Category Archives: South Carolina

Gamecock fans, you may now thank me

How did the Gamecocks topple the No. 1 college football team in the nation? Well, I’ll tell ya…

Saturday was the first time I watched an entire Gamecocks football game ever. So of course, it follows that they had their biggest win since I moved back to SC in 1987.

As you know, I’m not a football fan. But I now have HDTV in my house. I got the TV for my birthday, and Thursday the cable guy spent 7 hours at my house hauling it out of the 18th century. So this was the first Saturday since I got HD, and as I always suspected, I DID get interested in football once I had HD. Something about the color and spectacle of it, rendering in super-sharp digital imagery. (“Hyper-intense eye candy,” as I described it after the first time I experienced it.) A true case of the medium being the message, I guess.

And I enjoyed it. I say again, I’m not a football fan, but there’s a certain enjoyment to be had in watching someone do something well. Back when I was a reporter and sometimes helped out the sports department by covering a game for them in one of the rural counties I covered, I used to always sit in the stands — the press box held no charms for me — and when there was a good play by either team, I’d get so into it, I’d stand up to applaud. Which was awkward if the stands I happened to be sitting in was occupied by fans of the opposite team.

And on Saturday, we saw Stephen Garcia (selected as national Offensive Player of the Week by the Walter Camp Football Foundation), Marcus Lattimore and the rest of the boys playing football just as it should be played. Which was fun to watch.

Oh, and if you doubt that they won because I was watching, here’s proof: I didn’t quite watch the entire game. I wandered away from the TV during halftime, and missed the beginning of the second half. Yes, I was out of the room when Garcia bizarrely threw for a safety. In other words, the Chicken Curse briefly asserted itself when I wasn’t watching.

As a new business model for the blog, I may turn from advertising and instead get Gamecock fans to pay me to watch every minute of every game in the future. If the price is right, and it’s on HD, I just might do it…

A thought-provoking note from SC Citizens for Life

Still catching up with my e-mail…

I got this message from Holly Gatling in response to this post:

Dear Brad,

Do you have a marriage license?  A piece of paper you were willing to sign your name to as a statement of commitment?

That’s the difference between Sheheen and Haley.  Haley put her name on a statement of the agenda of South Carolina Citizens for Life and Sheheen declined.  How sad.

And why is there such hatred across this land for conservative, pro-life, Republican women?  The misogyny is grossly apparent.  Conservative, pro-life women are the greatest threat in politics today to the abortion industry, the greatest destroyer of human life on the planet.

We’re in this economic crisis because 50 million members of the human family have been wiped out by abortion.  That’s 50 million members of a tax-paying workforce and ALL their progeny.

I urge and encourage you to THINK with the body part men and women share equally — the brain.

Committed candidate v. undecided. The choice is clear.

Your friend,

Holly Gatling, Executive Director
South Carolina Citizens for Life

I appreciate my friend Holly — we worked together at the paper years ago — taking the time to respond. Here are some thoughts that her note generates for me:

  • Regarding the marriage license analogy: It makes the very good point that Vincent does not want to be married to S.C. Citizens for Life — a fact that has nothing to do with his own convictions as a Catholic. Vincent wants to work with everybody — Republicans, pro-choice Democrats, Zoroastrians should any show up at the State House — on issues having nothing to do with abortion. So why should he want to draw a bright line that says I’m one of these good people over here, and you’re one of those bad people over there? Which is the purpose of such endorsements, from the perspective of a Nikki Haley. Nikki wants to make sure everyone knows she’s on THIS side and therefore against THOSE people. And as long as she accomplishes that, she’s happy. As someone who presided for years over an editorial board that was sharply divided on abortion, I never tried to force us to take a position on it, for two reasons: It did not bear upon the issues that were important to moving South Carolina forward (which is what we were about), and it would have been foolish to create ill will on the board that would have spilled over into areas where, if we could achieve consensus, we might be able to make a difference. I wrote a column on the subject once. So I understand Vincent’s position, even if Holly doesn’t.
  • Who has “hatred” toward “conservative, pro-life, Republican women?” Certainly not I, and I would challenge anyone to demonstrate the opposite. And if they go looking for such women whom I “hate,” they’ll definitely have to look for someone other than Nikki Haley. Yeah, I’ve been pretty appalled at some of the things I’ve learned about her the last few months, but my one big beef is that she’d be disastrous for South Carolina as governor. That could be said about a lot of women — and men — against who I hold no malice. I really don’t know where that statement in the note comes from.
  • Finally, THINK is exactly what I’m urging people to do in this election. That, in fact, was all I was saying back before the primary in this post (“Don’t vote with your emotions, people. THINK!,” June 6), which some thought was way harsh on Nikki. But all I was saying was, THINK before you vote. Don’t base your vote on such emotional nonsense as being excited that she’s an Indian-American woman (or that she’s a “conservative, pro-life, Republican woman”), any more than you should be excited that Vincent is the first Catholic, and the first Lebanese-American, to win a major-party nomination for governor in this state. Still less should you vote because of the ENTIRELY irrelevant fact that you don’t like Barack Obama, which has absolutely zero to do with who should govern this state. THINK. Please, it’s all I want.

Mind you, in the past I have praised SC Citizens for Life for THINKing rather than going with the emotional flow, such as in this column on Feb. 7, 1996:

The endorsement of Jean Toal by S.C. Citizens for Life last week constituted one of those little epiphanies that have the potential to enlighten public life, if only we would pay attention.

In this case, the lesson to be learned was this:
The terms “liberal” and “conservative,” as they are popularly used today, serve virtually no useful purpose. They help not at all in the increasingly onerous task of meeting the challenges that face us in the political sphere. In fact, they often get in the way.
The Toal endorsement, while making perfect sense to the objective observer, momentarily demolished the world view of self-described “liberals” and “conservatives” as surely as Galileo messed with the heads of the geocentric crowd. “Conservatives” lost their cozy view of there being two kinds of people — Christians and “liberals.” Meanwhile, “liberals” couldn’t quite bring themselves to celebrate the endorsement because having common cause with those “conservative” right-to-lifers makes them queasy.
It’s nice to see nonsense knocked on its rear end.

My purpose at the time was to contrast the good sense demonstrated by Holly’s organization, as opposed to the mindlessness of her frequent allies among “conservative” Republicans who wanted to boot Justice Toal for the sin of being a Democrat (and therefore, in their small minds, a “liberal,” a word they use with all the thoughtfulness, subtlety and understanding of the mob crying “Witch!” in Monty Python’s “Holy Grail”).

My point then, as now: THINK.

Karen gets fanciful, and I like it

After all the silly, monotonous, offensive ideological rants about Nancy Pelosi and such, I enjoyed this change-of-pace message from Karen Floyd:

Dear Subscriber

It’s so strange how much things change over the years. Back when our founding fathers were striving to make this country great, men of influence proved their knowledge and wisdom by wearing a silly white wig. And as male masculinity dictates: the bigger the wig, the greater the power.

In case you don’t know, the white wigs of old have been replaced as status symbols with one intangible quality: Facebook Friends! That’s right- the wide world of politics is now funneled down to this tiny concept, which defines how much people esteem a campaign’s ideals.

This new Facebook system is much more reliable than the ridiculous white wig arrangement. By looking at an old painting of Benjamin Franklin wearing a wig, can you gauge how much support he had from the people? I don’t think so. However, you can easily go to the SCGOP Facebook page now with one clickand immediately see that we are supported by a whole host of individuals across the state.

So, we need your help to reach 5,000 friends on Facebook. This would be equivalent to a massive, curly white wig that gloriously hangs down to the floor.

Please click here now to visit our Facebook page, click the “Like” button and share with your friends!

Sincerely,

Karen Floyd

SCGOP Chairman

I didn’t quite enjoy it enough to be a fan, but I generally don’t do institutions, and especially not political parties. People, I do. And I’m already Facebook friends with Karen.

Loose women should stay in the home, where they belong

As noted back here, Lindsey Graham is about acting on principles, while Jim DeMint is about posturing on them. And now, he’s posturing on loose women. Personally, I’d rather see the loose women posturing, but we don’t always get what we want. This has The Slatest positively chortling upon reading the Spartanburg paper:

It’s almost enough to make you hope for an Alvin Greene upset: The Spartanberg Herald-Journalreports that Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, recently reaffirmed his belief that certain categories of people aren’t fit for the nation’s classrooms, including gays, lesbians, and unmarried women who are living in sin. DeMint was speaking at the “Greater Freedom Rally” at First Baptist North Spartanburg when he made the remarks, which rehashed comments he first made in 2004. TheHerald-Journal characterized his statement thusly: “DeMint said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn’t be teaching in the classroom, and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who’s sleeping with her boyfriend—she shouldn’t be in the classroom.” No word on what areas of public life men who sleep with their girlfriends should be barred from. Steve Benen is a little troubledby the fact that DeMint “is not just some random right-wing voice —he’s a prominent U.S. senator, a kingmaker in GOP primaries.” Josh Dorner points out that “two political action committees controlled by DeMint—MINT PAC and the Senate Conservatives Fund—are spending millions of dollars to elect GOP candidates from coast-to-coast.” Benen thinks this would be a fine time to find out how “the Junior DeMints” feel about gays and loose women. “It’d be interesting to know if they’d be willing to put some distance between themselves and their far-right hero,” he says. “Of course, there’s always the possibility that these folks agree with DeMint, and with a month to go before the election, that’d be good to know, too.”

Now, let me say I take a back seat to no one in longing for traditional values. I think I would have been at home in the Victorian era, I really do. As long as I was in the social class that had indoor plumbing. And I believe firmly that the best environment for kids is a stable, loving home headed by a mother and a father, married to each other. That’s a value worth standing up for, and it is NOT outlandish or comical for anyone to wish that the role models influencing our children also model that value.

But this is NOT the Victorian era. And DeMint’s chances of imposing Victorian values upon society are slim. He is also speaking of things that should be (if one has a conservative view of the purview of the federal government) outside his scope of legitimate action. And what this illustrates to me is his penchant for striking a pose in favor of a value, with neither any hope or realistic prospects of advancing the cause. Rather, he uses the value to draw a line between himself and his detractors, not in the hope of getting anything done, but in order to gain electoral advantage.

And this is problematic.

Poll shows Sheheen starting to gain on Haley

As I said earlier about the Crantford survey — I don’t know whether this is right, but I certainly hope it is. This just in from the Sheheen campaign:

A new poll released today proves what we already knew – Vincent Sheheen has captured the momentum in the race to be South Carolina’s next governor.

News reports stated just a few weeks ago that Nikki Haley had a 17-point lead.  Yet a national pollster just released two polls conducted a week apart that show a dramatic shift towards Vincent Sheheen.  Hamilton Campaigns conducted a survey last week that gave Haley a 51%-41% lead with 8% undecided.  The second poll, conducted this week, shows Vincent cutting the lead in half to 49%-44%.

Read the pollster’s analysis:

“Bottomline – As voters have begun to tune in to this race, the margin between the two candidates has been cut in half in a short period of time. Given the rapid movement and voter discontent with Mark Sanford, this race has certainly become one to watch over the closing weeks of the campaign.” (View entire poll results)

This race is a dead heat and Vincent Sheheen is the candidate on the move.  It’s not surprising that Vincent has the momentum in this race because voters are learning troubling new things about Nikki Haley on a daily basis.  Trust has become the dominant issue in the last few weeks and South Carolinians are beginning to realize that they cannot trust Nikki Haley.  Help keep the momentum going.  Donate today and spread the word by forwarding this email to friends and family.  We need your help to close the deal.

For some time, I’ve been having some pretty dark thoughts about the state of democracy in South Carolina. First Alvin Greene, then a fall electorate perversely bent on ignoring all the negatives about a candidate who would be very bad news as governor of our state.

Each bit of news like this makes me feel less cynical, and gives me greater hope in the wisdom of the voters as they finally begin to pay attention…

What worries me is that this may not be enough movement, fast enough. It does South Carolina no good if the majority completes its shift to Sheheen in mid-November….

Tucker Eskew remembers when governors governed

Tucker Eskew at the Summit Club Tuesday.

Yesterday at the Summit Club, Tucker Eskew spoke to a luncheon meeting of the local chapter of the International Association of Business Communicators. (And OMG, I just committed one of the cardinal sins of Newswriting 101. I just wrote what is termed a “The Ladies Auxiliary met on Wednesday” lede! Which is to say, a lede that tells you a scheduled event occurred, but doesn’t tell you what happened, or why you should care. Well, so what? I don’t have an editor or anyone else to get on me about it. Perhaps you’ve noticed.)

The first thing that interested me about this was how many former staffers from The State were there — Michael Sponhour, Jan Easterling, Jeff Stensland, Preston McLaurin and others, all there to represent their various clients. It was Old Home Week. And I think I was a bit of a curiosity at the gathering, because it was the first time many of them had seen me NOT as an editor at the paper. But perhaps I’m just thinking of myself as the center of the universe again. My wife says I do that.

Anyway, the interesting thing was hearing Tucker ramble about his experiences with the politicos he’s worked for. Some of it was familiar ground — stuff I lived through as well, but experiencing it from a different vantage point — but other parts told me something new. In case you don’t know Tucker, here’s the promo the IABC put out before the event:

High-stakes strategist and high-visibility spokesman Tucker Eskew will share some stories and lessons from his time in the South Carolina State House, the White House, No. 10 Downing Street and his consulting firm, Vianovo. Tucker is a spokesman and strategist whose career began with Ronald Reagan, Lee Atwater and Carroll Campbell. It then continued with George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. Drawing on these experiences, Tucker will reflect on the statecraft and stagecraft he’s witnessed and practiced over 25 years as a communicator. Register now for this inside look into the politics of media and communications from a man who’s been there and done that.

Tucker has come a long way since he was that punk kid we had to joust with when I headed the governmental affairs staff (10 reporters, back in the day) at The State and he was Carroll Campbell’s press secretary. He’s been behind the scenes at a number of interesting moments in history, and I enjoyed hearing his stories about:

His biggest mistake ever. This one made me smile, because it had nothing to do with handling Sarah Palin or anything you might expect. It was when we caught him, the governor’s press secretary, parking in a handicapped space in front of the Capitol Newsstand on Sunday mornings to pick up the papers. As he noted, the item ran in the “Earsay” column, a feature I started as a place to put all those interesting tidbits that reporters always avidly told their colleagues when they got back to the newsroom, but seldom got around to writing for the paper.

The BMW announcement. Probably the high point of the Campbell administration. Tucker sort of lost his temper at the time with reporters who reported cautiously on the announcement rather than playing it as being as big as it would eventually be — reporting just the initial employment, for instance, instead of the likely (and the predictions were borne out over time) economic impact over the long run. Of course, the reporters were just being the kind of healthy skeptics they were trained to be, in keeping with the rule, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” I mean, you certainly don’t give her any points from promising to love you at some point in the misty future. I got the sense Tucker understands that now. But he also takes satisfaction in knowing that BMW was as big a BFD as he maintained at the time.

Then and now. The hardest part of his job in the days before the BMW announcement was keeping the lid on the deal until it could be completed. He said he learned to say “no comment” 150 ways. When it was all done and he met the head guy from BWM, the German said, “So you’re the man who says nothing so much.” He urged us to remember that “This was an era when newspapers were large, well-staffed and aggressive.” That was indeed a long time ago.

The 2000 South Carolina Presidential Primary. This is the one part of his speech I had a real beef with. At some point — I didn’t write down the exact quote — he said something about being proud of the Bush victory. McCain supporter that I was, I would have found such pride distinctly out of place. Tucker had been on the Bush team so long — Campbell had been instrumental in getting Bush pere elected in 1988 — that he could see it no other way, I suppose.

The Long Count in Florida. At the point at which the campaign should have been done, he was asked to pack his bags to spend two or three days in Palm Beach. A week later, his wife mailed him a full suitcase. This was shortly after they had had a baby, and as he and an expectant world stood on one side of a glass wall looking into a room where the chads were being counted and obsessed over, it struck him how like standing outside the hospital nursery the experience was. And all he could think was, “That was one ugly baby” he was looking at in Palm Beach.

September 11, 2001. He was working in the White House press office. As everyone was still reeling from the impact of the first three planes, Whit Ayres called to ask him if he was all right. Sure I am, he said. Ayres said that on TV it looked like his building (the Eisenhower Office Building) was on fire. That was an optical illusion caused by the angle from which a network camera located downtown was shooting the smoke rising from the Pentagon. At around that time, some staffers asked whether they were supposed to be evacuating the building. No sooner had he said “no” than alarms went off. Everyone had been trained to walk, not run, to the exits in an emergency. So they were particularly alarmed to see and hear Secret Service agents yelling at women — including nice, soft-spoken women from South Carolina — to “Take off your shoes and RUN!” That’s because the agents had heard there was another plane headed toward them. Later in the day, he would advocate for the president to come back to the House and be seen leading. And he would write some of the first words released publicly from the administration, by Karen Hughes.

The great missed opportunity. He spoke of how writers right after 9/11 were hailing “the end of irony and cynicism.” Of course, it was just a pause before intensifying, as the partisan bitterness from both sides later exceeded our worst imaginings.

London during the media blitz. It was decided that in the War on Terror, London was the world media center, particularly for the Arabic press. So Tucker was sent there to represent the administration in liaison with Tony Blair’s staff at No. 10. He said it was “the most corrosive, cynical media environment that I’d ever been exposed to.” And he had thought we were bad back in Columbia. At least we didn’t Photoshop pictures of his boss with blood dripping from his fangs. (Tucker urged us to read Tony Blair’s new book. I certainly will, since I just asked for and got it for my birthday.)

Sarah Palin on SNL — In 2008, he was sent from the McCain campaign to become one of the handlers of someone he had known nothing about — the surprise running mate. A high point of that experience was accompanying her backstage when she went on “Saturday Night Live” — something Tucker had urged her to do. He actually had fun for once. But there was work to do as well. He had a role in nixing some bits of the script, such as a line that rhymed “filth” with “MILF.” And the bit that had McCain being “hot for teacher.”

South Carolina’s national image. “We were a shiny piece of trash on the side of the road for awhile,” he said of our time in the “Daily Show” limelight, but he thinks our image is better now. Nevertheless, he knows that South Carolina business people and others who have to travel outside the state pick up on a distinct impression of South Carolina, and “it’s not a good impression.” Someone had asked him whether we just had too many “characters.” He suggested that “it’s not about the characters, but it is about character.” After all, Thurmond and Hollings managed to be characters without reflecting too badly on our state’s character. That is less the case today.

Back in the day, Tucker used to get on my nerves, mostly because he advocated so tenaciously for his boss, whom at the time I saw as more of a partisan warrior than a guy interested in governing. (This was due in part to the fact that he was building his party, and doing so quite successfully. I kept comparing him unfavorably to Lamar Alexander, whom I had covered in Tennessee. Alexander had worked with Democratic lawmakers as full partners and accomplished a lot as a result. Campbell had more of an in-your-face style, doing such things as holding press conferences to rub it in when a Democratic lawmaker switched parties.) Now, I look back on the Campbell administration as halcyon days, a time when a real governor got things done, a state of affairs we haven’t been so fortunate to experience since.

Time matures our perspective. And it’s certainly matured Tucker. My Democratic friends will no doubt see him as anathema because of the names with which he has been associated. But I see him as that brash kid who has grown into a Man of Respect among people who do communications from that side of the wall — the side I’m now on, by the way.

And why is it so easy for me to see him that way now? Because he harks back to a time when we had a governor more interested in governing than posturing. A couple of times he proudly quoted someone — I missed who — calling Campbell an “exemplar of governing conservatism,” with emphasis on the “governing.” Campbell believed in it.

Tucker is too professional to put it this way, but he was obviously appalled at having to work for someone as insubstantial as Sarah Palin — the exemplar of the sort of Republican politician that dominates the scene today. He was at pains to explain her appeal in positive terms, describing her as an unaffected person who causes crowds to think approvingly, “She doesn’t talk down to me.”

He was asked whether he was the one who said Ms. Palin had “gone rogue.” No. But he marveled at being charged with promoting a candidate who was so startling unprepared to run for such a high office. He spoke of the kinds of experience and knowledge that one took for granted in a candidate at that level, and said, “We had never worked with someone who had never done those things.” As far as seasoning experiences were concerned, “Almost none of that had ever transpired.” But he didn’t call her a rogue. “I didn’t say it, but I observed it and was charged with dealing with it.”

And deal with it he must, because, as he realized after a time on the campaign, “She doesn’t have a lot of people who have been around her a long time.”

It was interesting, in light of these observations, to think back on what he had said a few minutes before, in a different context, about how amazing it is to see Nikki Haley “rise, in relative terms, from nowhere…” He had meant it in a good way. But the comparison to Palin is rather unavoidable.

Asked what he thought of the state’s two U.S. senators, he diplomatically spoke of his respect for both, but emphasized that they are very different. DeMint is about the “principle,” and Graham “stands on principle, but still gets things done” — making him another “exemplar of governing conservatism.” With distinct understatement, he noted that “DeMint has made himself a lot of friends around the country, and probably some opponents within” the Senate — the place where one has to work with people to get anything one believes in done.

A longtime Republican operative in the audience asked whether President Reagan could even get elected in today’s political environment. She — Christy Cox, longtime aide to David Wilkins — seemed to doubt it. Tucker said he would hope Ronald “Morning in America” Reagan could “change the climate.”

But the point was made. The climate would indeed have to be changed for the Great Communicator to be successful today.

So that’s why I can appreciate Tucker better today. Once, I saw him as a sort of partisan guerrilla warrior, part of the problem. Now, he joins me in harking back to a time when those who called themselves conservatives ran for, and served as, governor because they believed in governing. And as I said earlier, that was a long time ago…

Buddy, can you spare a scholarship?

Got this from Stan Dubinsky. I got it without any context, so I don’t know who produced it, or anything else about the campaign it’s a part of (help me out, Stan — do you have a link?).

Most of the way through it, I was thinking, “You’ll never get anywhere with this.” That’s because the kinds of people who are the reasons higher education was never funded at a competitive level in South Carolina, and has been incredibly slashed from the already-low levels to a fraction of those levels, really don’t give a damn about the considerations depicted in the video. When the video asks the viewer to imagine “no social workers,” I’m thinking that the Tea Party types are going, “Hell, yes! Sounds great to me!” (And no, historically the “Tea Party” has not been a factor, by that name. But the mentality that it represents has long held sway in our state, and is one of the main reasons we lag economically behind much of the rest of the country. )

But then I get to the end and realize, this little film isn’t aimed at them. Or at me. It’s aimed at people in a position to give private dollars to prop up the institution. The makers of this video assume that the public conversation is long ago finished, and lost. In this piece, they’ve moved on.

And well they should. Several rounds of cuts back, the Legislature was only funding between 12-15 percent of the cost of running our supposedly “public” institutions of higher learning. I don’t know where the percentage is now. These formerly state institutions now look to the state as one of many, many donors it has to line up.

And this video is one way of doing that.

Every time you turn over a rock…

… another problem from Nikki Haley’s past crawls out.

This time, it has to do with the House member leaning on the Employment Security Commission to suspend an audit of her family business:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley called a commissioner at the state’s workforce agency while she was a sitting lawmaker to ask that an audit of her family’s business be suspended.

Haley’s Democratic opponent, Vincent Sheheen, made Haley’s request public this afternoon while responding to Haley’s campaign statement that unemployed South Carolinians should submit to drug tests in order to collect unemployment benefits.

Haley says she asked for an extension.

Former Employment Security Commissioner Becky Richardson confirmed to The Post and Courier that Haley made the request. Richardson said she couldn’t recall all the specifics but said that the audit was indeed suspended, though she doesn’t remember for what length of time. Richardson said Haley told her “that it was a real busy time” when she made the request in early 2005. Haley has served in the statehouse since 2004…

How many more things will we learn about — before and after the election — that just don’t quite pass the smell test? It’s bizarre that she keeps trying to hammer Vincent over worker’s comp. Well, I guess Vincent decided he’d heard enough of that nonsense — particularly in light of how Nikki has tried to use the system.

And what on Earth is wrong with the people who still plan to vote for her?

I mean, isn’t this kind of abuse of power by politicians the very thing that riles up the Tea Partiers who are her base? Do those folks believe in anything?

Pro-life snub of Sheheen misses huge opportunity

Pat pointed out back here the fact that my old friend Holly Gatling (formerly of The State‘s Pee Dee bureau) and her compatriots at South Carolina Citizens for Life endorsed Nikki Haley for the thinnest, most procedural of reasons. That is indeed true:

Citizens for Life director Holly Gatling says Haley scored a 100 on its 19-question election survey. She says Democrat Vincent Sheheen has voted with the anti-abortion group and has “never been hostile to our issues.” But he did not return the survey, so the group backed the candidate who put it in writing.

The fact is that in Vincent Sheheen, the pro-life movement has that most rare and precious of commodities, a creature that those who care should want to warmly embrace, cosset and nurture — a pro-life Democrat. Not since Bob Casey won his Senate seat from Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, despite the nasty blowback from the likes of NARAL, has there been such a chance to support a pro-life Democratic nominee for high office.

And SCCofL has blown that opportunity for the sake of a piece of paper not obediently filled out.

Thereby the pro-life movement misses the opportunity to demonstrate it is more than a lapdog of the Right, to be taken for granted, to be bought for a piece of paper filled out with the answers that everyone knows they want to hear. The state Chamber of Commerce has had the guts to demonstrate in this race that it is not slavishly Republican. Even Republicans, from Cyndi Mosteller to Bobby Harrell, have to varying degrees expressed their differences with the nominee of their party. Why pass up this opportunity to demonstrate some real, conscience-based, independence for the sake of a piece of paper?

As The State noted a month ago, the pro-life movement has TWO strong candidates in the major-party nominees for governor (the subhed was, “Voters who support procedures left in cold by major candidates for governor” — those of you who want to pause and hold a moment of silence for the folks Holly calls the “pro-aborts” because for once they don’t have a champion, go right ahead; I will move on), and one of them is someone who, being a Democrat, actually takes some political risk, who actually gets out of the comfort zone of a member of his party, for his support for life. Me, I’d want to give a guy like that some props. But that’s me.

The counter-Haley insurgency within the GOP goes mainstream (but sotto voce)

Republicans who are enamored of their gubernatorial nominee can dismiss Cyndi Mosteller (sister of close Sanford ally Chip Campsen) if they like. But they’ll have a bit of trouble shrugging off this missive from their own Speaker of the House:

PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO ALL REPUBLICANS YOU KNOW.

Dear Friends,

This Election Year there are a lot of accusations flying around and very few facts backing them up.  Republicans need to make sure all voters are fully informed before they go to the polls this November and that is why we felt it was so important that we get the real facts out.

Recently, special interest groups in our state have tried to accuse State House Republicans of fighting against reforms that we not only support, but that we have actually voted on and passed.  They are even accusing Republican leadership of not supporting the very reforms that we have worked hard to get passed.

The SC House Republican Caucus is a conservative body that has a record of conservative reforms and a clear vision for our state’s future.  Over this series of emails, we will tell you the facts about that solid record and share with you our plans to build on that record.

Transparency

The House Republican Caucus supports more transparency in our state government.  A more open government makes for a more accountable government.  We believe the people should be able to see how their elected officials vote.

FACT:  In January 2009, we adopted a Rule in the House of Representatives that was authored by Representative Nikki Haley that put more of our votes on the record. Click here to see the House Rule.

FACT:  Just this past session, the House of Representatives unanimously passed Rep. Haley’s bill that would make the House Rule requiring more recorded votes a law.  Click here to see the bill we passed.

Even though it passed unanimously and would appear as though it was easy to pass, there were still hurdles we had to overcome to get us there. The House Republican Caucus and I, as the Speaker, worked very hard to get this important rule passed and to get the legislation through the House of Representatives.

Unfortunately, this bill never made it through the SC Senate.  Because of that, the House Republican Caucus has put Transparency at the top of our election agenda and plan to address this issue again in the next legislative session.

As I said at the beginning of this email, there will be a lot of untrue allegations made during this election season, but facts are facts.  The House Republican Caucus, and I as the Speaker, have not only supported more transparency in government, we have backed up the talk with action by passing a House Rule and a House Bill.  This is the kind of leadership you expect from Republicans, and I am proud to be able to tell you about it.

Bobby Harrell

Speaker,

South Carolina House of Representatives


PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO ALL REPUBLICANS YOU KNOW.

A friend sent this to me, noting rightly that “you’re certainly not a Republican, but I thought I’d pass it on anyway.” I’m much obliged.

Whoa. Normally, when a Republican leader starts out a mailing, less than a month from a general election, with “This Election Year there are a lot of accusations flying around and very few facts backing them up,” he’s unloading on the Democratic nominee. Not this time, baby. Not the way I read it, anyway — because I’ve only heard one person try to paint the leadership as opposed to transparency.

Sure, in keeping with Reagan’s 11th Commandment, Bobby didn’t come right out and say “Nikki Haley is a liar!” But even your more comprehension-challenged Repubs ought to be able to understand this message. Right? Or are they thicker than I give them credit for being?

Or… is there something I’m missing?

Haley 45%, Sheheen 41%: Are the voters starting to pay attention?

I don’t know whether to be greatly encouraged or suspicious at the numbers. I’m going to choose to be cautiously encouraged by the poll numbers I learned about this morning from Tim Kelly’s blog:

A new poll completed just last evening shows some significant positive movement for Vincent Sheheen, with the race a virtual dead heat. Nikki Haley leads Sheheen 45%-41%, within the poll’s margin of error of 3.9%. Thirteen percent remain undecided.

The poll was conducted by South Carolina pollster Crantford & Associates. The survey involved 634 active registered South Carolina voters. Data collection occurred Thursday September the 30th between 6:00 PM and 9:00 PM.

While Rasmussen surveys have shown Haley maintaining a strong lead, the new results might signal that the accumulation of negative stories about Haley’s financial dealings is finally taking a toll. On Sunday, John O’Connor of The State explored the $110,000 fundraising job created specifically for Haley by Lexington Medical Center.

The Crantford poll also included the U.S. Senate race between incumbent Jim Demint and surprise challenger Alvin Green. Not surprisingly, Demint holds a 56%-23% lead in that race.

A copy of last night’s survey is available here (PDF).

I don’t know anything about this Crantford outfit. When I asked Tim what he knew, he said:

Carey does solid work. The knock on him would be that he’s a Democrat, but I’ve never known that to sway his numbers or sampling.

Could the voters finally be starting to pay attention to what we’re all learning? That would be wonderful news for South Carolina.

About that “business endorsement” Nikki got…

As you know, the premiere organization for South Carolina’s business leadership, the state Chamber of Commerce, is backing Vincent Sheheen for governor — as are most serious people who know how the world works and care about the future of this state.

Nikki Haley keeps looking for ways to counter the fact that she, a Republican, does not have such support. Yesterday, her campaign announced that it had received the endorsement of the National Federation of Independent Business. My first thought was yeah, she’d have to go to a national organization for such a nod, because the locals know better — but then I saw that this was the South Carolina affiliate of that organization. So I didn’t really know what it meant.

But then somebody brought this blog post to my attention:

Will the NFIB please go away…..

Let’s be honest–I absolutely abhor the so-called National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). It’s not a representative business group. In 2004 95% of their members said they voted for Bush, compared to 53% of all small business owners. (Remember that election was 50–50) Nonetheless, the first line of the recent NY Times article on NFIB joining the Republican Attorneys-General lawsuit on the individual mandate is that they’re trying to depoliticize the “largely Republican assault” on the new health care law. Ha, bloody ha.

But I’m not grumpy that the NFIB is joining this pointless lawsuit. I’m grumpy that they’re so blatantly going against the interest of small businesses. And yes I run one! So to remind you how stupid the NFIB is (in global not political terms) I’ve reprinted an article I wrote on Spot-on back in 2006–-and sadly nothing has changed. (The great thing about being a relatively veteran blogger is that I can really recycle material!)…

If all that is right, that would tend to explain the Haley endorsement.

Better to ask questions about Nikki NOW than after it’s too late

The emergence of this small band of Republicans daring to ask the questions that every Republican — as well as every independent and Democrat — should be asking themselves about Nikki Haley (there’s little point of asking them of Nikki) is interesting.

On the one hand, it seems a spur-of-the-moment thing. “Conservatives for Truth in Politics” is sending out hurried press releases that are shot through with typos (here’s a somewhat cleaner version of the one they sent me via e-mail), and announcing a website that’s still under construction. The Facebook page had eight fans when I checked a few minutes ago, one of them being me — I had signed up to see if being a “fan” would get me more info.

But on the other hand, it may have been awhile in the making. Group Leader Cyndi Mosteller — former chair of the Charleston County GOP and sister of staunch Sanford ally Chip Campsen — wrote an op-ed piece that ran in The State Sept. 22, headlined “Haley puts GOP principles at risk.” An excerpt:

Since the June 2009 Sanford-Chapur expose, our state’s reputation has been tarnished by a leader compromised. A decade earlier, Congressman Mark Sanford stood for Bill Clinton’s resignation on the Lewinsky affair, declaring that “it would be much better for the country and for him personally” to resign. Unfortunately, a lack of shame is often the closest companion to lack of honor, and both leaders held tight their power of title, even after having lost the power of principle. With Nikki Haley, Republicans might be approaching that unfamiliar crossroads where victory of title and victory of principle are more perpendicular than parallel.

As former vice chairman of the state Republican Party, my political hemoglobin runs iron-strong red. I’m down the line for Republicans Alan Wilson, Mick Zais and Tim Scott — not just for their stands, but for their character. In contrast, facts and allegations regarding Mrs. Haley raise valid questions in many a Republican conscience.

Though running on a platform of transparency and accountability, Mrs. Haley has not paid her taxes by April 15 for the past five years, and has not even filed them by the end of her extension in three of those years — years she served in our General Assembly. And Mrs. Haley’s company, where she was the accountant, incurred three liens for withholding and income taxes not paid until 19 months past due. Yet Mrs. Haley continues to campaign on such statements as: “I know I’m the right person to go into this next position because I’m an accountant, who knows what it means to stretch a dollar.”

And what of the sexual allegations? They are so removed from core Republican values that if it weren’t for Mark Sanford, we could never imagine them possibly being true — nor imagine that any candidate would consider himself or herself worthy of governing if they were. When former Sanford press secretary Will Folks asserted “an inappropriate physical relationship with Nikki,” released more than 60 damage-control texts made to Haley’s campaign and published a detailed log of late night-calls with Mrs. Haley, she called them “categorically and totally false” and insisted, “I have been 100 percent faithful to my husband throughout our 13 years of marriage.” That denial drew an unequivocal “that is not true” from Republican lobbyist Larry Marchant, who said he had sex with Mrs. Haley and “I know in my heart it happened, and she knows in her heart it happened.”

But what do We the People know?

Ms. Mosteller was a county co-chair for Henry McMaster. Henry, a big believer in traditional GOP lockstep loyalty, has dutifully lined up behind the Haley insurgency, while Cyndi isn’t going so meekly into that dark night.

Yesterday we saw Henry’s successors as party chair, Katon Dawson and Karen Floyd, doing their duty by standing up to denounce the Mosteller group as being unrepresentative of Republicans. That will no doubt keep most of the rank and file in line.

But among your more knowledgeable Republicans, I suspect that there are a lot who are privately thinking what Ms. Mosteller is saying out loud. That’s one reason, I suspect, why Henry McMaster is the only one of Nikki’s primary opponents who is visibly supporting her, which is a fairly radical departure from the norm in this state.

Others, if they’re thinking at all, have to be wondering what else they will learn about Nikki after they elect her governor. Thus far, every rock that has been turned over in her general vicinity has had something troubling crawl out from under it.

Better to ask the questions now, rather than when it’s too late.

I’d much rather hear talk of DeMint than of Palin

A friend, obviously seeking to appall me, sent an e-mail saying, “Oh, you’ll enjoy this…” and linking to this blog post, which I quote in part:

And speaking of factions, and again I’m not a reporter, just a consumer of news, it sure seems to me that Jim DeMint is the current leader of the hard-core conservative faction of the Republican Party.  He’s far more consistent with his endorsements than any other conservative leader, and unlike Palin he can claim that he’s actually been doing something effective for the cause.  For the conservative/Tea Party faction, presumably the trick is to be as far to the right as possible without actually sounding crazy to those outside the faction (and thus perhaps drawing vetoes from more pragmatic conservatives, and possibly some GOP-aligned interest groups).  At least as I read the reporting, DeMint seems to be pretty good at keeping to that line, and he certainly must be more reliable both for that crowd and for more pragmatic types than Palin.

To know more, we need more solid reporting.  Hey, reporters!  We know activists hate TARP; is it a make or break issue for them?  What about other important groups within the GOP?  And, while of course Tea Partiers and conservatives generally are fond of the Sage of Wasilla, do leaders of those groups seem more likely to turn to her or to DeMint (or perhaps to another candidate) for leadership?  How much good will did DeMint buy with his endorsements and support in primary season 2010?

And yeah, I groaned, but was not shocked or surprised. After all, a guy makes a naked power play like the one DeMint’s made, and one should expect such talk.

And I’ll say this for him: Better DeMint than Palin.

Don’t get me wrong: I would think it horrible to contemplate either of them becoming POTUS. But at least my intelligence, my sense of propriety, is not nearly as offended by talk of DeMint as of Palin. Or for that matter, the absurd idea of Nikki Haley presuming to become governor of South Carolina when she has done nothing in public or private life to indicate any sort of suitability or qualifications for the job.

The thing is, Jim DeMint is a uomo di rispetto, a man of respect, in the Godfather sense. Sure, he might be doing some things that I

Al Lettieri as Virgil "The Turk" Sollozzo.

consider to be infamnia, and he might be trying to start a war among the Two Families that rule inside the Beltway, but he is a man to be taken seriously, a United States Senator who has demonstrated considerable political leadership skill. I respect him the way Don Corleone respected Sollozzo when he agreed to meet with him even though he wasn’t interested in his proposal, because drugs is a dirty business, as we all know — but I digress.

Contrast that to the utter lack of accomplishment that Sarah Palin embodies — she’s sort of to politics what Paris Hilton is to fame, or Reality TV is as a testament to a highly evolved species — and you can see why, though I don’t want either of them to become Leader of the Free World, I am less offended by loose talk about him than I am about her.

Talk about Sarah Palin as a presidential contender has become so routine that many have probably become inured to it, and now think nothing of it. But it is bizarre in the extreme. Like Alvin Greene — or Christine O’Donnell — being a major party nominee for the Senate.  Or like Nikki Haley.

Does no one but me notice this? Has Reality TV dumbed down American expectations to the point that we think it’s OK for anybody who’s shown up on the Boob Tube enough to presume to be presidential material?

Apparently so.

Did Janette pen “world’s haughtiest e-mail?”

Many of you know Janette Turner Hospital, the novelist who for years has run the “Caught in the Creative Act” seminar at USC.

Yesterday, a reader called my attention to a piece over at Gawker, but when I got there I didn’t read the thing I was being directed to, because I got distracted by this item claiming that the Australian writer had written the “world’s haughtiest e-mail” back to her former students here in Colatown:

Janette Turner Hospital is the author of Orpheus Lost and other books, and a professor at Columbia. She sent MFA students at her old school, the University of South Carolina, the following note about their inferiority. It is amazing.

Hospital sent this note to all of the MFA students on the University of South Carolina listserv. More than one of them forwarded it to us. “We’re all enraged,” one MFA grad from USC tells us. “She is nuts!” says another. Indeed. What’s your favorite part? The personal revelations? The breathtaking undertone of insult towards those in South Carolina? Her special pet name for the Upper West Side? This is fertile ground…

After that build-up, I actually found the e-mail to be not quite as bad as advertised. After all, she says nothing BAD about USC, she just … gushes… to a rather odd extent about NYC. But she would not be the first to have her head turned a bit by the tall buildings, or the Starbucks on every corner. I’m rather fond of the city myself — as a place to visit. Follow the link and see what you think. Or if you’re too lazy to click, here’s an excerpt:

As for news from this very different MFA planet, I’m in seventh heaven teaching here, and not only because I have Orhan Pamuk (whom I hope to bring to USC for Caught in the Creative Act), Oliver Sacks, Simon Schama, Richard Howard, Margo Jefferson, etc., etc., as colleagues, though that is obviously part of it.

My students also live and move and write in seventh heaven and in a fever of creative excitement. Columbia’s MFA is rigorous and competitive but students don’t just have publication as a goal – they take that for granted, since about half the graduating class has a book published or a publishing contract in hand by graduation – so they have their sights set on Pulitzers.

This program is huge, the largest in the country. It’s a 3-year degree, with 300 students enrolled at a given time. Each year, 100 are admitted (in fiction, poetry, nonfiction) with fiction by far the largest segment. But 600+ apply, so the 100 who get in are the cream of the cream…

And then there are all the peripheral pleasures of living on Manhattan: we’ve seen the Matisse exhibition at MOMA, have tickets for the opening of Don Pasquale at the Met Opera, have tickets to see Al Pacino on stage as Shylock in the Merchant of Venice, etc etc. Plus I’m just 15 minutes walking distance from Columbia and from all the sidewalk bistros on Broadway, and 3 minutes from Central Park where we join the joggers every morning. This is Cloud Nine living on the Upper West Side (which is known to my agent and my Norton editor, who live in Greenwich Village, as “Upstate Manhattan.” ) We love it.

What do you think? I mean, I’m glad Janette’s having a good time, and maybe she’s a bit carried away. But I guess I’m too used to the excessive rhetoric of political e-mails to be too appalled.

Or maybe my self-esteem as a South Carolinian has been so battered by the attention we’ve garnered because of the Confederate flag, Mark Sanford, Alvin Greene and Nikki Haley that I’m too numb to be insulted further.

Oh, in case you’re wondering if I’m giving her a break unduly — Ms. Hospital is an acquaintance, but we don’t know each other well. A couple of years back when Salman Rushdie was in town for her program, she asked me to moderate a panel discussion in connection with his appearance (which was flattering, but a little scary, since I hadn’t read any of his books), and I met Mr. Rushdie at a reception afterward. That’s about all I can think of to disclose.

Don’t miss Cindi’s package comparing Nikki’s & Vincent’s records

This afternoon, a friend who is an experienced observer of South Carolina politics asked me whether I’d read Cindi Scoppe’s package on today’s editorial page comparing the records of Nikki Haley and Vincent Sheheen.

I said no, but I had glanced at it, which pretty much told me everything I needed to know. Or rather, what I had already known without tallying it all up. But Cindi did that for us, and the result is both superficially telling — because Vincent’s accomplishments take up so much more room on the page — and also substantively so. It tells the tale rather powerfully of who is better qualified to move South Carolina forward — or in any direction you choose. It shows that Vincent Sheheen is far more qualified, and inclined, to take governing seriously.

Of course, as I told my friend, the fact that Nikki has accomplished virtually nothing will be embraced as a positive by her nihilistic followers. They will vote for her for the same reason they voted for Strom Thurmond, and Floyd Spence — because they did very little in office — with the added Sanfordesque twist of blaming the Legislature, rather than herself, for her lack of accomplishments. But the truth is, Nikki simply hasn’t even tried to accomplish much at all.

Basically, what Nikki has done is get elected, introduce very few bills of any kind, gotten almost none of them passed because she doesn’t care about accomplishing anything, then run for governor. That’s Nikki in a nutshell.

Vincent, by contrast, has taken the business of governing as a serious responsibility, one bigger than himself and his personal ambitions.

And there’s much more to it than sheer volume. As Cindi wrote:

The easiest, though not necessarily most useful, way to compare the lists: Ms. Haley has introduced 15 substantive bills, of which one has become law and one has been adopted as a House rule. Mr. Sheheen has introduced 119 substantive bills (98 when you weed out the ones that he has re-introduced in multiple sessions), of which 18 have become statewide law and four have become local law….

What’s most striking about Mr. Sheheen’s list is its sweep, and the extent to which it reflects initiatives that either know no partisan boundaries or that easily cross them. Although his focus has been on giving governors more power to run the executive branch of government and overhauling our tax system, his bills touch on far more — from exempting small churches from some state architectural requirements and prohibiting kids from taking pagers to school to giving tuition breaks to the children of veterans and eliminating loopholes in the state campaign finance law.

This is the body of work of someone who understands what the government does and is interested in working on not just the broad structural and philosophical issues that politicians like to make speeches about but also the real-world problems that arise, from figuring out how to move police from paper to electronic traffic tickets without causing problems to writing a legal definition for “joint custody” so parents will know what to expect when they go to court.

One thing that’s notable in relation to this campaign: Ms. Haley attacks Mr. Sheheen as being anti-business because he does some workers compensation work (although his firm represents both businesses and employees), but he has written only one bill regarding workers compensation — and that was a “pro-business” bill that said employees of horse trainers didn’t have to be covered.

Cindi published this list of Nikki’s legislative record, such as it is, and this list of Vincent’s, in the paper. Vincent’s was obviously far more weighty. But in truth, she couldn’t fit all of the Sheheen record in the paper. Here’s the fuller record, including the ones that Cindi found too boring to put in the paper.

I doubt this will win over anyone, because the kind of people who would vote for Nikki view lack of experience, and the lack of the ability to accomplish anything in government, as virtues. They care about ideology, not pragmatic governance. I just publish this for the sensible, serious folk who see things differently.

Which is sort of the point of my whole blog, come to think of it…

DeMint is now officially Too Big For His Britches

Folks, this is really embarrassing. Throughout our history, U.S. senators have not exactly been known for modesty. Fritz Hollings, for instance, was no shrinking violet. Being one of only 100 in the country, with some pretty weighty constitutional responsibility, can go to one’s head. Add in the tradition going back to ancient Rome, and you have a formula for bombast.

But I have never heard or read of any one senator taking upon himself such a megalomaniacal presumption as what Jim DeMint has taken upon himself with this latest move:

U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., in an extraordinary move, has warned the other 99 U.S. senators that for the rest of the legislative session this year, all bills and nominations slated for unanimous passage must go through his office for review…

Normally, senatorial ego is limited by the understanding that there are 99 others just like you, which is the wellspring of senatorial courtesy. The notion that the world does not revolve around YOU is something that we start teaching our children as we’re trying to get them beyond the Terrible Twos. Most of us pick up on it by the time we reach the age of majority, at least to some extent.

But if Jim DeMint had ever been familiar with this concept, he has forgotten it.

Contrast this obnoxious cry of ego, if you will, to the quiet way that Lindsay Graham has worked behind the scenes to have a salutary effect on foreign policy since the election of Barack Obama. Despite the imperative of satisfying his left wing, I keep seeing Obama do things in Afghanistan and elsewhere that show a marked pragmatism, a reassuring wisdom. And apparently, Sen. Graham is one of the main reasons why:

A new book by The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward describes U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham as playing a central role in the formation and execution of President Barack Obama’s war policy in Afghanistan through his close ties to Vice President Joe Biden, Gen. David Petraeus and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

The book by the former Watergate reporter, Obama’s Wars, contains vivid and previously undisclosed portrayals of Graham’s closed-door conversations and confrontations with Obama, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other key figures.

Petraeus, the former commander of U.S. troops in Iraq who now holds the same post in Afghanistan, describes Graham as “a brilliant and skillful chess player” whom the general admires for his ability to navigate the power channels of Washington.

Talk about your polar opposites — the ball hog vs. the guy who just wants to make sure his team wins. And his team (and this might come as a shock to Jim Demint) is the United States of America, NOT the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, which Sen. DeMint seems to think is his country.

And what is Jim DeMint trying to accomplish in all this, aside from self-aggrandizement? Note this in The Washington Post:

Consider the case of Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, the new Republican kingpin and enforcer on Capitol Hill. DeMint claims he was misquoted by Bloomberg Businessweek last week as saying that his goal for the next Senate is “complete gridlock.” But you’d never know it from the way he’s behaving during the Senate’s do-nothing, pre-election legislative session. DeMint makes no apologies for saying that there’s no place for bipartisan compromise or consensus or some “watered-down Republican philosophy,” as he put it. For DeMint, this is war. The only acceptable outcome is total victory, and any Republican who dares to disagree will be treated as a traitor during the next election cycle.

And of course, he’s trying to get in a position to accomplish all this by such moves as supporting such candidates as Christine “Witchy Woman” O’Donnell.

I’ve never been more proud of Lindsey Graham, or more embarrassed by Jim DeMint. This moment has been coming, but I never suspected it would go this far.

No wonder The Washington Post dumped Newsweek

When Newsweek first put Sarah Palin (I mean, Nikki Haley — I know the difference, but the superficial, pandering twits editing Newsweek apparently don’t) on its cover, I wrote about how Vincent Sheheen faces a problem that no other candidate for governor of South Carolina had ever faced — an opponent who gets vast amounts of free national media coverage. It’s a disadvantage that no candidate can raise enough money for paid media to overcome. It distorts everything. (See “The Newsweek endorsement of Nikki Haley,” July 6.) I wrote:

Oh, you say it’s not an endorsement? Don’t bore me with semantics. As I said, the national media — not giving a damn one way or the other about South Carolina, or about who Nikki Haley really is or what she would do in office — is enraptured at the idea that South Carolina will elect a female Indian-American (Bobby Jindal in a skirt, they think, fairly hugging themselves with enthusiasm), which just may be the most extreme example of Identity Politics Gone Mad that I’ve seen.

told you we would have to expect this. And this is just the beginning…

Hey, am I a prophet or what? Now, in their slavish devotion to all things Sarah (and Sarah surrogates are almost as good, especially if you can create a collage of them WITH Sarah), Newsweek has done it again.

And do they have any serious, substantive reason to do this? Of course not. The putative reason for putting Nikki’s smiling mug on the cover again is to discuss the burning issue of “mama grizzlies.” I am not making this up.

Of course, if you turn inside to one of the few remaining pages in this pamplet — right in there next to the scholarly treatise on “Men Look at Women’s Bodies: Is Evolution at Work?” — you can find some home truths about Nikki. Such as:

Haley, who has two children but has never referred to herself as a grizzly [so why the freak did you put her on this stupid cover? never mind; I realize there’s no rational answer, beyond maybe that you had a picture of her in red], is just the sort of pro–business, low-tax, limited–government conservative Palin loves. Her platform is focused mostly on economic issues: creating jobs and unleashing entrepreneurial energy by slashing taxes. She holds herself out as a paragon of fiscal responsibility (never mind that she and her husband have failed to pay their taxes on time in each of the past five years).

But I must ask you: How many of the undecided voters who might be gullible enough to be razzle-dazzled into voting for Nikki do you think will read that far into the piece? Just being on this cover is all Nikki could possibly ever want or need from Newsweek.

Folks, I gotta tell ya — I never thought a whole lot of Newsweek. Back in the day when I was even in the market for such a publication, I always read TIME — and I haven’t done that in 30 years. Whatever value that format had ceased to be anything you could take seriously so, so long ago. Those publications became pretty much everything I disdain about TV “news.”

Recently, The Washington Post apparently decided the same, selling the mag to a guy who made his fortune selling stereos. And as The Wall Street Journal observed:

Since he agreed to purchase the magazine from Washington Post Co. earlier this month, pundits have called Mr. Harman’s motives—and sanity—into question. He took on more than $50 million in liabilities and agreed to keep most of Newsweek‘s employees—all for a magazine on track to lose at least $20 million this year, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Good luck with that, pal.

My advice to you readers? You want to read news in a magazine format? Go with The Economist. That is still a serious source of news and commentary. Interestingly, it calls itself a “newspaper,” in spite of its format. It’s certainly better than all but a handful of newspapers on this side of the pond. Yet another reason to love The Economist — so far, no Nikki Haley covers (that I’ve seen, anyway).

500 or so Women for Sheheen

A month or so ago, Phil Bailey brought my attention to the fact that former Rep. Harriet Keyserling was trying to counter all the “first woman” buzz that Nikki Haley had by putting together a bipartisan “Women for Sheheen” committee.

As y’all know, it’s hard for me to identify with people who actively want to see someone of a particular gender, or race, or whatever, elected. To me, every candidate should be evaluated on the basis of his or her suitability without reference to such considerations. But I know lots of women across the political spectrum — women of good will — who do care about such things. They actually deeply identify with other women, something that is unimaginable for me (personally, I get no charge one way or the other from the successes or failures of other white guys qua white guys), but I have to acknowledge that they seem to be sincere about it.

So when Harriet sent me a letter on behalf of 100 women, I was interested — but I wanted to see the list of women. She said wait a bit, and she’d be able to give me a list — a much longer one.

So I waited. And now I have this:

Dear Friends:

Well, here it is. Not the 100 signers I hoped for, but over 500 from all across  the state. And what a wonderful mix these women are: stay-at-home-moms, doctors, lawyers, ministers, artists, realtors, executives ,teachers, college professors, democrats, independents and Republicans.

I hope you will look over the list,  find some friends from your town,  then  together  find a way to spread the word. Talk to your newspaper editors,   have a press conference, write letters, sign up others.  Soon.  Time is fleeting.  To refresh your memory, I ‘ve attached my original letter.  We have also created a website “Women for Sheheen” and solicit your input.

For further information,  go to  “Women for Sheheen” on Facebook  to which 600 people have signed on. It was startedby Madeleine McGee who organized, in Charleston, a 90 women paying $90 to sponsor a Sheheen fundraiser in appreciation of his support of women,  and in honor of  the 90th  anniversary of the women’s vote. 296  people attended and they raised $20,000.  I hear women in other cities are planning similar events. Click here for the original letter.

Madeleine McGee* Kit Smith* Sally Huguley* Mary (Rab)Fleming Finlay* Page Miller*Susan Hilfer*Catherine Ceips* Patty Robinson*Leah Greenberg*Juliana W Weeks*Terri Hartley*Dr Catherine Anne Walsh*Ann Pincelli*Abbot Land Carnes*H Murchison*Catherine Rogers*Robin Copp*Jenny Rizo-Patron*Linda Ott*Jean Lindsey*Mary Ann McDow*Regina Carmel*Kate Bullard Adams*Eleanor Welling*Saundra Carr*Nancy Sargent*Virginia Nelson*Wilhemina Rhoe*Elizabeth Harris*Alice DuPre Jones*Judy Lineback* Lynn Teaque*Fay Brown*Katrina Sprott Riley*Shayna Hollander*JoAngela Edwins* Sara Castillo*Teri Hutson Salane*Suzanne Rhodes*Caroline Vreede*Anne Harmon*Jane Riley*Sandy Linning*Pat Symons*Barbara Lewis*Lolita Watson*Dr.Sissy Kinghorn*Julie Lonon*Gail Richardson*Sidney Thompson*Liz Wheeler*Lucy Waddell*Anne Beazley*Sally Powell*Claudia McCollough*Eleanor Hare*Lynn Robertson*Lenora K White*Cherie Mabrey*Dr Anne Osborne Kilpatrick*Barb Barham* Cary Lafaye*Carol Fishman*Lynn Baskin*Stacie Vulpen* Karen Hardy*Anne Wynn Johnson*Eleanor K Whitehead*Frances Mabry* Judy Kalb*Margit Resch*Katherine Nevin*Greta Little*Carol Ward*Jerue Richard*Laura Von Harten*Laura Williams*Cathy Tillman* Mariellen Schwentker*Caroline S Voight*Linda Hollandsworth*Beth Moon*Cathy Wilson*Elaine Nocks*Ann Timberlake*Sally Howard*Patricia Battey* Nancy Vinson*Carol Lucas*Kay Hanks*Dr. Paula Orr* Cathy Battle*Patti Knight Hilton*Johnnie Fulton*Doris Wilson*Priscilla Hagins*Joan Fensterstock*Barbara Burgess*Holley H Ulbrich*Dot Tunstall*Marion MacNeish*Amaryllis Duvall*Mary Noonan*Kelly Wilson*Beebe James*Caroline Rice*Joan Tumpson*Margaret Bell Hane*Lowndes Macdonald*Rev Elizabeth Wooldridge*Paula Jane Goldman* Karen Jamrose*Pam McAlpine* Geraldine Ingersoll*Judy Beazley*Katherine Hopkins*Loretta Warden*Caroline Jenkins*Barbara W Elow*Sandra O’Neal*Betts Bailey*Judith Waring*Virginia Koontz*Gail Touger*Mimi Wyche*Abbot L Carnes*Angela Viney*Marjorie Trifon*JeanneLove Ferguson*Billie Houghton*Pat Manix*Ellen Kochansky*Jan Collins*Kate L Landishaw*Heather Jarvis*Beatrice Bailey*Lesesne Hudson*Anne Knight Watson*Bert Bob*Evelyn Byatt*BettyJo Carson*Sue Olson*Barb Smith*Cary LaFaye*Julia Forster*Rev Joyce Cantrell*Carol Ervin*Barbara Young*Beverly J Hiller*Jo Ann Walker*Sally Knowles*Cynthia Bolter*Jane Smith Davis*Joy Pinson*Nancy Lewis Tuten*Hillary J McDonald*Lenora Price*NJ Nettles*Nancy Stockton*Martha D Greenway*Eileen Barrett*Anne B Macaluso*Grace Gifford*Katya Cohen*Kathy Belknap*Mary Bernsdorff*Libby Elbe*Catherine Malloy*Claudette Humphrey*Marjorie Spruill*Francie Markham*Krista Collins*Linda Gallicchio*Jane Freeman*Maittese Jasper*Betty Humphreys*Keller H Baron*Linda Combs*Carol Pappas*Ann Funderburk*Kay McCoy*Jill Halevi*Stephanie Hunt*Marguerite Archie-Hudson*Mimi Kinard*Edith T Chou*Heather McCalman*Dr Penny Travis*Barbara Scott*Courtney McDowell*Cathy Bennington Jenrette*Cassie Premo Steele*Lilla Folsom*Susan Gregory*Andrea Stoney*Patricia Maners*Amy Kinard*Judy Speights*Barbara Jackson*Judy Ingle*Carole Parrish-Loy*Tidal Trails*Kelly Draganov*Kay McCoy*Susan Shaffer*Elizabeth Sinkler*Gail Siegel Messerman*Liz J Patterson*Ellen S Steinberg*Gail Morrison*Karen Volquardsen*Maittese Lecque*Diane Fox*Linda York*Phyllis Miller Mayes*Fran Marscher*Holly Hook*Kristen Marshall Mattson*Polly Player*Linda K Combs*Giselle Wrenn*Ellen Reed*Linda Kapsil*Marie Meglen*Vida Miller*Pam Taub*Frances D Finney*Janet Marsh*Rubye Johnson*Jo White*Patrice Brown*Virginia Lacy*Sally Mitchell*Catherine Hammond*Diane Smock*Dallas Shealy*Patricia Berne Mizell*Harriet D Hancock*JanetDow Bailey*Josephyne Spruill*Elizabeth Hills*Holly Massey*Frances Heyward Gibbes*Kathy Folsom*Flo Rosse*Elizabeth Drewry*Katherine K Hines*Regina Moody*Marisa Sherard*Krista Ryba*Page Rogers*Elena Martinez-Vidal*Linda Gallicio*Catherine McCullough*Mary Louise Mims*Jill John*Kathy Belknap*Colleen Condon*Mary Jane Hassell*Natalie Kaufman*Dale Rosengarten*Amanda Payne*Della Jo Marshall*Marquerite Willis*Barbara Banus*Mateja Johnson*Clay Swaggart*Barbara Connelly*Sally Boyd*Margaret Feagin*Cappi Wilborn*Gayle Douglas*Mindy Johnson Saintsing*Ann Cotton*Audrey Shifflett*Gayle Douglas*Sylvia Echols*Helen Hicks*Allianne Duvall*Sally Boyd*Ann Stirling*Sheila Bickford*Rebecca Dobrasko*Becky Carr*Julie Tait*Diane Jerve*Alice Craighead*Norma Thompson*Betsey Grund*Eve Stacey*Pattie Robinson*Susan Pearlstine*Sandy Brooks Carr*Tina Forsthoefel*Linda Tarr-Whelan*Annie M Terry*Carol Dotterer*Kay K Chitty*Heather Ford*Terry Hussey*Cheryl  Lopanik Paschal*Martha Boynton*Rebecca Thompson*Natalie Dupree*Marsha Millar*Lucie Eggleston*Sue Inman*Dana Gencarelli*Libby Law*Diane Salane*Diane DeAngelis*Keller Cushing Freeman*Louise Bevan*Lucy Griffith*Mollie Fair*Dorothy Mungo* Dr J Kay Keels*Ellen Jean Capalbo*Ellen Graber Sinderman*Helen B Hicks*Lynn Nordenberg* Susan Biteyward*Helen H Farmer* Mary Sue McDaniel*Grace Dennis*Ellen Read*Sarah Smith Graham*Lauren Michalski*Cheri Crowley*Bailey Symington*Elaine Camp*Suzanne Galloway*Paula Gibbs*Jamee Haley*Gloria Douglass*Joanne Harper*Sheila Wertimer*Nancy Gilley*Kathryn Symington*Nan Johnson*Sandie Merriam*Rev Karin Bascom Culp*Evin Evans*Phyllis Martin*June Lee*Jenny Rone*Joyce Kaufman*Cynthia Gilliam*Stephanie Edwards*Libby Bernandin*Elise Evans*Alicia Mendicino*Sallie Duell*Susan Breslin*Lori Christopher Glenn*Susan Mathis*Mary Rose Randall *Betty Commanday*Diane Smith*Bonnie Gruetzmacher*Lucy Gordon*Karen Jones*Lucy Rollin*Susie Glenn*Karen Durand*Eleanor Evans*Toni White*Joyce Trogden*Drucilla Brookshire*Cynthia Smith*Brooke Caldwell*Sue Graber*Jean Denman*Polly Dunford*Diane Salane*Rheta Geddings DiNovo*Julie Dingle Swanson*Dot Gnann*Martha Hatfield*Melissa Herring*Laura Keenan*Mitzi Ganelin*Bonnie Smith*Sally Hare*Mary Rogers*Anna Griswold*Carolyn Means*Mary Hipp*Elaine Epstein*Beverly Guerre*Judi Murphy*Mimi Greenberger*Kathy Handel*Mary Ann Burgeson*Carlanna Hendrick*Barbara Kelley*Roxanne Cheney*Helena Fox*Janneke Vreede-Schaay*Gloria Bell*Valerie Bunch Hollinger*Toni White*Virginia Rone*Lynn Hanson*Nancy Jarema*Ann B Smith*Kate Heald*Jennifer Philips*Harriet Smartt*Diane S. Hirsch*Francee Levin*Susan Mathis*Cary Caines*Cam Patterson*Maria Kendall*Carol Plexico*Catherine Hammond*Lynne Ravenel*Stephanie Billioux*Jeanne Garane*Patricia Battey*Susan Hester*Carolyn Bishop-McLeod*Dr. Anne Osborne Kilpatrick*Michelle Shain*Olga Caballero*Cindi Boiter*Vickie Eslinger*Mary Elizabeth Blanchard*Chris Kenney*Helen LaFitte*Susan Shirley*Susan Hogue*Margaret Willis*Nancy Bloodgood*Glenda Owens*Jane Morlan*Nancy Tuten* Barbara Pinkerton*Lisa Rentz*Cassandra Fralix*Cecelia Byers*Patricia Barnes*Valerie Hollinger*Beverly McClanahan*Monica Boucher-Romano*Barbara Bettini*Anne Arrington*Sej Harman*Barbara James*Barbara Kelly*Barbara Burgess*Aleksandra Cahuhan*Liz Key*Coleen H Yates*Beth W Moore*Bee K Brown* Mary Burkett*Barbara Young*Beverly Hiller*Charlene Gardner* Renate Moore*Pamela Meadows*Mary Bundrick*Bootsie Terry*Gwendolyn Brown*Wanda Meade*Mary Bryan*Marian Brilliant*Brooke A McMurray*Katherine Brown*Susu Ravenel*Patricia Agner*Catherine McCullough*Amanda McNulty*Nancy Cave*Ashley Brown*Wendy Brown*Cary LaFaye*Laura Gates*Joan Rubenstein*Janet Swigler*Evadna Kronquist*Kathy McLeod*Louise A Allen*Joan McGee*Marsha Beazley*Margaret Glover Bruce*Virginia S Moe*Meg McLean*Lucinda Shirley*Grace Rice*Lil Mood*Andrena Ray*Teresa Bruce*Terry Murray*Elaine Fredendall*Cornelia McGhee*Betsey Carter*Edna Anderson*Jane Frederick*Sidney Heyward*Ann Dibble*Dottie Ashley*Carol Ervin*Jane McGee-Davis*Liz Carroll*JoAnne Liles*Martha Bryan*Carole Moore*Kathryn Rhyne*Audrey Shifflett*Marilyn Summers*Mimi McNeish*Kay F. Bodenheimer*Susan T. Julavits, Shirley Henderson* Helen H. Farmer*Dr. Alice McGill*Ethel Sims*Dr. Joann B. Morton*Cynthia Rosengren*Cynthia Setnicka*Linda G Sosbee*Betty Huntley*Bernadette Scott*Bonnie Dumas*Beth-Keyserling Kramer*Marilyn Shaw*Dr. Julia Lipovsky*Eva Dior*Cynthia B Carpenter*Sharon Smith-Matthews*Russell Holliday*Rachel Hodges*Eleanor Spicer*Barbara Warley*Catherine Campbell*Ellie Setser*Jennifer Parker*Connie McKeown*Marianne Currie*Francis Allison Close*Anne Springs Close*Caren Ross*Anne Frances Bleecker*Marianne Currie

Yep, there are a lot of Democrats on that list. But there are some Republicans, too. And some who might be nonpartisan like me, and those are the ones I care most about. After all, we independents are the ones who decide general elections. And independent women would seem to be more susceptible to the “let’s elect a woman!” mania that would lead the Identity Politics-oriented to disregard qualifications and vote for Nikki.

But I have to say that while it’s great that Harriet has gone to the considerable trouble of recruiting this list, I’m not sure how indicative it is of Sheheen’s strength.

Harriet is like me in this respect: Her list of acquaintances, and the acquaintances of her acquaintances, are likely to be highly engaged voters, whatever their political orientation. If only people who are highly knowledgeable about these two candidates voted, of course Sheheen would win in a walk. The more anyone knows about Nikki and Vincent, the less inclined one is to take a chance on Nikki.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of voters are not that engaged. They are more likely to vote according to party (and this is Republicans’ year), or on some fleeting glimpse of mass media (and Nikki was on the cover of Newsweek).

So it’s great that these 500 or 600 women are backing Vincent. But he needs many, many times that. And most of the ones he needs are hard to reach, by any means. The latest Rasmussen poll showed us that they just aren’t paying attention.

By the way, here is Harriet’s original letter:

Subject: Letter from former State Rep. Harriet Keyserling

Women Supporting Vincent Sheheen for Governor

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

I’m writing on behalf of a bi-partisan group of women who have long
hoped to see a qualified woman governor of South Carolina. Alas,
Nikki Haley is not that woman.

We support Vincent Sheheen for governor. He will lead us responsibly
to improved educational achievement, protection of our natural
resources and more and better jobs.

1. PRIORITIES:

How legislators vote best demonstrates their priorities. We are
alarmed that Haley voted to sustain Governor Mark Sanford’s budget
vetoes, which, if passed, wouldhave irreparably harmed the very
agencies South Carolina needs to attract new industries and provide a
future for our children.

Haley was one of the few legislators who voted for Sanford’s budget vetoes
on:

• K-12 Education – Extensive funding cuts to textbooks, buses, and
the prestigious Schools for Math and Science, and Arts and Humanities.
• Higher Education – Across-the-board cuts for all universities, which
already had less state support and higher tuitions than any other
Southern state; ending Clemson’s extension programs for farmers and
gardeners.
• Cultural Agencies – Crippling cuts to the State Museum; the State
Library, which services local libraries; the State Arts Commission,
which supplies grants for arts in our schools and local programs; ETV;
and the Department of Archives and History, which preserves our
historical records.
• Health Services – Severe cuts to state services for diabetes,
hypertension, infectious diseases, rural hospitals and community
health programs.

Haley abstained from voting on other vetoes her colleagues overrode
almost unanimously: Technical Education (106-0), Ethics Commission
(102-2)), Airports, (105-1) and Aid to County Governments, (97-9).

In contrast, Vincent Sheheen voted against these vetoes; the budget
sent to the Governor by the legislature was balanced, the money was in
hand, no taxes were raised. If Sanford and Haley had prevailed,
unemployment would have increased by thousands, and the infrastructure
for education, the economy and the humanities would have been weakened
for years to come.

2. INEFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

• In Haley’s six years in the House, she sponsored only one bill that
passed (relating to cosmetology).
• Haley chose confrontation to pursue her primary campaign issue of
transparency in government. Rather than reaching for compromise, Haley
traveled statewidewith Governor Sanford, campaigning against leaders
in her own party, garnering publicity for her own campaign. This kind
of leadership style would continue the present gridlock and stagnation
for years to come.

Haley was removed by the Republican leadership from the powerful
Labor, Commerce and Industry Committees, which she had hoped to chair,
because of these issues and more.

In contrast, Sheheen has led bi-partisan reforms, including tax reform
and restructuring state government for more efficiency. Sheheen also
led the successful floor fight for the Conservation Bank. The South
Carolina Chamber of Commerce endorsed him, noting his ability to work
with others, as did the Conservation Voters of South Carolina for his
outstanding environmental record.

3. STAND ON PUBLIC EDUCATION

• Haley did not attend one meeting or subcommittee meeting in 2010 as
a member of the Education Committee, where policy is molded,
indicating her disinterest in our public schools and colleges.
• Haley vigorously supports vouchers and tax credits for private schools.

In contrast, Sheheen strongly supports public education following the
tradition of his mother, a teacher in the public schools for 30 years.
He strongly opposes diverting public funds to vouchers for private
schools.

4. HYPOCRISY

• Haley calls for transparency with mandatory roll call votes, but
personally avoids it. According to Sen. Larry Martin (R.), Chairman
of the Senate Rules Committee (The State, June 24), Haley could easily
have asked for roll call votes on any sections of the budget, but she
did not.
• Haley would not release her e-mails, although every other government
official, including the governor, must legally do so if requested.
Although the Legislature exempted itself from the law, there is no
reason Haleycould not do so if she wished.
• Haley did not declare on her legislative ethics statement the
$40,500 consulting fee that was paid to her by a private company to
“make contacts” for them.

In contrast, Sheheen has released ten years of tax records and his
e-mails.

For all these reasons, we support Sheheen. We hope to have 100 women
sign on to this message, which we will spread across the state before
Election Day by Internet and in the media. We hope you will be one of
them.

Please forward this to five or more friends.

Thank you,

Harriet Keyserling