on spending local tax money for the repair. Frank Underwood should be able to score some federal funds for the purpose without breaking a sweat.

In fact, Frank wouldn’t settle for repairing a patch. He could get the whole thing redone, with real fuzz this time…

Frank and local leaders contemplating the monument.

Frank and local leaders contemplating the monument.

Regarding sun and sand in the State House

2 Replies

This release came last night from Ann Timberlake with Conservation Voters of South Carolina:

Folks,

As session nears a close, there is an increased amount of activity in the lobby of the State House. Today, the House LCI Subcommittee unanimously voted out S.1189, the compromise solar bill that will unleash the sun for South Carolinians. It will go in front of the full House LCI committee Thursday morning. We expect a floor vote as early as next week. Please encourage your Representative to support the solar bill.

This morning, we joined with Coastal Conservation League and the South Carolina Environmental Law Project to denounce the Senate’s compromise shoreline bill that “has been kidnapped by the House and force fed with special amendments that are for special interests,” as so aptly stated by Nancy Cave in the article below.

We urge you to ask your Representative (CLICK HERE) to oppose the House version of S.890 unless it is restored to the Senate language that limits the Debordieu exemption to 3 years and stops seaward movement of the baseline beginning in July, 2014.  This bill is currently awaiting a vote in the House.

Stay tuned and thank you for caring about the South Carolina we love.

http://www.thestate.com/2014/05/14/3446155/conservationists-proposed-bill.html?sp=/99/132/#storylink=cpy

Sincerely,

Ann Timberlake

I pass it on in case you were following those bills…

Lawmakers, listen up! Here’s how you can fix ethics mess

3 Replies

You knew Cindi would have a good column reacting to the ruling by Judge Manning that she had foreshadowed with dread, and today she did. Read it here.

It’s all good, but on the chance that some of our lawmakers are reading today, I want to call attention to the part in which she explained what they could do to fix the situation. Noting that there’s no guarantee that the Supreme Court will reverse the circuit judge, she urged lawmakers to act today:

The best chance this year for making that fix could come Wednesday. That’s when the House could make final changes to an anemic ethics-reform bill, before it goes to a House-Senate conference committee. This stage is crucial, because it’s the last time legislators can insert new language into the bill by a simple majority; after this, any new language will require two-thirds approval in the House and the Senate.

So, what we need is for someone to propose an amendment to make it clear that ethics violations are crimes and that the attorney general is free to prosecute them. It needs to be a clean amendment — one that doesn’t also grant other forms of immunity, or raise the standard for prosecution, or make any other nefarious changes that reduce the chance that legislators who violate the law will be punished.

There are lots of other shortcomings of that bill, but frankly, no loophole in our ethics law even approaches the significance of the one that Judge Manning just discovered. If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn his order or the Legislature doesn’t pass the fix, then I’m not sure anything else in the ethics law will really matter very much.

The only people who would vote against such an amendment are those who believe that legislators should remain above the law. No, not even that: It would be those legislators who are so arrogant in their power that they are willing to admit that they believe they are above the law.

Here’s hoping her words have a positive effect.

Undeterred, AG Wilson will continue Harrell probe

11 Replies

Good for Alan Wilson! He’s not going to let the judge’s ruling shut down his investigation:

COLUMBIA, SC — The investigation into S.C. House Speaker Bobby Harrell will continue despite a circuit judge’s order that an ongoing SLED and State Grand Jury probe be shut down immediately, state Attorney General Alan Wilson says.

Continued work is allowed during an appeal of a judge’s order, Wilson said. As expected, he said he is appealing Circuit Judge Casey Manning’s order immediately to the state Supreme Court.

“The law allows us to do that,” Wilson told a State reporter in an interview. “The grand jury can continue to do its work unless the S.C. Supreme Court orders it to cease and desist.”…

This is encouraging. I was afraid the whole investigation was dead in the water, pending an appellate ruling.

Judge Manning’s ruling yesterday increases the urgency to get to the bottom of these allegations against the speaker, and it’s a good thing for South Carolina that Wilson is carrying on.

Video of Vincent Sheheen at Galivants Ferry

10 Replies

Well, the video finally uploaded after I went to bed last night. So here it is, the missing piece from my report from the Galivants Ferry Stump Speaking.

This is almost the entire speech. I missed a line at the very beginning. It was something like, “Are y’all ready to win this?” — one of those lines designed to get the crowd to cheer, and they did cheer. I didn’t write it down because I was busy trying to get some still shots of him standing at the stump before switching to video.

As you can see, Vincent Sheheen made every effort to come across as a guy with a fire in his belly. But as I look back at it, he doesn’t seem all that comfortable with the effort.

His campaign is going to need something, something it doesn’t have yet, if he is to be even as competitive as he was four years ago, much less have a chance of beating Nikki Haley.

Judge Manning’s outrageous ruling protecting Harrell

16 Replies

Well, it happened. After having reached for an absurd justification that even the speaker’s own attorneys hadn’t dared to propose, Circuit Judge Casey Manning ordered Attorney General Alan Wilson and SLED to stop investigating Bobby Harrell, and declared any action taken by the grand jury in the case “null and void.”

To remind you, here is what former attorneys general Travis Medlock, Charlie Condon and Henry McMaster had to say about the notion underlying the judge’s ruling:

“Over the past thirty years, not one of us ever imagined the Attorney General needed authorization from a legislative committee or political body in order to investigate or prosecute alleged criminal behavior by an elected official. Such a restriction would undercut the core Constitutional authority of the Attorney General. And even more importantly, it would violate the fundamental basis of our system of government that all people should be treated equally under the law.”

I wrote previously that the three ex-AGs standing next to Wilson to defend the rule of law made me proud to be from South Carolina. Judge Manning’s ruling makes me want to hang my head.

Wilson was undaunted, fortunately:

We believe today’s order of Judge Manning is without any foundation or support in the law. This office will vigorously pursue all appellate remedies and will seek to continue this investigation.

Judge Manning himself indicated that he expected the matter to be decided by a higher court. Of course, that’s no excuse for an irresponsible ruling.

Until a higher court acts, this investigation is in limbo. And that’s outrageous.

My report from the Stump Speaking

2 Replies
It was very warm -- a good day to be a speaker, and have a seat in the shade. That's John Land in the hat.

It was very warm — a good day to be a speaker, and have a seat in the shade. That’s John Land in the hat.

Well, to begin with, Fritz Hollings didn’t make it to the 2014 Galivants Ferry Stump Speaking, which he has been attending as long as I’ve been alive. He called Russell Holliday, who puts on the event started by her ancestors 138 years ago, late this morning to describe rather frankly an unpleasant side effect he was having from a new medication, and to explain he’d have to miss it.

Which was a disappointment. But there was still the keynote speaker, SC native and MSNBC commentator Jimmy Williams. And there were the candidates, with gubernatorial candidate Vincent Sheheen at the top of the ticket.

But there was a serious lack of attendees. And on a less notable level, a lack of energy, and a lack of ideas. I hate to say this because I know Russell works very hard to bring this event off, and I’m here to say that she and her family did as good a job as ever. All the pieces were there — people just had to show up and inspire. The fault lay with the candidates. I just didn’t feel the same spirit that I’ve felt at earlier stumps. Sure, there was Fritz on those occasions, and there was usually another draw such as Joe Biden (see Fritz introducing him at this event in 2006), making SC Democrats feel that while they might be beleaguered here in South Carolina, they were part of something vital nationally.

To his credit, Vincent Sheheen showed more fire and energy than I’ve seen from him yet (if the video ever finishes uploading to YouTube, I’ll show you). But the substance was lacking. He ran through the usual litany of complaints about Nikki Haley (the Department of Revenue breach, her refusal to expand Medicaid) and then said he hadn’t come to talk about the last four years, but the next four — which raised my hopes.

“Without a vision, the people perish,” he said, citing Proverbs. But the vision was… skimpy. Four-year-old kindergarten, Medicaid expansion, fixing up infrastructure — each with about one sentence devoted to it.

And then, suddenly, the five-minute address was over.

OK, the Stump is a party, not an occasion for extended oration. Still, I was disappointed.

And the disappointment extended across the spectrum. When Sen. Brad Hutto strung together a series of populist bromides about how that Lindsey Graham needed to stop worrying about the rest of the world and fix some potholes in good ol’ SC — as though he were running for county council rather than the United States Senate — we had reached the nadir. One hopes. I didn’t stay for the last of the down-the-ballot speakers.

Rhetorically, I think the high point came at the beginning, when young Johnson Holliday of Russell’s clan quoted Texan Jim Hightower saying “Everybody does better when everybody does better.”

Now that I could go for. That was a concept that would have been worth enlarging upon.

Sure, I like the communitarian overtones, but think about it: The saying not only states what Democrats believe in, but in a way that it’s hard for Republicans to argue with, and that could appeal to independents (like yours truly). After all, it’s not all that far conceptually from the Republicans’ “A rising tide lifts all boats.”

The thing that will lift this country out of the doldrums, and SC out of the back-of-the-line status that has plagued it in one way or another since 1865, is growth — growth in jobs and wages as well as in profits, productivity and innovation.

Surely there’s someone in the Democratic Party — or some party — who could take a concept like that and run with it. If that happened, we’d have some Stump meetings that everybody would want to attend, like in the old days, when everybody was a Democrat, and this was the place to be every two years.

Editor’s note: As I finish this, YouTube is telling me there are another 85 minutes to go before the Sheheen video finishes loading. If it loads — and a long upload like this often ends in tears of frustration — I’ll share it with you in the morning. In the meantime, enjoy the stills.

 

Follow my coverage of the Galivants Ferry Stump Speaking on Twitter this evening

6 Replies
Fritz Hollings at a previous Stump.

Fritz Hollings at a previous Stump.

Hey, y’all — I’m going to be on Twitter rather than the blog for the next few hours. I’m going to check out the 138th-anniversary edition of the Galivants Ferry Stump Speaking. Follow my comments @BradWarthen.

This venerable Democratic Party institution starts with music at 4:30 and speaking at 6, in case you’d like to come. Russell Holiday has written to me several times to remind me to come, so here I go. I don’t want to miss the chance to hear Fritz Hollings, who’s been attending the Stump for 60 years.

Here’s the last release I saw on the subject:

The families of Joseph Holliday and John Monroe Holliday announced today that MSNBC Contributor Jimmy Williams will be the Keynote Speaker at the May 12, 2014 Galivants Ferry Stump Speaking and former Senator Fritz Hollings will be the Special Guest Speaker.

A South Carolina native, Mr Williams graduated high school in Florence and is a graduate of the Citadel……. He is the Executive Editor of Blue Nation Review and is a 22 year veteran of Washington’s political scene and a regular MSNBC contributor. (bio below)

Senator Hollings will celebrate his 60 year anniversary of attending the History Stump Speaking…. He announced his bid for Lt. Governor in 1954 at the Stump and has been a fixture at the Stump until his retirement. The Stump celebrated 50 years of Stumping with Fritz in 2004 and are so pleased to celebrate 60 years in 2014.

Candidate for Governor, Vincent Sheheen and Lt. Governor candidate Bakari Sellers will speak along with 7th District Congressional candidate Gloria Tinubu… State, local and candidates for the US Senate will also speak……..(a complete list of confirmed candidates as of 5/5/14 is below)

The 2014 Stump will be held at Pee Dee Farms, the community’s century-old general store. Galivants Ferry, which is on the National Registry of Historic Districts, is located on Hwy 501 where it crosses the Little Pee Dee River. The Stump is listed in the Library of Congress as a Local Legacy and was nominated by Sen. Hollings in 2000. The Stump will follow the traditional festival format of bluegrass music starting at 4:30 p.m. The actual “speaking” will be begin at 6:00 p.m. featuring all local, state and federal Democratic candidates The public is invited to this free event. Chicken Bog will be available for sale…

Who knows? Maybe I’ll run into some of y’all. It’s happened before…

1604954_10152120421338567_1438873096_n

OK, well, just how graphic IS it?

11 Replies

I hadn’t paid much attention to the foofooraw over “gay-themed” books at the College of Charleston and USC Upstate, but something I saw at the top of this morning’s story did give me pause:

The College of Charleston assigned students to read “Fun Home,” a graphic memoir about the author’s struggle with family and sexual orientation. The University of South Carolina Upstate assigned “Out Loud: The Best of Rainbow Radio,” about being gay in the South…

Hold on — graphic? How graphic? I hadn’t seen the word, “graphic” before.

At this point, I supposed I could channel Woody Allen in “Sleeper” and offer to go off and study the material in detail and give you a full report later. But let’s just discuss it in the abstract first.

In this story, critics of the reading lists are couching their objections in terms of objecting to “pornography” at public institutions. Which seems to me a legitimate objection, if you’re one of the people expected to appropriate money for it. That is, if it is pornography. Having not yet conducted that in-depth study, I can’t say.

But if it is, I wonder — with all the fantastic literature that most undergraduates will never get around to reading in their entire lives, why does the curriculum need to have anything in it that a news story would matter-of-factly describe as “graphic.” It’s not like these kids don’t have access to porn websites. In what way is graphic material of any sort providing them with knowledge they can’t get without paying college tuition?

I tried to think of anything that I was assigned to read in school that was “graphic,” back in the licentious early ’70s, the days of “Deep Throat” and Plato’s Retreat.

The best I could come up with was Rabbit, Run by John Updike. I vaguely recall one dispiriting passage describing an adulterous liaison engaged in by Harry Angstrom. I don’t think anyone would call it “graphic.” It probably wouldn’t earn an “R” rating today (although the sequel, Rabbit Redux, which I read after college, certainly would have). It wasn’t nearly as prurient as God’s Little Acre, say.Caldwell172-GodsLittleAcre-frontCover

We read it because Updike was supposedly one of the great fiction writers of his generation. In that same class, we also read Crime and Punishment. Needless to say, the latter made a much deeper impression on me. I found Updike mostly… depressing.

I don’t feel deprived for not having studied anything “graphic” in school.

Thoughts about this? I mean, set aside the “gay-themed” bit that makes headlines. Let’s say we’re talking pure hetero. Is there any need for public institutions to use “graphic” reading material outside of a public health class?

My own gut reaction is to say “no,” although I supposed I could also without straining myself mount an argument that Erskine Caldwell‘s books are at least culturally relevant to South Carolina.

Such a discussion won’t lead to a resolution of this particular controversy, but I find the question intriguing…

Cindi Scoppe’s latest dead-on column about Harrell case

5 Replies

You may recall that Cindi Scoppe worried earlier that maybe Judge Manning himself came up with the outrageous idea that maybe there was some doubt about whether the attorney general had the authority to investigate crimes allegedly committed by legislators, without special permission.

She writes today that her fears were realized:

I respect the idea enunciated Friday by Circuit Judge Casey Manning that, before this case proceeds any further, he wants a thorough examination of subject-matter jurisdiction. That is, he wants to make sure that the State Grand Jury and Attorney General Alan Wilson actually have jurisdiction to investigate this case without the House Ethics Committee asking them to.

But honestly, the idea that they don’t … . Well, it remains too bizarre to even comprehend….

You want to know how out-there an idea it is that the state constitution prohibits the attorney general from investigating legislators without other legislators’ blessing? It’s so out there that even Mr. Harrell’s attorneys didn’t think of raising it.

That’s right. Mr. Harrell has some awfully audacious attorneys… But even they didn’t dream up this crazy theory. They quickly embraced it, of course; they’d be crazy not to. But the idea was not, as so many people had assumed, the brainchild of Bart Daniel and Gedney Howe.

It was, as Judge Manning acknowledged in court on Friday, Judge Manning’s idea.

How preposterous is the idea? Listen to former Attorneys General Henry McMaster, Charlie Condon and Travis Medlock, who served as South Carolina’s chief prosecutors for the past 30 years, showed up in the courtroom to make a point and issued this statement:

“Over the past thirty years, not one of us ever imagined the Attorney General needed authorization from a legislative committee or political body in order to investigate or prosecute alleged criminal behavior by an elected official. Such a restriction would undercut the core Constitutional authority of the Attorney General. And even more importantly, it would violate the fundamental basis of our system of government that all people should be treated equally under the law.”

Not one of us ever imagined such a thing.

This is not a close call….

So we all wait with bated breath, while the judge considers something that, given the law, should be beyond consideration. Or at least, it appears so to this layman.

Here’s hoping he reaches that same conclusion.

Statements regarding the passing of Butler Derrick

6 Replies

Members of the SC congressional delegation react to the passing of former 3rd District Congressman Butler Derrick…

Congressman Clyburn Mourns the Passing of Butler Derrick

(Columbia, SC) – House Assistant Democratic Leader and South Carolina Congressman James E. Clyburn released the following statement on the passing of Butler Derrick, former South Carolina Congressman from the Third Congressional District, today:

“Butler and I got to know each other when I worked for Governor West and he was serving in the South Carolina legislature.  He was a kind man with a desire to better South Carolina and help those who called it home.  He loved this state and devoted his life to making it a better place for its citizens.  Our friendship grew when I was elected to Congress and he was serving as Chief Deputy Whip.  His leadership and dedication to South Carolina will surely be missed.

###

Wilson Statement on former Congressman Butler Derrick

(Washington, DC) – Congressman Joe Wilson (SC-02) issued the following statement on the death of former Congressman Butler Derrick (SC-03).

“South Carolina has lost a great statesman. Former Congressman Butler Derrick served the people of the Third Congressional District for twenty years with true distinction.  I am very appreciative of his willingness to cross the political aisle and work with the late Congressman Floyd Spence to promote new missions at the Savannah River Site.  Roxanne and I extend our heartfelt sympathies to all of the Derrick family during this difficult time.”

On the Passing of Butler Derrick

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made this statement on the passing of former Congressman Butler Derrick.

“In Washington, Butler Derrick rose through the ranks of Democratic politics to become a strong voice for his party in the U.S. House of Representatives.  Closer to home, he was known for a very caring and effective constituent service operation which put the needs of his constituents first. 

“Butler was a good man and I will always be grateful for the assistance he provided to me in my transition to the U.S. House of Representatives. 

“Our thoughts and prayers are with his family during this time.”

#####

Here’s hoping Sen. Graham doesn’t get even more grief from his primary opponents for saying nice things about a Democrat. Even when he has the excuse that this was the man he succeeded in Congress.270px-Butler_Derrick

And how about Joe Wilson, expressing appreciation for Derrick’s willingness to work across the aisle — anathema to a significant portion of the GOP today.

The name “Butler Derrick” hearkens back to when Democrats and Republicans managed to disagree while dealing with each other as mature human beings. There was such a time, boys and girls…

There’s nothing wrong with being a politician, per se

42 Replies

I just have one brief reaction to this email from Mia McLeod:

I’m a public servant, not a politician. There’s a difference.

One is committed to public service; the other, to that which is politically expedient.

And although I didn’t create the term, “OG,” you’ve gotta admit…when it comes to describing the corrupt, self-serving practices of the Old Guard…the glove definitely fits. And they’ve got their hands in it…from the Governor’s mansion…to the State House…and everything in between…all of these good ole boys and gals wanna do the deeds, but none of them want the “label.”
Fortunately, the voters of House District 79 didn’t send me to the State House to make new friends or become a willing participant in a corrupt “system” of governance that isn’t accessible, accountable or beneficial to the people it purports to serve. That’s “the system” I encountered when I was elected to the SC House four years ago, and that’s “the system” that I fight every single day.

And since so many members of the OG seem to question the definition and whether they’re appropriately “labeled,” please allow me to clarify for them what you and I already know…

The “OG” is defined by a self-preserving mindset and self-serving behavior, not age. There’s a difference.

Truth is…the OG is a very diverse group. Representing every age, race, ethnicity, gender, discipline and party affiliation, they are masters of deception and rhetoric. Why? Because if they can convince you to trust and believe what they say, you won’t pay close attention to what they do.

But if you’re still in doubt, just check these out. They’re some of the OG’s proudest moments:

Governor Haley’s ethics charges, although legitimate and substantiated, are unabashedly “dropped” by her OG colleagues…some of whom now stand with her in front of every camera they can find, “demanding” ethics reform

Former Richland County Elections Director recklessly disenfranchises thousands of voters in 2012, but is endorsed, elevated, insulated and just a few weeks ago, reinstated by the OG over the objections of outraged voters

Richland Two’s School Board Chair publicly confirms his support for the divisive, self-serving OG practices of the Superintendent, while they continue to disregard the voices of the majority, diminish the District’s diversity and discreetly plot to put even more of their cronies into high-paying positions at the District Office (“DO”)

Yeah…the OG is a narcissistic and seemingly invincible force, alright…united by greed and loyal only to that which strengthens and preserves their power.

Never principle. Never people.

Not surprisingly, I’m OG Enemy #1. Among their “faves” are threats to “take me out” (of this House seat) by finding and supporting an opponent who will advance their agenda. Self-preservation is always rule #1 in the OG’s handbook. Anyone who exposes their dirty deeds becomes their number one target.

And after two years of trying, looks like the OG has found me a “doozie” of a primary opponent…one that’s obviously in sync with their core mission. Disbarred for almost a decade, publicly reprimanded for “misusing” his clients’ money…now, that’s their kinda politician.

But before they get too excited, here’s a newsflash…

I write my own stuff…every word. My voice is not attached to or contingent upon “this seat” in the SC House. Neither is my ability to fight for what’s right. So whether I’m fighting “the system” at the State House or relaxing in the comfort of my own house, I won’t be bullied. I refuse to be silenced. And I definitely ain’t scared.

By now, even they realize…that’s the difference.

On June 10th, tell the OG they’ve got to GO! Vote to re-elect Mia for House District 79!

And my reaction is this: You may be right that the people of your district didn’t “didn’t send me to the State House to make new friends or become a willing participant.” But presumably they did send you there to be effective, and that means playing well with others and not being a constant irritant so that no one wants to work with you. Which I’m not saying Mia is. But her emails can really come across that way.

It’s understandable to take pride that “I write my own stuff…every word.” But maybe she could use a good editor.

Bottom line, there’s nothing wrong with being a politician. Yeah, they can be smarmy and phony and off-putting, but only if they’re not good at it.

You can have all the principles and dedication to public service in the world, and if you lack basic political skills, you’re not going to be much good to the public, or to anyone. I’d like to have seen someone with Jimmy Carter’s principles have the skills of Bill Clinton, or Ronald Reagan.

Richard Nixon was a guy with some decent policy ideas, but was dragged down by his many character flaws, including among them an inability to interact with other human beings in a way that wasn’t off-putting.

A politician is a person who is good at working with other human beings to get things done. And that’s not a bad thing to be, in and of itself.

No decision in Harrell/Wilson case

36 Replies

QOfGr.AuSt.74

Three things to note from hearing this morning in Speaker Bobby Harrell’s effort to keep Attorney General Alan Wilson from prosecuting him:

  1. John Monk is making good use of Twitter today in covering this. For a blow-by-blow account, check his feed — including photos.
  2. As pictured above, the state’s last three AGs are standing behind Wilson in defense of his obvious constitutional authority in this matter. I hope The State doesn’t mind my showing this to you, seeing as how I’m urging you to go read their coverage and all. (And if they do, I’ll take it down immediately.)
  3. The judge put off a decision for a week. What Judge Manning is finding so tough about this bewilders me. Harrell hasn’t a leg to stand on.

Revisiting an intriguing proposition: Hillary Clinton as LBJ (rather than MLK or JFK)

4 Replies

194467_135028753233137_123816441021035_185820_2517547_o - editted

I was interested to read, in today’s excerpt of Jim Clyburn’s book in The State, the congressman’s account of his disagreement with the Clintons just before the 2008 SC presidential primary:

That charge went back to an earlier disagreement we had about Sen. Hillary Clinton’s suggesting that, while Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had done an excellent job promoting the issues of civil and voting rights for black people, it took a sensitive president such as Lyndon Baines Johnson to have the resolution of those issues enacted into law. In a New York Times article referencing an interview Mrs. Clinton had with Fox News on Monday, Jan. 5, 2008, she was quoted as saying “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

The article went on to say that Mrs. Clinton thought her experience should mean more to voters than uplifting words by Mr. Obama. “It took a president to get it done,” Mrs. Clinton said.

It was an argument I had heard before while growing up in the South, even from white leaders who supported civil rights reform. It took black leaders to identify problems, but it took white leaders to solve them, they said. I had accepted that argument for a long time; but in 2008 it seemed long outdated, and it was frankly disappointing to hear it from a presidential candidate. When the reporter called to ask my reaction, I did not hold back…

Actually, Clyburn is misrepresenting what Hillary Clinton had said. I don’t think he’s doing so intentionally. I believe he truly remembers it that way, in those black-and-white terms.

But then-Sen. Clinton didn’t really put it in terms of black leader vs. white leader. Basically, she put both Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy in one category — that of the inspirational figure — and Lyndon Baines Johnson in the contrasting role of the less-inspirational leader who nevertheless follows through and gets things done.

I found her proposition intriguing at the time. She was posing the question, What do you want — inspiration or results? I wrote a column about it at the time, which ran on Jan. 20, 2008, just six days before Barack Obama won the SC primary.

Now that we’ve had several years in which to evaluate the kinds of results that Mr. Obama has produced as president, and as we look forward to a 2016 election in which the Democratic nomination is Mrs. Clinton’s for the taking, I think it’s interesting to revisit that column. So here it is:

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
BARACK OBAMA and Hillary Clinton decided last week to put their spat over MLK, JFK and LBJ behind them. That’s nice for them, but the rest of us shouldn’t drop the subject so quickly.
Intentionally or not, the statement that started all the trouble points to the main difference between the two front-runners.
And that difference has nothing to do with race.
Now you’re thinking, “Only a Clueless White Guy could say that had nothing to do with race,” and you’d have a point. When it comes to judging whether a statement or an issue is about race, there is a profound and tragic cognitive divide between black and white in this country.
But hear me out. It started when the senator from New York said the following, with reference to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.:
“Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.”
The white woman running against a black man for the Democratic Party nomination could only get herself into trouble mentioning Dr. King in anything other than laudatory terms, particularly as she headed for a state where half of the voters likely to decide her fate are black.
You have to suppose she knew that. And yet, she dug her hole even deeper by saying:
“Senator Obama used President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to criticize me. Basically compared himself to two of our greatest heroes. He basically said that President Kennedy and Dr. King had made great speeches and that speeches were important. Well, no one denies that. But if all there is (is) a speech, then it doesn’t change anything.”
She wasn’t insulting black Americans — intentionally — any more than she was trying to dis Irish Catholics.
To bring what I’m saying into focus, set aside Dr. King for the moment — we’ll honor him tomorrow. The very real contrast between the two Democratic front-runners shows in the other comparison she offered.
She was saying that, given a choice between John F. Kennedy and his successor, she was more like the latter. This was stark honesty — who on Earth would cast herself that way who didn’t believe it was true? — and it was instructive.
Lyndon Baines Johnson was the Master of the Senate when he sought the Democratic nomination in 1960. If he wanted the Senate to do something, it generally happened, however many heads had to be cracked.
LBJ was not made for the television era that was dawning. With features like a hound dog (and one of the most enduring images of him remains the one in which he is holding an actual hound dog up by its ears), and a lugubrious Texas drawl, he preferred to git ’er done behind the scenes, and no one did it better.
Sen. Johnson lost the nomination to that inexperienced young pup Jack Kennedy, but brought himself to accept the No. 2 spot. After an assassin put him into the Oval Office, he managed to win election overwhelmingly in 1964, when the Republicans gave him the gift of Barry Goldwater. But Vietnam brought him down hard. He gave up even trying to get his party’s nomination in 1968.
But he was a masterful lawmaker. And he did indeed push the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act into law, knowing as he did so that he was sacrificing his party’s hold on the South.
He brought into being a stunning array of social programs — Medicare, federal aid to education, urban renewal, and the War on Poverty.
So, on the one hand, not a popular guy — wouldn’t want to be him. On the other hand, President Kennedy never approached his level of achievement during his tragically short tenure.
You might say that if Sen. Obama is to be compared to President Kennedy — and he is, his call to public service enchanting young voters, and drawing the endorsement of JFK’s closest adviser, Ted Sorensen — Sen. Clinton flatters herself in a different way by invoking President Johnson.
They are different kinds of smart, offering a choice between the kid you’d want on your debating team and the one you’d want helping you do your homework.
Sen. Obama offers himself as a refreshing antidote to the vicious partisanship of the Bush and Clinton dynasties. That sounds wonderful. But Sen. Clinton has, somewhat less dramatically, formed practical coalitions with Republican colleagues to address issues of mutual concern — such as with Lindsey Graham on military health care.
Sen. Clinton, whose effort to follow up the Great Society with a comprehensive health care solution fell flat in the last decade, has yet to live up to the Johnson standard of achievement. For that matter, Sen. Obama has yet to bring Camelot back into being.
As The Washington Post’s David Broder pointed out, in their debate in Las Vegas last week, the pair offered very different concepts of the proper role of the president. Sen. Obama said it wasn’t about seeing that “the paperwork is being shuffled effectively,” but rather about setting goals, uniting people to pursue them, building public support — in other words, about inspiration.
Sen. Clinton talked about managing the bureaucracy and demanding accountability.
Sen. Obama offers a leader, while Sen. Clinton offers a manager. It would be nice to have both. But six days from now, South Carolinians will have to choose one or the other.

Hillary