Category Archives: South Carolina

Hey, I’ll know this Linda Ketner person is serious if and when she seeks the UnParty nomination

I’ve had it pointed out to me a couple of times that Linda Ketner from down Charleston way is possibly going to run as an independent against the formidable, ever-ambitious Jim DeMint and the undefeated Democratic champion Alvin Greene:

As if the U.S. Senate race in South Carolina wasn’t surprising enough, supporters of Linda Ketner — the Democratic candidate who put up a tough fight for Congress two years ago — are launching a last-minute drive to add her to the ballot.
And the petition to add the Charleston businesswoman and philanthropist as an independent candidate is circulating rapidly through Facebook and other social media.
Ketner, meanwhile, is keeping mum. Doug Warner, the finance director for her unsuccessful 2008 bid for Henry Brown’s 1st District congressional seat, said he spoke with her Tuesday before he and about eight other organizers launched the petition. He asked her to give the petition a chance to show bipartisan, grass-roots support, then make a decision on whether to run, Warner said.
‘I know that she is thinking about it,’ he said.

But I ask you, how can I take her seriously as a candidate when she hasn’t even approached the UnParty to seek its endorsement? I mean, really. Let’s keep a sense of perspective here, people.

Two happy customers of bradwarthen.com

Steve Benjamin and Seth Rose before Columbia Rotary Club meeting.

Steve Benjamin and Seth Rose before the Columbia Rotary Club meeting.

A good time was had by all at the Columbia Rotary Club today.

First, I got to sit with the lovely Shop Tart, whom our own Kathryn Fenner introduced to the Club as the authoress of her “second favorite blog.” I’m sure the Tart was suitably flattered.

Kathryn also introduced the main speaker, Columbia Mayor-Elect Steve Benjamin. Who, to beat a cliche within an inch of its undeserving life, actually needed no introduction, since he’s a member of our club.

Anyway, Steve said a lot of good stuff. And I was reminded of a reason I was glad he was elected: When asked about such delicate matters as whether he’s for a strong-mayor form or government or for the Midlands Housing Alliance’s effort, he comes right out and says he supports them. Which is a level of risk-taking we haven’t seen at City Hall. Here’s hoping the gamble pays off for us all.

Finally, quick, what do the recent electoral winners pictured above have in common, aside from the fact that they’re both members of my Rotary Club? That’s right: The thing that MAKES them both winners is that they both advertised on bradwarthen.com.

Hey, that’s my theory, and it fits the available facts…

Dems say 6 GOP candidates not legit

Just got this from the state Democratic Party:

Up to Six Republican Candidates Break Financial Disclosure Law, Ineligible for Ballot
Republican Candidates Hiding Financial Information From Public, Party Bosses Fighting to Cover Track

COLUMBIA- As many as six statewide Republican candidates are ineligible to be on the ballot in both Tuesday’s runoff and the November general election, said South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler on Monday. South Carolina law dictates that candidates maintain financial transparency by filing Statements of Economic Interest by March 30, and grants a grace period of five days.  At the end of that grace period, candidates who have failed to comply with the law are barred from appearing on the primary ballot, or, in the event that they do appear, are barred from certification to appear on the November ballot.

Among the affected Republicans are Lt. Governor candidate Bill Connor, Attorney General candidate Alan Wilson, and incumbent Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom. Republican State Superintendent of Education candidates Elizabeth Moffly and Mick Zais and Adjutant General candidate Bob Livingston also failed to comply with the law within the time allowed.  The law reads very clearly, stating:

[SC ST SEC 8-13-1356]
(E) An officer authorized to receive declarations of candidacy and petitions for nominations under the provisions of Chapter 11 of Title 7 may not accept a declaration of candidacy or petition for nomination unless the declaration or petition is accompanied by a statement of economic interests. If the candidate’s name inadvertently appears on the ballot, the officer authorized to receive declarations of candidacy or petitions for nomination must not certify the candidate subsequent to the election.

[SC Code of Regulations 52-607]
B. A Statement of Economic Interests shall be filed as follows:
(2) A person who has not filed a Statement of Economic Interests in the same calendar year as his declaration for candidacy or petition for nomination shall complete the entire Statement of Economic Interests Form for the preceding calendar year and file the entire Statement with the official with whom the candidate files his declaration of candidacy or petition for nomination.


D. The Commission will review the Candidate’s Roster and Statements of Economic Interests, Information Pages and certify to the election official that the candidates have properly filed in which case the candidates’ names may appear on the election ballot. Any candidate who fails to file a Statement of Economic Interests shall not have his name appear on the election ballot. It is the responsibility of the official receiving the declaration of candidacy or petition for nomination to insure that each candidate has filed.

“The South Carolina Republican Party should never have allowed these individuals to be candidates, much less allowed four of them into runoff elections.  The South Carolina Republican Party doesn’t have the authority to decide who is eligible to appear on the ballot:  the law does.  Every Democratic candidate has been open and honest with the voters of South Carolina, while the Republican Party and their candidates have conducted themselves as though they are above the law,” said Fowler.  “This is just the latest insult to the taxpayers perpetrated by the South Carolina Republican Party; not only do they believe that Mrs. Haley is entitled to hide e-mails she sent on a taxpayer-funded computer and conceal thousands of dollars in income from a company with business before the state legislature, but they are actively covering up the failure of their candidates to comply with the law.  After eight years of failed policies from Mark Sanford, it’s time for new leadership and real transparency in South Carolina.”

Background
http://www.scdp.org//public/files/docs/background_chart.pdf

Paid for by the South Carolina Democratic Party – 1.800.841.1817 or www.scdp.org
and not authorized by any federal candidate or candidate’s committee.

But I’m sure Andre appreciates the mention

Nikki Haley has a party going on tonight. Where? Here:

Please join us tonight at 6:30 at the Wild Wings off Bauer Parkway in Irmoabout 1 hour ago via Twitter for Android

Shortly thereafter, she sent out this update:

Correction: Wilds Wings off BOWER Parkway at 6:30 this eveningabout 1 hour ago via Twitter for Android

Not that he made any kind of impression on her during the campaign or anything.

I’m not even going to mention the mistake on the name of the place…

The Greene family reunion T-shirt

Heard about these the other day, and reTweeted something about them. I even facetiously told my wife that’s what I wanted for Father’s Day.

But not really. My sense of enjoyment of the absurd doesn’t extend to enjoying the fact that SC politics is this dysfunctional. I think it’s too sad.

Republicans, however, sick of being (deservedly) the punch line for so long, are just enjoying the heck out of it. The above is from Shell Suber, via Facebook.

The video ad that Leighton Lord DID approve

Before writing that past post, I wrote to Leighton Lord to ask:

Leighton, does this video have anything to do with your campaign? If not, do you know who’s doing this?

He wrote back:

B, this is our spot, below, don’t who the Truth Squad is.  Not my campaign.

Above (not below) is the ad that he takes responsibility for. As you see, it starts out with a MUCH milder, less wacky Tea Party-ish version of the same sentiment Henry McMaster was going after in “Vultures.” Or perhaps the same IDEA, I should say. Lord is very much about reason, not emotion.

Beyond that, I think he makes his case well that he’s better prepared to be the state’s attorney general than Alan Wilson is. (And you’ll note he makes the same points as the mystery video, except for the “Daddy” part.) That’s not so say anything bad about Alan; I think he’s a good guy. But he doesn’t have Lord’s resume. And that business about Lord not being a prosecutor is a red herring, given the job they’re running for.

Who is the “SC Truth Squad?”

Here’s an interesting little last-minute puzzle.

See the above video. Note that it’s an attack video against Alan Wilson, yet not approved by his runoff opponent Leighton Lord. It’s from a group calling itself the “South Carolina Truth Squad.” It’s a South Carolina classic, having a PO Box but no physical office address, Web site or any other overt presence (you know, like Alvin Greene).

If you wrack your brain, and the Web, for an answer to the question, “Why does ‘South Carolina Truth Squad’ sound so familiar?” you’ll see that it’s the name of that pro-Obama group that was the vehicle for Dick Harpootlian and others to attack the Clintons back in January 2008. I wrote about it back here. Dave Barry wrote about it, tangentially, here.

So are Dick et al. getting their licks in early, assuming Wilson will be the nominee. I doubt it, while not discounting the possibility entirely.

Meanwhile, the Wilson campaign has put out this release:

EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION
FROM: Robert Bolchez, former Republican candidate for Attorney General
Over the past 24 hours. we have called as many Republicans as possible and left a recorded message about an incredible last minute dirty trick someone has launched during the final hours of the Attorney General’s race.
PLEASE MAKE ALL YOUR FRIENDS AWARE OF THIS:
A mysterious group calling itself the S.C. Truth Squad is spending over a hundred thousand dollars to pay for last minute TV ads attacking Alan Wilson.  And it’s important for Republican voters not to be deceived by these underhanded tactics.  I can assure you that those ads are either misleading or completely untrue
As you know, until last Tuesday I was a Republican candidate for Attorney General. Now that I’m no longer in the race, I have offered my full support to Alan Wilson.
Alan is now the ONLY prosecutor in the race.  He’s also a decorated combat veteran and he’s the only candidate who’s actually served as an Assistant Attorney General.  By far, Alan is best qualified for the job.
Again, please tell all your friends that the TV ads attacking Alan Wilson are NOT true.  In the race for attorney general, Alan is by far best qualified to protect our families.
I ask you to join me in supporting Alan in the runoff election tomorrow.  Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Bolchoz
One assumes Robert Bolchoz was involved, even though his name is misspelled in the “from” line.

Funny thing about all this mystery — the video’s not all that out of line. One can believe an actual campaign would claim it. Sure, it goes overboard to be unfair, such as when it says “The truth is, the only notable thing in Alan Wilson’s background is being a congressman’s son.” Actually, I think his being a combat veteran is notable, even though its relevance to the post he’s seeking is questionable.

In fact, the tone is no more negative than the tone in the ad below that Wilson actually posts on his Web site.

As for substance in these ads, such as it is? Well, I think Lord’s experience running a big law firm is more relevant and impressive than young Alan’s short time as a prosecutor. For what that’s worth. (And calling his Daddy “our conservative hero Joe Wilson” is for me the biggest turnoff in either ad.)

Want to see a REAL cigarette tax increase?

Just so you know what a real, honest-to-goodness, serious cigarette tax increase looks like, check this out:

Cigarette taxes in New York would jump by $1.60 a pack under a tentative deal reached between Gov. David A. Paterson and legislative leaders, which would give New York the nation’s highest state cigarette taxes.

The proposal, which officials said Mr. Paterson would include in an emergency budget bill due for a vote on Monday, would also raise wholesale taxes on other tobacco products like chewing tobacco, bringing the tax on those products closer in line with those of cigarettes.

In New York City, which levies steep taxes of its own on tobacco products, a pack of cigarettes would come with a tax of $5.85, making it the nation’s first city to break $5, antismoking advocates said. That would bring the overall cost of a pack of premium cigarettes above $10 in many stores in the city.

And we’ve been patting ourselves on the backs about the one big achievement of the 2010 legislative session — a whopping 50-cent increase from our lowest-in-the-nation 7-cent tax, which we had to wait about a decade for.

That means our TOTAL state cigarette tax, after our increase, is just over ONE-THIRD of the INCREASE that New York just did in one little hop. And the tax on a pack of cigarettes in New York City is MORE THAN TEN TIMES the new tax here in SC.

Yeah, I know; you have to crawl before you can walk. But still.

Mind you, I can’t really point to anything else our lawmakers tried to do this year to catch us up to the rest of the country in any regard. We just have this one tiny bit of progress. I was suitably proud of us for it. At least it meant we had done ONE of the things that was on my list of “South Carolina’s unfinished business” I wrote about when I left the paper. Sure, it was one of the two really easy ones I tacked onto the end of the column, as suggestions for something to warm up on before we really got down to work. But it was the first actual, measurable progress I had seen on anything in years — probably since Mark Sanford became governor.

So New York goes and makes our accomplishment look ridiculous. This is humiliating.

You suppose they did it on purpose? Those Yankees do like to mock us

That was an unfortunate picture of Nikki today

I’m talking about the one in the paper today.

Made her face look fat. Don’t you think? Nikki does NOT look like that.

In fact, if anything, she’s too skinny. She looks great in photos because the camera adds 10 pounds, and she could use 10 pounds. In person, I always worry about her; she just looks too thin.

But this camera must have been turned up to 30 pounds. This is not our Nikki.

Just wanted to let y’all know, I will stick up for Nikki when the situation calls for it — I mean, she’s a lady and all — even though the idea of her being governor appalls me.

Vic Rawl throws in the towel

This just in from Vic Rawl:

STATEMENT FROM VIC RAWL
A few moments ago, I sent the following letter to my supporters:
Dear Friend:
The last ten days have been extraordinary.
But for me and Laura, it is the months before that are far more important. I cannot express our gratitude for your support during the campaign and in the days since the primary election.
We hold our heads high, and know that the friendship of people like you is far more important in life that the outcome of any election.
I wanted you to hear from me that we will not be appealing last night’s decision by the Democratic Executive Committee to reject our protest of the election results. My campaign for the United States Senate has ended.
The issues we raised about the lack of election integrity in South Carolina are real, and they are not going away unless people act. I assure you that I will continue to speak out about our frail, vulnerable and unverifiable election system in the months to come.
I also feel strongly that the Democratic Party needs major reform of the rules and procedures regarding ballot qualification, protests and many other areas. This is critical to strengthen the Party and make it broadly competitive in our state.
Let me also take a moment to thank our volunteers. They gave selflessly of their time and talent toward making our state better. I also deeply thank my staff, a talented and dedicated group of professionals who were champions both before and after June 8th.
Thank you again for your support – this race was for you.

“We are not Confederates.” See, that was easy

Back on a previous post, Greg Jones said:

On a final note; do any of the German government buildings still fly the Nazi flag?
Just asking.

To which I gladly replied, No, they do NOT, Greg. The Germans decided to draw a line, to say going forward, “We are not Nazis.”

Unfortunately, South Carolina has not yet decided to declare to the world, “We are not Confederates.”

And therein lies the problem.

At this point, the “heritage” crowd will get apoplectic, and scream about how the Confederacy and the war it started is completely different from the Nazis and the war they started, with different causes, different motivations and different kinds of moral culpability.

But the BIGGEST way in which they are different is that the Germans are able to say, “We know our history and will never forget it. But we HAVE learned from it. And we can say unequivocally, that is not what we are about any more.”

And South Carolinians, who should be able to do the same, do not. In fact, the Republicans seeking to become our next governor deliberately, meekly submit themselves to, and do their best to pass, an ideological purity test administered by people who think the exact same conflict over the exact same issues continues today, and who are continuing the struggle.

The boycott will NEVER (and should not) get the flag down

On a previous post, there was an exchange between the two Michaels: Michael Rodgers, who believes passionately as I do that the Confederate flag should not be flying on our State House grounds, and “Michael P.,” who seems to disagree.

The exchange had to do with the NAACP’s boycott of South Carolina over the flag. Michael Rodgers had asserted (in his defense, as but one of five reasons, the other four being perfectly legitimate) that the boycott was a reason to take the flag down. With THAT, I had to respectfully disagree.

We MUST remove the flag from the grounds. But in order to accomplish it, we must first ignore the NAACP’s efforts to FORCE the state to do so, and get others to ignore it as well. It’s a necessary precondition to getting to the point that we do the right thing.

It is my firm belief that the absurd, ineffective NAACP boycott is one of the things keeping the flag up. It plays to the cranky white neo-Confederate’s sense of persecution. And it plays to the genetic predisposition of white South Carolinians (including those who could easily be persuaded to put the flag away otherwise) to never, EVER let anyone MAKE them do something.

I have that genetic predisposition, so I understand it. Allow me to explain: If flying the flag at the State House is the right thing to do, then NO amount of economic pressure should EVER induce us to take it down. Coercion should be resisted at every point along the line. If flying the flag is right, we could keep flying it even if the boycott were successful, even if it starved us.

The thing is, it is NOT right to fly the flag. But since the NAACP gets all the ink and has positioned itself in the mindless media (which is always all about a FIGHT rather than reason) as THE opposition to flying the flag, there is no way most white South Carolinians are going to go along with someone who is trying (however unsuccessfully) to HURT them into making them do its will. That fact, that the NAACP is doing its damnedest to try to hurt SC, obscures the wrongness of the flag for the white majority.

We’re talking about the white MAJORITY instead of the wacky neo-Confederate activists. The majority that can take the flag or leave it alone, that neither weeps for the Lost Cause nor sits up nights fretting about the social injustice of flying the flag in the faces of black people who are also citizens of our state.

The majority, in short, that needs to be won over. These folks don’t want to ally themselves necessarily with the people who play Confederate dress-up, but they don’t want to side with the people trying to hurt SC. And unfortunately, as long as the media continue to paint the issue as one off conflict between the extremes, as a mandatory choice between those options, the average person who just doesn’t want to spend time thinking about it wants to stay out of the whole thing, would prefer it not be brought up at all.

For those people — and we’re talking about at least a plurality of people in this state, defined as having the above-described attitude — there is an all-too-convenient default position: Embrace the “compromise” that in the minds of intellectually lazy people “settled” the issue.

And we’re never going to be able to deal with that problem as long as the NAACP continues to wage its farcical boycott. Unfortunately, I see little chance of the NAACP dropping it. It is an organization that, sadly, has become defined by conflict. Drop the conflict, and too many people in the group’s leadership would feel that they’d lost their raison d’etre.

So we have a HUGE challenge before us — changing the conversation so that it is NOT about those people on the two sides of that conflict caricature.

We need to move South Carolina to a more mature place. In fact, I’ve never seen removing the flag as the goal. I see the flag going away as a sure SIGN that the real goal has been achieved. And the goal is a South Carolina that has decided, in its own collective heart and mind, that it has outgrown such foolishness. That we are bright enough to understand that relics of history — particularly such painful history — belong in museums, and should not be given present life at the center of our public, common existence. And that we are one people, with common interests and respect for one another, having outgrown the desire to wave defiance in each other’s faces.

THAT’S the goal, growing up as a people. Once we do that, the flag will become a footnote of history.

Cheerleaders for failure keep shaking pom-poms

In case you’re wondering what the folks who cheer for South Carolina to fail are thinking today, here’s a brief snippet from the S.C. Policy Council:

thenervesc

lawmakers have turned off the unproductive tax-dollar spigot for hydrogen research funding, at least for one year.http://bit.ly/dAexDCabout 1 hour ago via bitly

Oh, and what do I mean by saying they’re cheering for South Carolina to fail? Well, you know, just like all those Republicans who are cheering for the U.S. economy to keep failing, especially in light of the stimulus. Or all those Democrats who cheered for the U.S. to fail in Iraq (and in fact couldn’t wait, but kept wanting to rush the process by declaring it already a failure). Or the Sanford allies who do the same with regard to public education.

You know, like that.

Senate wasting time on voter ID

While we all wait for the Senate to act on the Sanford vetoes overridden by the House (an override doesn’t stick unless both chambers do it), Mike Fitts reports that they are busy squabbling over a partisan litmus-test issue:

With dozens of vetoes overturned by the House headed to the Senate for consideration, that legislative body was entangled this morning in a Democrat-led filibuster over voter I.D. legislation. Democrats fear the bill would disenfranchise thousands of people, especially the poor, who often do not have drivers’ licenses or easy access to their birth certificates.

Yeah, I know that many people of goodwill on both sides — people I respect — think there is a huge principle involved here, and that the consequences of their losing the fight would be dire. But I remain unpersuaded.

As I’ve written in the past, including one of my very last columns at the paper, I am unpersuaded by both sides. The GOP claims they must stop widespread voter fraud. The Dems claim they are trying to prevent wholesale disenfranchisement. I frankly think any fraud that actually occurs, or people who would even be inconvenienced by voter ID, are few and far between, and not enough to determine the outcome of elections.

But you say, isn’t ONE case of voter fraud an outrage? Isn’t a single person denied the right to vote a sin against democracy?

Look, call me heartless or apathetic, but I take the 30,000-foot view on this. I’m looking at the forest. To me, the staggering numbers of people who vote with NO idea who they are voting for or why is a MUCH greater threat  to democracy than these rare phenomena the two parties are obsessing over.

Doubt me? Well, then, I have two words for you: Alvin Greene.

Nikki and the neo-Confederates

“Nikki and the neo-Confederates”… Hey, THAT could be a name for my band! Kind of Katrina-and-the-Wave-ish. I wonder if Nikki would agree to front us?

Just though y’all might be interested in viewing the video of Nikki Haley and the other candidates seeking the endorsement of a group called “South Carolina Palmetto Patriots.” And who are the “South Carolina Palmetto Patriots” aside from folks with a certain affinity for redundancy? Well, by their agendas ye shall know them. To quote from the group’s “2010 Agenda:”

The Federal government has stolen our liberties and rights and nullified our ability to self govern as a state. It is the obligation of all people of our great state to restore unto ourselves and our children these inalienable rights as set forth in The Constitution of the United States of America.

Mind you, that’s the preamble to their 2010 Agenda, and not their 1860 Agenda. Don’t believe me? Here it is.

You think maybe I’m kidding when I say the GOP this year has spun so far out that the worst thing you can call a Republican candidate, in his estimation, is a “moderate?” All four gubernatorial hopefuls dutifully sat down and earnestly answered this group’s questions. Did they do that for any group that YOU belong to?

I didn’t watch all of it. I couldn’t. But if you want to here’s the link. And here’s the first clip from Nikki’s interview:

What, precisely, was Carol Fowler supposed to do?

Last evening on “Pub Politics” when I was on either my first or second very tall Yuengling (and thanks much to the Kincannon Law Firm for sponsoring the show and springing for the brewskis), we got onto the subject, inevitably, of Alvin Greene.

This, of course, was Thad Viers’ cue to start saying, over and over, “Green-Sheheen… Green Sheheen…” Or was it “Sheheen-Green?” I forget. Seems to me the scansion or something works better the first way…

But the rest of us engaged in trying to answer the kinds of questions that the guy in Paris was asking me this morning: How did this happen? Who was to blame?

One of the guys — probably Wesley, he being the Republican in the host duo — blamed Carol Fowler, Democratic Party chair.

But I protested. What, exactly, was Carol supposed to do? She’s the chair of the Democratic Party (or, as Thad would say, the “Democrat Party”). So is she really supposed to tell a poor black man, No, you can’t run for office?

As it was, she got paternalistic enough to give one pause, if one is inclined to get touchy on behalf of the powerless and clueless. This from Corey Hutchins’ report from BEFORE the primary (the only such enterprise reporting on Greene, when it could have done some good, that I’ve seen):

The candidate, a 32-year-old unemployed black Army veteran named Alvin Greene, walked into the state Democratic Party headquarters in March with a personal check for $10,400. He said he wanted to become South Carolina’s U.S. senator.

Needless to say, Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler was a bit surprised.

Fowler had never met Greene before, she says, and the party isn’t in the habit of taking personal checks from candidates filing for office. She told Greene that he’d have to start a campaign account if he wanted to run. She asked him if he thought it was the best way to invest more than $10,000 if he was unemployed.

How much further was she supposed to push it?

And while the party regulars certainly had a preferred candidate, just how far were they supposed to go in saying, Hey, vote for this white guy we like instead of this black guy we don’t even know? To what extent does an Equal Opportunity party do that?

Maybe there’s something I’m missing. Help me out here.

‘I am not a moderate.’ That just says it all…

First, an apology: I realize it’s unfair to single out this one thing that Gresham Barrett said in his interview with The State. There was a lot of other information in the piece, and I learned things about him I hadn’t known — or had forgotten. I recommend that anyone who plans to vote in next Tuesday’s runoff and is undecided read it.

But I tend to zero in on telling details, and this one really struck me — not for what it says about Gresham Barrett, but for what it tells us about what’s going on in the Tea Party-besieged GOP:

Barrett said he’s been on the receiving end of more attacks, including a Haley TV ad, than any other Republican gubernatorial candidates “My record over the last several months has been distorted. I am not a liberal. I am not a moderate. … Unfortunately, a lot of people have disagreed with my TARP vote and can’t get over it. There’s nothing I can do about that. It is what it is.”

Let’s hear that again:

“I am not a moderate.”

God forbid he should be seen as anything but an extremist. Obviously, he (like pretty much all the Republicans this year) believes that would be political death. Which reminds us why I simply could not see endorsing, or voting for, any of the GOP gubernatorial hopefuls this year — which is a real departure for me.

Now, to highlight some of the good stuff I learned about him from the piece: He remains unafraid to differentiate himself from Mark Sanford, at least in small ways. I knew that he did not hesitate to criticize him in the past. But this year, Republicans all seem to be doing a calculation that goes like this: What’s going on? The voters — at least MY voters, who are usually sensible conservatives — all seem to have lost their minds this year! How can I stay on their good side? What’s my guide? Oh, yeah — Mark Sanford! HIS ideas are totally nuts… since the voters have gone nuts, maybe they’d like it if I act like HIM… and so forth. But Gresham Barrett is saying no to that, at least to some extent.

And that means voters (or at least, those who did not vote in the Democratic primary) have an actual choice next Tuesday. Not that he has a chance, but at least they do have a choice, between an actual conservative Republican, and a Sanfordista who talks about being a conservative (and not so much a Republican).

Apparently, the B&C Board has lost the big one

Looks like maybe the governor won — meaning South Carolina lost — on the big Budget and Control Board $25 million vote, according to James Smith via Twitter this afternoon:

RepJamesSmith

25 million eliminated from B&C Board jeopardizes our AAA credit rating & eliminates 800 MHz radio funding essential for emergency response.

Actually, I wrote this post right after getting that Tweet late this afternoon. But then I got another Tweet from Anton Gunn saying that wasn’t right, and I got confused, and I had to go do “Pub Politics,” so I took this post down. But everything I’ve seen since then indicates James was right the first time: The $25 million veto has been sustained. So this post is back up.

That’s all I know right now. If you’ll recall, this is the veto that Frank Fusco said would key functions of the Board. To quote, he said:

If our General Fund budget is not restored, these areas of the Board would have to virtually cease operation:

• The State Budget Office

• The SCEIS statewide financial system

• The Board of Economic Advisors

• The Office of Human Resources

• The Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum

More when I know more.

But if this report is right, there are essentially no grownups in charge over at the State House.

Folks, just so you know where we all stand: I agree 100 percent with the governor that the Budget and Control Board should not exist. In fact, I’m pretty sure he got the idea from ME.

But until we actually do away with it, it actually performs a lot of vital government tasks (which would be performed by the executive branch in a more rational system, but we don’t have such a system — all we have is the B&C Board). To simply eliminate its funding, thereby making it impossible for it to perform these tasks, is simply insane. It’s anarchistic. It’s nihilistic. It’s appalling. It’s… it’s … South Carolina.

We’re making one heck of an international impression

It’s just not the sort a sane person would want to make.

As I was getting out of a vehicle to walk to the State House right after lunch today, I got a call on the Blackberry from Paris. Caller ID said the number was … well, there were 11 digits. To summarize the phone call, I quote from the e-mail I found when I got back to the office:

Good Morning M. Warthen,

I am a french journalist, working for a french national private media
called Radio Classique.
I am working today on a story about Alvin Greene and the democrat
candidacy.
It would be very interesting for me to talk to you about that and may be
doing a short interview by phone.
Is it possible ?
It would be great.
May be within two hours or tomorrow morning your time ?

It would be great and very interesting.

thank you very much.

Best regards.

Marc Tedde
Radio Classique

I asked if he also wanted to talk about all the Nikki Haley stuff. He didn’t know about any of that. Just as well.

Just what South Carolina needs.

Anyway, we’re going to do the interview tomorrow morning — afternoon, his time, morning our time. I’m going to let him call me again, rather than vice versa, I assure you.

See me on “Pub Politics” today at 6

Phil Bailey just called to ask me to fill in on the show this evening for Thad Viers, since it looks like the House is going to go into the night on the vetoes (he said they were on No. 46 or something).

Yes, that’s “Pub Politics,” the very show on which Sen. Jake Knotts called certain parties “ragheads,” or so I’m told. Somehow, Phil and Wes (Donehue) have yet to get around to posting that episode where I can see it. (In the paper this morning, it was, oddly enough, referred to as an “Internet radio show.” Maybe things have changed. Both times I was on it, there was video.)

Anyway, this is a special occasion, in that I will be the first and ONLY member of the “Three-Timers Club.” Maybe it’s not as prestigious as the club Steve Martin and Elliott Gould and Paul Simon and Tom Hanks belong to, but I take my honors where I can get them.

You can watch the show here.