Category Archives: South Carolina

Pore ol’ Henry can’t even get his picture in the paper anymore

So, do you think Nikki will take it all tonight?

I sort of do. If you look at all the trends of the last couple of weeks — the ads from ReformSC, the Palin endorsement, the sympathy-generating scandals, the even-more-sympathy-generating ethnic slur, poll after poll with her numbers higher in each (which is something that feeds on itself), the constant free media (hey, all she needs is that they spell her name right) while her opponents fade into the background (or air embarrassing commercials, such as that awful Gresham Barrett one with the drill sergeant), and the fact that, independent of all that, Nikki Haley has just felt like a candidate with the Big Mo for weeks now (she was the most poised and confident I’ve ever seen her at that Palin rally)…

I feel like she’s peaking, and could surpass 50 percent tonight. Do y’all sense that?

Of course, the odds are slightly against it, but there’s a good chance.

It also occurs to me that Vincent Sheheen might do the same, but that’s more doubtful. His rise in the polls has been quieter and far less meteoric. Force me to bet, and I’d bet he’s in a runoff, which he will win. But Nikki? She just might win the whole thing today…

South Carolina continues to entertain — which is why I voted for Vincent

20 Replies

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c

Thank You, South Carolina – The Race to Replace Disgrace

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

Some alert readers brought my attention to Jon Stewart’s latest (well-deserved) mockery of South Carolina. Punch line, as in previous celebrations of our state (such as this one, and this one): “With all the terrible things going on in the world… Thank you, South Carolina! We really needed this!”

Entertaining, yes. But I’m tired of my state being a national joke, which is why I voted for change today.

Bob Inglis in trouble for thinking for himself

1 Reply

At least, that’s what I assume, based on what little I’ve heard about that race this year.

Today, Mike Fitts brought my attention to this piece on a Congressional Quarterly blog:

Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) appears to be headed to a runoff against Spartanburg County Solicitor Trey Gowdy (R) and his chances in that contest don’t look good, according to a new survey by Public Policy Polling.

Gowdy leads Inglis 37 percent to 33 percent while a trio of other GOP candidates each took less than 10 percent, according to an automated telephone survey of 300 likely 4th district GOP primary voters….

Gowdy is running as the anti-establishment candidate while attacking Inglis for moving to the center of the ideological spectrum since returning to Congress in 2004 (he served a six-year stint in the House in the 1990s).

Gowdy polled better among voters who identified themselves as part of the Tea Party movement and appears much more likely to pick up those voters who pick one of the second tier candidates on Tuesday. Meanwhile Inglis won’t be helped by the fact that 45 percent of 4th district GOP primary voters said they disapprove of the direction the Republican party is headed while just 26 percent said they approve.

This is extremely ironic. I first heard of Bob Inglis when he came out of nowhere as a sort of Stealth candidate of the right wing of the GOP. The MSM had no idea he was going to beat Democrat Liz Patterson. There was muttering about how he had done all his campaigning through churches rather than the usual channels — this was about the time that the religious right was making its move in the SC GOP, a wave that David Beasley would ride to the governor’s office after making his party switch.

Bob was from the beginning a true believer, an absolute opponent of wasteful spending. He earned my respect by being the only member of the SC delegation to vote against highway spending that would have benefited his own district. Politicians just didn’t do that — but Bob did.

He has continued to go his own way in the years since, and I don’t always agree with him — for instance, I think he was wrong to oppose the Petraeus troop surge in Iraq. But I’ve always respected him for having guts, and for thinking for himself. That’s all too rare in Washington today.

But the Republicans in his district — indeed, throughout our state, judging by the governor’s race — apparently don’t want that anymore. Frankly, watching the Tea Party and such, I’m getting to where I wonder whether they know what they want.

How’s the turnout where YOU are?

10 Replies

Note how empty my polling place was this morning at 10:50 a.m. Of course, this wasn’t exactly morning rush hour, and it was before the busy lunch hour, but still. Take a look at the pictures back here to see what it looked like on Election Day 2008 at the Quail Hollow precinct. In a big-turnout election, it would have taken me an hour of standing in the queue outside before I got to the doorway where I took the picture above.

But the poll workers said this was good turnout for a state primary. How good was it? At 10:55, when I left, there had been 218 voters in the Republican primary, and 31 (including me) choosing a Democratic ballot (for which I felt like I had to mutter an excuse along the lines of “I’m just fed up with those Republicans this year” — like they cared or something).

I disenfranchised myself for ONE positive vote, and it was worth it

3 Replies

On the day of the Republican presidential primary in January 2008, I dropped by the office to check on things, and wandered through the newsroom to see what they knew, if anything.

I was wearing one of those “I Voted” stickers that the Palmetto Project gives out to encourage civic engagement. I’ve always proudly worn one on election days as a visible symbol of being one who cares enough to make the effort, without revealing anything inappropriate (for a newspaper editor) about how I voted.

But John Monk remarked upon it, saying, “I see you voted Republican.” Dang! I had completely forgotten the insane fact that the parties had insisted upon having separate primaries a week apart (yet another reason to hate parties). Flustered, I just said, “Well, of course I did.” If I had thought there was any danger of Barack Obama losing the Democratic primary, I would have had a dilemma on my hands. But while I thought McCain would win the GOP contest, I wasn’t sure of it, and I was damned if I was going to fail to do my bit to prevent my state from committing the travesty it had in 2000, when it gave George W. Bush to the world. It just had never occurred to me not to vote in that primary.

Of course, if you live in the Quail Hollow precinct in Lexington County, you’re accustomed to voting in Republican primaries, if only because that’s the only way you get any choices at all. This morning when I asked for a Democratic ballot, I could not remember ever having done so before since I’ve lived there.

And of course, as a result of taking that ballot, I was disenfranchised in terms of who will be my congressman, my lieutenant governor, my treasurer, my attorney general, my SC House member, and my county councilman. In every one of those, there was no Democratic contest, and in two of them (treasurer and county council) no Democrat at all; in those two this WAS the election (and in several of the others it might as well be).

But it was worth it to cast a positive vote. Yeah, I guess I could have held my nose and hoped that Henry McMaster would govern the way he has served as attorney general, rather than the way he has run as a candidate, and thereby minimized Nikki’s margin of victory. But by taking a Democratic ballot, I actually got to vote for someone I actually want to be my governor, without any reservations. And as I’ve said over and over again, electing the right governor is FAR more important than what happens with any other office. We have got to turn this state around, and as weak as the office of governor is, it’s the one office with a bully enough pulpit to make a difference. No matter how perfect my House member may be, he’s just one vote out of 170, and can’t make news (and thereby influence policy) with a mere word.

And I feel good about it. After all the slime we’ve been dragged through over on the Republican side, from talk about who’s bedding whom to “Vultures” to … well, I just don’t even want to think about it. After all that, to vote positively, without reservation, was a great relief.

If I were endorsing, I’d endorse Vincent Sheheen

29 Replies

Ignore what I wrote in that last post. It does Vincent Sheheen a great disservice, by suggesting the reason to pick a Democratic ballot and vote for him tomorrow is simply because of the mere absence of negativity in his campaign.

He deserves a much more positive endorsement than that, for the simple reason that he is far and away the best candidate running for governor in 2010, a year in which we badly need new and visionary leadership in the governor’s office.

Of course, I put myself in a bind a couple of months back, when I sorta kinda decided not to endorse candidates as a blogger. I had all sorts of good reasons not to: No one was paying me to take all that aggravation. No longer representing the voice of the state’s largest newspaper (at least, that’s what it was when I was there), I had no institutional obligation to do it. And while doing it for the newspaper was business, if I did it on my own blog it would be personal, with all the many levels of messiness that entails. Then there was the unstated reason: For the first time ever, I found myself in a situation in which there would be a personal cost of sticking my neck out. A year’s unemployment had shown me how reluctant employers can be to take on someone with as much well-documented baggage as I have (much of it from having taking a stand FOR this powerful person, and AGAINST that one). And I was about to start trying to sell advertising, with the only thing I had to sell being my own brand and how it was perceived — and there is no surer, more infallible way to infuriate close to 50 percent of the public than to choose one candidate over another. Did I not owe it to my family to try to launch this enterprise on a sound footing, and not undermine it by making arrogant (at least, that’s how a lot of people perceive endorsements) pronouncements that would inevitably alienate? After all, I could be honest about what I think about candidates without taking that formal, irrevocable step.

Lots of good, solid, self-interested reasons not to endorse, right?

Well… sometimes one must stand up and be counted, even when one is not being paid to do so. Remember how, when Grace Kelly demanded to know why Gary Cooper had to make a suicidal stand against Frank Miller and his thugs when he wasn’t the marshal any more, he explained “I’ve got to, that’s the whole thing.“? Full of nuance, that Gary Cooper. Anyway, this is an “I just gotta” moment for me, minus the gunplay (we hope). There are things more important than my own self-interest, or the good of the blog. One of them is South Carolina’s crying need for new leadership at this point in its history.

Ours is still a poor state. On all sorts of measurements of economic and social and physical well-being, from income to health, we continue to be last where we want to be first, and first where we want to be last. We continue to have a political culture, and institutional structure, that reinforces that dynamic, and resists change more steadfastly than the government of any other state. Our government was designed by landed slaveholders to preserve the status quo, because that’s what benefited them. Those men are all gone, but the system of government designed to serve them still exists, and holds us back.

We are also held back by a lack of trust of each other, and a lack of faith in the idea that together, we can overcome the challenges that face us. This manifests itself in the phenomenon we see being played out so dramatically in the Republican primary this year, as the candidates — even candidates I would think would know better — compete to see who can be the most negative, the most rabidly anti-government. What does it mean to be anti-government, in this context? It means to deny faith in our ability to get together, people of different attitudes and philosophies, and work through our differences to build a better future to share.

The radical individualism that all of the Republican candidates embody this year — especially Nikki Haley, the front-runner — has been tried in South Carolina, over and over. Our current governor, Mark Sanford, is easily the most ideologically pure manifestation of that philosophy ever to hold that office.

It is painfully clear after eight years of Mark Sanford — whom I enthusiastically endorsed in 2002 — that such an “I, me, mine” approach to governance does not work. One cannot govern effectively when one holds governing in contempt. That should have been obvious then. It’s certainly obvious now.

Vincent Sheheen offers the positive alternative. Not the “big-government, liberal” alternative that the propagandists of the GOP will accuse him of offering (not because of anything he advocates, but because that is their reflexive, automatic reaction to everything), but a sensible, moderate South Carolina-friendly approach unencumbered by radical ideology of any kind. Before he began this campaign, he was pushing his own proposal for restructuring our government to make it effective and accountable for a change. It is a pragmatic approach that would actually have a chance of becoming law if a governor were behind it. Rather than throwing unacceptable ultimatums at the Legislature and reveling in lawmakers’ rejection, Vincent Sheheen would actually work with lawmakers of both parties (he has a proven ability to do so) to make his proposal a reality. Instead of a governor who can’t even work with his own party and doesn’t want to, imagine how wonderful it would be to have one who works amicably with both?

Now, many of these same things can also be said of Jim Rex. He, too, has a positive, teamwork approach. He’s worked across party lines in advancing his public school choice initiatives, and has formed alliances with some of the most conservative Republicans in trying to improve the way schools are funded in South Carolina. But, because it’s been his job, his policy experience in office has been limited to education. And while better education may be the thing South Carolina needs most, it’s not the only thing; Vincent Sheheen’s experience with public policy is broader, despite his youth.

And in this election, when we have such a need for new beginnings, his youth is an advantage.

That I would say that would surprise some people who have worked most closely with me. I was the grumpy eminence grise on the editorial board who would ask a young candidate, “How old ARE you, anyway?” with a tone that suggested they hadn’t lived enough to be ready for the office they were seeking.

But it’s time now for a generational change. And among the 39-year-old Sheheen’s strengths is the fact that he offers us that.

An old friend, sensing I was leaning that way — because I’ve been honest about what I think of candidates, however much I’ve resisted a formal endorsement — asked me several weeks ago why I would choose Vincent over Jim. I answered as follows, after protesting that I was not, repeat, NOT going to endorse:

Now between you and me, I’d go with Vincent. So you inferred correctly.

Several reasons:
1. You know that with me, it’s seldom about the sum of policy positions. I would be hard-pressed to tell you [off the top of my head] what their policy positions are, beyond the fact that nothing has jumped out at me as bad. Rex has a plan for spending cigarette tax money that I’m not sure about, and I know Vincent’s all about restructuring, to cite a couple of differences that jump to mind. And the restructuring is a biggie.
2. So that leaves us with character, and I think the character of both is fine. But I’ve seen Vincent grow during this campaign in terms of his ability to connect with voters, while Rex is still that trustworty elder statesman who I’d be OK with as governor, but who isn’t likely to inspire. Vincent generates a newness, a sense of a new generation taking over from all the nonsense of the past, that is appealing. And he wears it well; he has his head on straight.
3. Vincent could work with the Legislature. He’s one of them, and that helps make up for being a Democrat. He would come in with lawmakers knowing that about him. He could make a difference. Rex is the guy that they’re accustomed to thinking of as “that ONE statewide Democrat,” and they just won’t be as likely to want to engage with him.
4. Vincent could win in November. Normally I wouldn’t mention that, but this year it’s important. The Republicans are all running so hard to the right, trying so hard to convince us that, in varying ways, they will be Mark Sanfords — even Henry, who should know better — that this year I just don’t see anything good coming out of any of them becoming governor. We so desperately need a break from what we have. And that makes it vitally important that the Democratic nominee not only be someone who’d be an improvement over what we have, but who could WIN in the face of the odds, which are always against the Democrat.

Let me stress again the generational factor. South Carolina needs a fresh start, a real break with its recent past. Vincent embodies that the best. This is a decision I’ve come to gradually, in my own holistic, intuitive way, but I’ve tried to spell it out as systematically as I can for you.

To elaborate on that: Rex radiates the aura of a civic-minded retired guy who’s willing to “give back” if there’s no one else to do the job. Vincent wants to build a better South Carolina, the one that he and his young children will live in. Makes a difference.

It occurs to me that I do my readers a disservice by sharing those thoughts privately with one friend, but not openly with them. So there it is. It may seem to be high on intangibles and low on specifics, but that’s because I had already reached the conclusions that on the specifics, I’ve concluded that Vincent is sound. That makes the intangibles — the ability to inspire, the ability to be positive rather than negative — of great importance. We didn’t worry about the intangibles (such as his aloof manner, his sleep-on-the-futon quirkiness, his hermitlike aversion to the company of other Republicans) with Mark Sanford, and look where it got us.

As I’ve explained before, none of the Republicans is offering us anything positive for our future. That puts me in the unaccustomed position of not having a preferred candidate on that side. But there is no doubt that there is a Democrat who stands well above them all, as well as being a stronger candidate than any in his own party.

That candidate is Vincent Sheheen.

At least, that would be what I’d say if I were endorsing.

I think I just might reject all the negativity, and accentuate (and reinforce) the positive

10 Replies

I’m not 100 percent there yet, but I’m leaning toward a resolution of my dilemma regarding which primary to vote in.

As I wrote in a comment on a previous thread:

But I’m tired of all these recriminations. I’m tired of all the negativity. I’m sick of all the mud-slinging, and the accusations back and forth. I’m leaning toward voting in the Democratic primary, where I don’t see any of that going on. It means I’m disenfranchised on a long list of public offices. But at least I’d be able to cast a POSITIVE vote (as opposed to trying to determine the least of evils) for governor. Maybe candidates who run positive campaigns DESERVE my vote; maybe that should be reinforced.

There’s just been so much ugliness in this campaign, but it strikes me: As Vincent Sheheen — who has been a strong candidate from the beginning – has quietly marched toward inevitability in the Democratic primary, we’ve seen none of that. Anybody besides me noticing that, or are your eyes still glued to the bloody wreck on the GOP side of the street?

What do Rob Miller and Katrina Shealy have in common?

4 Replies

Scenario: Veteran incumbent Republican shoots off his mouth in a way that embarrasses South Carolina across the nation. This creates the opportunity for better representation to emerge, for people with a lot to offer, people with a good chance of beating that incumbent, to emerge, to step forward and offer South Carolinians a chance to have better representation.

Instead, the disappointing candidate who ran against that incumbent last time around and was rejected by the voters steps up and grabs the limelight while media attention is still focused on the incumbent’s bad behavior. That person gets enough free media to become ensconced as THE alternative to the incumbent, thereby discouraging other, potentially stronger candidates from emerging.

We saw it happen with Rob Miller after Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” fiasco. Miller pulled in millions because he was sitting there alone as “Joe Wilson’s opposition” well before the time that better candidates might have made the decision to run. As a result, since Mr. Miller is not a visibly stronger candidate than he was when he lost to Rep. Wilson in 2008, Joe Wilson will be re-elected.

And it looks like the same thing is happening in the wake of Jake Knotts’ “raghead” outburst. Already, there is a “Katrina Shealy for SC Senate District 23 (2012)” Facebook page. Over on her Website, one finds the following message:

Dear Friends and Supporters,

Welcome to my temporary internet home. In the last few days, we have seen all that is wrong with politics in South Carolina and Lexington County. I want to announce that I will again be running for Senate District 23 in 2012.

We deserve real leadership and it’s time for the politics of old to end. Personal destruction and cronyism have no place in our state.

I’m not surprised that my opponent continues to fail to represent the strong values and beliefs of our district. That’s why I would like to ask for your help.

Would you be kind enough to support my campaign with $10, $20 or even $100? It would go a long way in spreading my POSITIVE message of real leadership and good government.

Thank you in advance for any support you can offer. Together we can, and will, change South Carolina in 2012 and beyond.

Sincerely,

Katrina Shealy

So it is that in the coming weeks and months, as other candidates contemplate offering themselves as an alternative to Jake, they will be faced with the prospect of an opponent who a) has name recognition; b) already has funding (both as a result of Jake’s outrageous comment and the pipeline she already had to pro-Sanford sources) and c) has had a lot of people flock to her in reaction to what Jake said. To most potential candidates, those reasons will be enough to say, “Never mind.”

There will be differences. For one, Ms. Shealy won’t pull in the millions that Mr. Miller did. For another, this would be a primary, and she’d have a better chance of beating Jake than Rob has of beating Joe. No matter what else happens in the 2nd Congressional District, when it comes time to count Lexington County’s votes, the Republican has the advantage. A Democrat has to be really, really strong to beat the Republican in that district (in fact, I’ve never seen it done since Floyd Spence was first elected in 1970), and Rob Miller doesn’t answer that description.

Also, the dynamics would be different. For one thing, with Mark Sanford out of office, Ms. Shealy would no longer have the taint of looking like the candidate the governor sent to take out his political enemy. (Which is why we broke our long history of opposition for all Jake stands for to endorse him against her; I suspect that’s why the voters rejected her, too.) She would have a better chance of standing on her own and defining herself as someone who would represent the people of the 23rd district rather than the governor. (That is, unless Nikki Haley is elected governor, in which case you’d have the same problematic narrative of the Sanford cabal trying to control two branches of government. And after Jake started the hue and cry that let to the exposure of their guy’s Argentina affair, they hate him more than ever. But that concern would evaporate if Vincent Sheheen were governor.)

But as I look forward to the 2012 election, I find myself wishing what I wish this year in the 2nd Congressional District — that other options would emerge. That someone new and untainted by the conflicts of past would step forward to offer a choice that we could all feel good about.

What do Folks and Marchant do after Nikki wins?

7 Replies

Here’s an interesting (if unsavory) thing to contemplate…

First, it’s pretty much a given that Nikki Haley will win the GOP nomination — maybe even without a runoff. So what happens after that?

Well, one’s first instinct as a longtime observer of politics is to think, The allegations against her character aren’t going away. And while folks rallied around her at the last minute to give her the nomination, I’ve seen the way scandals wear away support for a political figure over time. Several months of such talk will erode a lot of her support.

But will that happen in this case? I don’t know. And the reason I say that is this: If Will Folks and Larry Marchant keep on maintaining that what they said is true — say, if Will Folks keeps raising the question of why Nikki, the transparency heroine, won’t release her phone records — then she’s in trouble over the course of several month. Scandal-weary independents, and maybe a few Republicans, will go with the squeaky-clean Vincent Sheheen as a way of putting it all behind them.

But would Folks and Marchant do that, or will they fade as quietly into the background as they can, to deal with their own personal demons? There’s reason to believe they would.

Here’s why: After primaries, Republicans close ranks. It’s what they do. Sure, there’s reason to think that some of them won’t do it this time — Nikki has run AGAINST the GOP establishment, talking about the need to elect “conservatives” rather than Republicans. But most likely their instincts will kick in, and they will swallow their pride and line up behind her.

And if they do that, what sort of future to Folks and Marchant have if they continue to try to trash her reputation? These guys may not have all that many friends — especially Folks — but the ones they have are all Republicans. And the school-choice, anti-gummint kind of Republicans at that. As I’ve noted before, the only GOP candidate I could imagine Folks supporting would be Nikki. In fact, one of the only two explanations of this scandal that makes sense is that Will’s doing it to help Nikki by drumming up sympathy for her (that’s if he’s lying; the other scenario that adds up is if everything he’s saying is true, but I recoil from believing that of Nikki).

All of that argues for these guys curling up into a ball and hoping not to get noticed any more. (Of course, the main thing that argues AGAINST that is Will “LOOK AT ME!” Folks’ natural propensity to make as much noise as possible. In which case we see whether there’s anyone who can still sit him down and persuade him to behave, which remains to be seen.)

Anyway, in a month or so the pattern will have emerged…

Don’t vote with your emotions, people. THINK!

60 Replies

Nikki Haley, 2008 file photo/Brad Warthen

My attention this evening was drawn to this piece by someone from elsewhere, which ends thusly:

Now that same old abusive style is erupting in South Carolina’s Republican primary. Brandishing charges of sexual infidelity, the state’s male Republican establishment has launched a vile character assassination of gubernatorial front-runner Nikki Haley, who is married with two children. (All too typically, those attacks have been accompanied by a Southern flourish of racial and religious bigotry.)

Like most Republican candidates this year, Haley embraces every stupid conservative cliche, but a primary victory for her would represent public progress, political decency, and a higher morality. I wish I could vote for her.

What utter and complete politically correct drivel: Because she’s a woman (I suppose), her being elected would be “progress.” Because the people accusing her are contemptible, what they say isn’t true. Because she is called names, electing her would be a “higher morality.”

Is this actually supposed to pass for thought?

Seems to me it’s time for a bit of moral clarity for South Carolina voters: It doesn’t matter what Will Folks or Larry Marchant have said about Nikki Haley. It doesn’t matter what Jake Knotts has called her. None of that, whomever you believe, should play a role in your decision as a voter. What you should consider is what others have said about her with great accuracy: that she would be Sanford in a skirt.

That piece quoted above links to a story about how Jenny Sanford is standing behind Nikki. To people who “think” with their emotions, this is a dynamic duo — two brave, wronged women standing against the bullies. (Hey, I’ve furthered the legend: I, too can be a sap for a sob story.) But here’s what you need to focus on: Jenny Sanford is the political svengali who brought us Mark Sanford. She was the brains behind him; she managed his campaign. That didn’t work out so well. Now, she’s pushing another candidate who would be the vessel of the same kind of bankrupt, destructive ideology that her last horse represented.

Bottom line: Don’t let Jenny Sanford foist another one on us. We deserve better. Leave your emotions at home, and use your brains, people: Do NOT vote for Nikki Haley.

My dilemma next Tuesday

17 Replies

First, I’ll go ahead and complain the way I always do, and as always, no one will sympathize with me, but here goes: I think it’s wrong that I have to choose one or the other to vote in next Tuesday — the Democratic or Republican primary.

Go ahead, laugh. Everyone does. Why, don’t I understand how the world works? Yes, I do, and the way the world works is fouled up. Yep, I know there are all sorts of reasons why people aren’t allowed to vote in both. But they are all bad reasons. All of them involve placing the needs and interests of parties ahead of the legitimate rights and interests of voters. There is NO WAY you can defend a system that requires me to be disenfranchised, if I live in Richland County Council District 1 for instance, by either not getting a voice in who my solicitor is (only Democrats are running) or who my county councilman will be (the choices are both Republican).

OK, got that out of my system…

Now, I have to decide which ballot to ask for Tuesday, and this is the toughest choice I’ve faced in some time.

As I wrote earlier today, I think it’s imperative that we get the right governor going forward, and I’ve reached the conclusion that none of the Republicans is going to be the right governor. Since I consider the selection of our next governor to be far and away the most important decision that South Carolinians will make this year, that argues for asking for a Democratic ballot — which would be kind of an unusual move for me. Living as I do in Lexington County, about the only way I get a choice in elections is to vote in the Republican primary, so I generally do. But this time, the only way I get to vote POSITIVELY for someone I actually want to be my governor (as opposed to voting against the worst of two or more evils), is to take a Democratic ballot.

But look at what I give up if I do that:

The chance to vote against Jim DeMint. He’s going to be re-elected anyway, but I’d like it to be over my protest. Yeah, I’ll get to protest in November, but it would be more satisfying to do so twice.
The chance to vote against Joe Wilson, who embarrassed us all — not with his “You Lie” outburst (anyone can momentarily lose control) but with his decision to capitalize on it. His GOP opponent, Phil Black, is a nice guy. I enjoyed meeting him last time around. But he doesn’t have a prayer.
If I vote Democratic, I get no choice on lieutenant governor; it’s Ashley Cooper (the guy with the ultimate SC name) or nothing. But if you care who your lieutenant governor is (debatable) and you acknowledge that it will probably be a Republican, you certainly ought to state a preference among the five candidates running. And yes, there IS a difference between, say, Ken Ard and Eleanor Kitzman.
You get no say in who your Treasurer is. And again, I think it makes a difference. Converse Chellis seems to have done a decent job, from what I’ve heard. And this Curtis Loftis is running one of those anti-everything Tea Party style campaigns that I find so off-putting.
For attorney general, Democrats get no choice. Republicans have three to choose between, and again, one is likely to win.
In my SC House District, there are five candidates seeking the Republican nomination — and unlike with the GOP gubernatorial field, this is not a contest among extremists. We actually have several guys competing to see who can sound the most reasonable, and I think at least one of them should be rewarded for that. But I have to take a Republican ballot to have a say.
Voicing my preference for county council. There are two Republicans running in my district, and no Democrat.

Whereas, if I do take a Democratic ballot, I get to vote for governor, and between Vic Rawl and someone named Alvin Greene for US Senate, and… that’s it.

Add to that the fact that there is MUCH greater potential for critical runoffs in the Republican primary, with all those candidates — and if you vote Democratic the first time around, you are barred by law from having a say in those runoffs.

Not that I’ve made up my mind yet, but I have a feeling that Democratic turnout isn’t going to be at 2008 presidential levels. Don’t you think?

Any club that would have ME as a member…

11 Replies

Today, I find myself in a bit of an ethical dilemma. And as y’all know, I am Mr. Ethics, although I do have a certain penchant for placing myself in … ambiguous… circumstances.

Y’all also know that I’m a member of The Capital City Club, of quite a few years’ standing. I’m quite proud of the club and its heritage, since it was founded to provide an inclusive alternative for certain other clubs that somehow hadn’t gotten around to admitting any black or Jewish or female members. Not only am I a member, but I serve on the club’s board.

In that capacity I know that, with the economic downturn, we can use all the special events we can get. At the wonderfully low price of the club’s “Breakfast Club,” my eating grits and bacon there every morning isn’t exactly paying the light bill. With that in mind we held my great-aunt’s 100th birthday lunch there recently, and a lovely time was had by all. And if your family has a wedding coming up and you need a reception venue, let me know and I’ll see what I can arrange…

So it is with a mixture of grateful welcome and wry amusement that I look upon this item, which a colleague shared with me with the observation, “Interesting choice of location for our little populist …” Here’s what the press advisory said:

(Columbia, SC) – Today, the Haley for Governor Campaign released information regarding location for the campaign’s primary night celebration.

What: Haley for Governor Primary Night Celebration

Where: Capital City Club, 1201 Main Street, Columbia, S.C.

When: Tuesday, June 8th

Event begins at 7:00 pm. Media will have access beginning at 5:30 pm….

###

Personally, I think it’s absolutely fine that Nikki chose our club for her event. I may swing by to welcome her and her entourage. I’m sure they’ll find it an enjoyable experience, especially if the election returns break as I think they will, with her at least in a runoff.

And I doubt her populist fans will object. I don’t think they’re that kind of populist.

I’ll TRY to be more colorful, if that’s what it takes

8 Replies

Well, I think I know why Wesley and Phil haven’t had me back on “Pub Politics” for several weeks: I’m just not outrageous enough.

In this new environment, a blogger who wants attention is expected to claim to have done the nasty with a front-runner, and a state senator has to dredge through the darker recesses of nativist terminology to trash the ethnicity of a fellow legislator (who, coincidentally, happens to be that same front-runner).

I’m just a little too whitebread boring, I guess. I’ll try to work on that, if I can figure out the criteria for being the cynosure of all eyes in 2010: I mean, is it OK to claim to have done the horizontal mambo with ANY lawmaker, or do the standards require that it actually be Nikki Haley (because, you know, she just hasn’t been made to look like enough of a victim yet)? And are all ethnicities fair game? Can I say “wetback” or “mick;” is the “N” word going too far? Or does it have to be about Indians specifically? If so, it’s not fair, because Jake’s taken the best one. “Dot-head” seems thin stuff by comparison. And I hate to fall on the inaccurate, feeble slurs that Larry Koon supporters used against her in 2004, talking about worshipping cows and the like.

Or should I just go with my strength, and hope y’all will have me back because you think that after Jake Knotts’ performance, the show needs a little class to redeem it? Yeah, that’s the ticket.

What to say about Jake’s venture into what he terms “Saturday Night Live” humor? A number of things, I suppose:

First, thanks for holding yourself back there, Jake — seems I usually hear the full construction as “raghead sumbitches.” So you exercised some restraint. Either that, or you realized halfway through that she’s a chick, and can’t technically be a “sumbitch.”
That was really creative. Usually, the term is applied to A-rabs and the like. To expand its scope to include half-Kenyans and Sikhs displays a linguistic originality that is noteworthy.
Is that Andre Bauer camp a bunch of strategic geniuses or what? I hadn’t thought there was anything else that could make Nikki Haley look more like a martyr than what we had seen thus far, but these fellas just never say die; they can always go another mile.
Cindi Scoppe has got to be feeling really self-righteous today (if you can imagine that), being certain about how right she was to kick and scream and complain every inch of the way when I insisted that we break with precedent and endorse Jake last time around.
I might as well take down my video of Jake telling his life story (“How Jake became Jake…“), because it’s just going to seem way too dull after Wesley and them put up his latest performance on the Web.
Must I lower the standards of “The Brad Show,” if I ever have a second installment of it, in order to get viewers?

There’s plenty more that could be said, yet on another level, I sort of feel like enough has been said already.

Jake Knotts, 2008 file photo/Brad Warthen

OK, now The State paper has gone too far…

19 Replies

All right, I didn’t take it personally when you laid me off. After all, as a vice president of the company, I had been looking at those horrific numbers like all other senior staffers. There was no way the paper could keep paying all of us; no way at all. Some of us had to go; and my salary made me a very attractive target.

And yeah, I was kind of ticked off when you wouldn’t let me take my old blog with me, after all the nights and weekends I poured into it for four years, building it from nothing. That was a classic case of corporate lawyer B.S., insisting upon retaining the rights to content even though something called “Brad Warthen’s Blog” could have pretty close to zero value to you going forward. (I would say “zero,” but it continues to get a surprising number of page views — 15,000 last month — considering that I haven’t posted anything since March 2009. Possibly because I regularly send readers back to it. So that’s of SOME value to your advertisers, I suppose.) But I went out that day and bought the rights to “bradwarthen.com,” and never looked back. It had 132,000 page views in April, and I’m now actually getting income from it. (See the latest ad, from Vincent Sheheen?) So I’m over that.

But now, The State has gone TOO FAR. This I cannot forgive. After we’ve been drip-tortured for months by the GOP candidates with their conservative-this, conservative-that ideological monomania, the same moldy cliches over and over and over and over, to the point that I did something yesterday that I’ve never done before in my career — told my readers that NO GOP candidate is fit to be our governor for the next four years, because I for one just can’t take it any more…

… after all that, The State actually poses this question to the GOP candidates, in print:

There are voters who accuse elected Republicans of abandoning their conservative principles. What makes you the Republican most capable of representing the party in the fall election?

Imagine that! PROVOKING them to give it to us with both barrels! Just setting it right up on a TEE for them!

So of course we were treated to an absolute orgy of… As I’ve said from Day One I’m a conservative a true conservative my daddy was a conservative daddy my mama was a conservative mama I’m a bidnessman meet a payroll don’t take bailouts lazy shiftless welfare takers the key is to starve ’em before they reproduce 100 percent rating from conservative conservatives of America my dog is a conservative dog I don’t have a cat because cats are effete I eat conservative I sleep conservative I excrete conservative I got conservative principles a conservative house and conservative clothes take back our government from the socialists even though we don’t really want it because who needs government anyway they don’t have government in Somalia and they’re doing alright aren’t they National Rifle Association Charlton Heston is my president and Ronald Reagan is my God I will have no gods before him I go Arizona-style all the way that’s the way I roll I will keep their cold dead government hands off your Medicare so help me Ronald Reagan…

And on and on. That’s just to give you the flavor; I’m just reciting from memory. Read the actual stuff if you prefer, but my version has more life to it, while in no way being a disservice to the original.

You know what would have endeared me so much that I would have dropped all my objections and endorsed one of these candidates on the spot? If he or she had had the sense of perspective, the sense of the absurd, the appreciation of irony to say something like:

Actually, I’m a liberal. A liberal all the way. I drive a Prius, I love wine and cheese parties with the faculty, I think America is a big bully in the world and no wonder people hate us (I’d be a terrorist, too, if I didn’t abhor violence so), and I never saw an abortion I didn’t like. My spouse and I have an open marriage, so scandal can’t touch us, because to each his or her own. I’m a white, male heterosexual and the guilt just eats me alive; I wish I belonged to a group that was more GENUINE, you know? The first thing I’d do if elected is raise taxes through the roof, and spend every penny on public education, except for a portion set aside for re-education camps for people who now home-school their kids. Then, if we needed more money for excessive regulation of business and other essential government services, we’d raise taxes again, but only on the rich, which is defined as YOU or anybody who makes more than you. Probably the best word to describe my overall tax plan would be “confiscatory.” And my spending (OH, my spending! You’ve never seen spending until you see my spending!) would best be termed “redistributive.” If elected, my inaugural party will have music by the Dixie Chicks and the Indigo Girls, and then we’ll all bow down to a gigantic image of Barack (did you know it means “blessed”?) Obama, the savior of us all, and chant in some language other than the ultimate oppressor language, English. French, perhaps. Or Kiswahili.

Or something along those lines. And if The State ran a response like that, all would be forgiven…

Anton Gunn, SC Policy Council in agreement

6 Replies

Just thought I should make note of this alignment of the planets.

Remember how I reported, two days ago, that the S.C. Policy Council was actually advocating for government spending? Well, actually, they were griping about the House and Senate increasing their own budgets while making cuts to worthwhile programs, but still: The Policy Council acknowledging any government spending as worthwhile? It was news.

Well, according to a release I got from him this morning, Anton Gunn is in complete agreement with the Policy Council, and NOT just about the idea that some government spending is worthwhile. He was also with them in getting on the House and Senate for spending on themselves:

The House and Senate Conference Committee has agreed on a $5 billion budget plan that drastically cuts public education, eliminates 74 state jobs and 1,700 jobs in local school districts. The budget also enacts major cuts to rural hospitals and health centers, while reducing access to prescription drugs for poor and disabled children. The budget plan makes drastic cuts to major state agencies yet the proposal also adds $3 million and $7 million to the House & Senate operating budgets.

Rep. Gunn said, “I think it’s immoral to force teachers into layoffs and deny disabled children access to medications but at the same time pad your own budget with extra money. This budget plan is going in the wrong direction. We need to fix this mess.”

Mind you, this is the same Anton Gunn whom TEA Party fan Sheri Few decries as a socialist.

No way should any of these four Republican candidates become governor of our state

21 Replies

On Sunday, my former newspaper endorsed Henry McMaster in the GOP primary for governor. The piece was well argued, and contained points that I had forgotten regarding his record. The piece was based upon his record, of course, because nothing in his campaign would cause a reasonable person to want to support him. It wasn’t as persuasive as the endorsement the previous week for Vincent Sheheen, but it made the most of a sad situation. Nikki Haley wants to give us four more years of Mark Sanford (and she would, too — believe it). Gresham Barrett is an ill-defined candidate who seems to be the sum of partisan cliches. Andre Bauer is Andre Bauer.

If I had still been at the paper (where I always argued that we had to choose somebody), or had a gun to my head forcing me to choose one of the Republicans, I’d probably go with Henry, too. And I would base it on the hope that he would be a better governor — just as he has been a pretty decent attorney general — than he is a candidate.

But I’m not at the paper any more, and therefore don’t have that institutional obligation to express a preference regarding every electoral choice. And nobody has a gun to my head.

So I am free to say that the performance of all of the GOP candidates in this primary convinces me that it is critically important that none of them become governor. Perhaps the best way to put it succinctly is the way an outsider, Gail Collins of the NYT, put it yesterday:

The issues in the primary have basically been which Republican dislikes government most. During the Tuesday debate, Bauer claimed that illegal immigration was caused by lavish government welfare payments, which caused poor people to refuse to do manual labor. Haley bragged that she had opposed the federal stimulus program. The attorney general, Henry McMaster, who is currently suing to try to stop the federal government from bringing health care reform to South Carolina, attributed the failures of the state’s public schools to teachers’ being so busy “filling out federal forms that they can’t teach.”

Ms. Collins was being facetious (as usual), but there’s nothing in what she writes that is inaccurate. Basically, this has been a contest between four people who each want to seem the most ticked off at the very notion of government. And I’ve heard enough of it. This constant drip of negativity is depressing and counterproductive. It counsels hopelessness to people who don’t have much hope to start with as they contemplate what we’ve seen in the governor’s office in recent years.

We’ve had eight years of a governor who doesn’t believe in governing. It is an outrage, and an insult to the people of South Carolina, that candidates would seriously try to position themselves that same way. They should all be running against that bankrupt legacy, not competing to see who will inherit it.

I decided recently that I would not do endorsements on this blog, so the fact that I can’t bring myself to back any of these Republicans doesn’t mean much. But I’ve spent 20 years writing on the theme of the importance of gubernatorial leadership. As weak as the office is, it’s still the one position with a pulpit bully enough to make a difference, to try to break our state out of the ennui born of believing we’ll always be last where we want to be first, and first where we want to be last. For that reason, I think it’s critically important to speak out now, and often, on the subject of just how unsuited these candidates are to lead South Carolina out of its current political malaise.

It’s important because, party politics being what they are in this state, the Republican nominee starts out with an advantage, no matter how poor a candidate he or she may be. Unfortunately, too few white voters in South Carolina will even consider pulling the lever for a Democrat. But I want to urge those people to start considering broadening their horizons. I’m not asking them to become Democrats. God forbid; I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, any more than I would want to see anyone become a Republican. My disdain for both parties remains undiminished. But within each party, there are good candidates and bad ones.

And in this election, unless all probability is turned on its head and the super-flaky Robert Ford gets the Democratic nod, there is little question — from a disinterested, nonpartisan perspective of a knowledgeable person who cares about the future of this state — that the Democratic nominee will be someone FAR more likely to have a positive vision of the kind of leadership that a governor can provide in difficult times. And only someone with that sort of attitude can have a chance of doing any good.

There are no two ways about it. South Carolina needs and deserves better than what any of the Republican candidates are offering this year. The very last thing we need is more of the same.

I don’t think Rex futures look like a good bet now

2 Replies

My attention was drawn this morning by an e-mail with the following headline on it:

Make an Investment in Jim Rex!

Sorry; I wish Jim all the best and everything — he’s certainly been supportive of me in the past, and I appreciate it — but in hard, cold dollars and cents, I just don’t think he’s a good investment bet right now.

If my highly trustworthy financial adviser (who gets nervous whenever I name him, lest people think I’m a good example of his work, so I won’t) were to recommend that as a good place to put my pennies to work, I think I’d get another financial adviser.

The question for me at this point is whether Vincent Sheheen wins it without a runoff. I doubt it, but you never know. In any case, the way this ends is that Sheheen is the nominee.

But I was interested to check out the names of people who will be at this Rex fund-raiser. Stuff like that always interests me. Here’s the list:

Ann & Frank Avignone | Amy & Robert Berger

Duncan Buell | Amanda & Todd Burnette

Anastasia Chernoff | Ken Childs | Don Doggett

David Dunn | Paula Harris | Valerie Harrison

Beth Howard | Lana & Steve Hefner | Lee Ann Kornegay

Betsy Carpentier & Phil Lacy | Oscar Lovelace

Annette & Steven Lynn | Barbara Rackes & Michael Mann

Sue & Robbie McClam | Heather Preston & Tim Mousseau

Angela & Stephen Peters | Julia & Jim Prater

Susan & Ron Prinz | Cynthia Davis & John Reagle

Linda Salane | Susan Heath & Rush Smith

Troy Cassel & Zeke Stokes | Diane Sumpter

Leah & Donald Tudor | Dr. Hoyt Wheeler

This is for a fund-raiser hosted by Barbara Rackes on June 10.