Just to acknowledge the unsavory thing buzzing around on Twitter and the Web this morning (which Doug Ross brings up obliquely on a previous post) — now that the MSM has bowed to the inevitable and reported on it — I provide this place for you to discuss the implications.
I’m not going to mention the particulars. You can find them here, more or less.
Personally, I just hate the fact that I even heard about it. Something like this is to news what “Inglourious Basterds” is to cinema.
You know, I don’t know if I can abide seeing one more mailer (such as the one above that came in the mail today) or yard sign trumpeting to the world that the candidate in question is a “Conservative Republican.”
You know, as opposed to all those liberal Republicans running around over here in Lexington County.
This is not new, but in the era of Nikki Haley and the Tea Party (which I’m considering using as the name of my new band, if Nikki will agree to front it), I’m hearing it more and more. And in the more extreme cases, such as with Nikki herself, “Conservative” is being touted as something apart from Republicans, mere Republicans not being worthy, you see.
Set aside the appalling notion that to the voters these folks are reaching out to, ordinary South Carolina Republicans just aren’t right-wing enough. I mean, think about that for a minute…
That’s long enough. Thankfully, S.C. Democrats aren’t given to this sort of redundancy, this rococo gilding of the ideological lily. If I saw one sign in my community that claimed to be for a “Liberal Democrat,” I believe I’d run for the hills. That would be just one extremism too many for me.
Remind me, if I run for office, to put “liberal republican” or “conservative democrat” (note the lower case; God forbid I should be mistaken for an adherent of one of those granfalloons). And I think I’ll refer to my opposition as “fascist anarchists,” to use Ferris Bueller’s term.
Anything for a little variety.
The same pollster who reported Nikki Haley leading the Republicans now has Vincent Sheheen out front for the first time in his bid for the Democratic nomination for governor:
State Senator Vincent Sheheen has now opened a modest lead over two other hopefuls in the Democratic Primary contest for governor of South Carolina with less than three weeks to go. But nearly one-out-of-three primary voters remain undecided.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Democratic Primary Voters in South Carolina finds Sheheen with 30% support, closely followed by State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex with 22%. State Senator Robert Ford trails with four percent (4%) of the vote.
Twelve percent (12%) prefer some other candidate in the race, with another 32% undecided.
In March in Rasmussen Reports’ only previous survey of the primary race, Sheheen and Rex were tied at 16% apiece, with Ford at 12%. Thirty-seven percent (37%) were undecided at that time.
This, of course, is what I’ve been saying here for some time, although I had little to go by other than his leading in fund-raising and my gut — and the fact that Jim Rex seems to have dropped off the radar screen. I’d try to sell him an ad to give him a boost, but at this point I’d feel a little guilty taking his money. But only a little guilty.
I’d had a similar gut feeling about Nikki. Rasmussen seems to be working full-time to confirming my gut impressions.
The other day, a reader made the following observations about Nikki Haley here on the blog:
For Haley, a bad day. The tea party simply has not caught on. Haley cannot turn the numbers out nor can she draw the bucks in (with the exception of Mark Sanford’s Club for Growth disreputably non-transparent $400k contribution)….
But on Saturday morning, May 15, 24 days out from the primary, Haley is visably collapsing. Mark Sanford’s cash will make an effort to prop her up, but you can stick a fork in her. She’s done.
I thought that reader was dead wrong, and that the opposite was true, but rather than spend time arguing on that thread, I wrote another post in which I went on at great length about how depressing I found her rally with Sarah Palin to be. I felt that I was watching a candidate coming into her own, surging in confidence and energy. (And the depressing thing is that that is bad news for South Carolina, and I sincerely doubted my ability to persuade her supporters of that — they seemed immune to reason.) But it was just a gut thing, based on all my years of experience. I had no way to back it up.
Until now. This just in from Rasmussen:
With South Carolina’s Republican Primary for Governor less than three weeks away, State Representative Nikki Haley, coming off a fresh endorsement by Sarah Palin, now leads the GOP pack.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary voters shows Haley earning 30% support. She’s followed by State Attorney General Henry McMaster who picks up 19% and Congressman Gresham Barrett with 17%. Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer captures 12% of the vote.
Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate in the race, but nearly one-in-five potential primary voters (18%) remain undecided.
The new findings mark a dramatic turn of events for Haley who ran fourth in March with just 12% support.r McMaster earned 21% of the vote at that time, with Bauer at 17% and Barrett at 14%.
Of course, from a national perspective, it would look like the deciding factor was Sarah Palin. But there’s a lot more going on than that. Some reasons why I’m not a bit surprised at these poll numbers:
So now, Nikki Haley is the candidate to beat in the GOP race for governor. And I’m not surprised.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – A South Carolina judge has ordered a political group spending heavily to promote Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley to pull its television ads supporting her campaign.
Spartanburg County Judge James M. Hayes issued the order Wednesday at the request of Haley primary opponent U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett and three donors to ReformSC….
Did you see that coming? I didn’t. I sort of thought the Mark Sanford allies at ReformSC were going to keep getting away with pumping $400,000 into Nikki’s campaign.
As for the legal issues involved, here’s an excerpt from an earlier story by The State‘s John O’Connor:
A rival of Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley said television ads featuring the state representative and purchased by an outside group might violate state election laws.
Terry Sullivan, campaign adviser to gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett, said the campaign is studying whether the ads, featuring Haley and her signature issue of roll-call voting in the Legislature, violate state election laws. The chairman of the group running the ads, ReformSC, said he was “very comfortable” with their content….
Third-party advertising, such as that by ReformSC, a 501(c)(4) educational nonprofit, is a gray area in politics. Such groups are limited in what they can say about candidates, with a distinction drawn around ads using so-called “magic words” such as “vote for” or “vote against.” Those rules have been clouded by recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including a 2007 decision involving a Wisconsin right-to-life group. That decision requires issue ads “take no position on a candidate’s character, qualifications, or fitness for office,” among other requirements.
Such third-party groups are also forbidden from coordinating with campaigns.
ReformSC chairman Pat McKinney said the group has followed its attorney’s advice, and that the Haley campaign was not aware the group was filming or airing the ads. Haley spokesman Tim Pearson said the campaign did not know of the ads, or that the tea party rally was being filmed. Haley’s appearance at the rally had been advertised for several weeks.
Just thought I’d bring to your attention Cindi Scoppe’s calm, rational, even-handed take on the Nikki Haleys we have come to know — the appealing, breath-of-fresh-air neophyte lawmaker (vestiges of whom we still see today) and the demagogic ideologue seeking to carry the Mark Sanford banner into South Carolina’s future (which we see far too much of these days).
The value in reading Cindi’s column is that it is rich in specifics, listing Nikki’s positions on quite a number of issues. That’s something you don’t get so much from me. I form a holistic impression of a candidate or an issue, and hold forth on the conclusions I’ve reached. Cindi shares her reporting, point by point. When we went into an editorial board meeting with a candidate, Cindi would have a list of specific questions, so that she could test the candidate against specific positions that we held. I would ask the candidate to start talking (telling us whatever he or she deemed most important), and I would ask questions suggested by what I heard. It made for good teamwork. Cindi made sure we touched all the important bases; I explored unanticipated territory to learn things we would not have learned taking the purely task-oriented approach.
So it is that I think it’s valuable for you, the wise reader, to set my own rambling gestalten observations beside Cindi’s businesslike approach as you move along your own journey in making up your mind about Nikki Haley.
So, without violating Fair Use (I hope), I invite you to go read Cindi’s entire column, which goes from the good…
… She is charming, engaging and smart. She is refreshingly passionate and energetic and not about to put up with the games at the State House. She can explain problems in a way to get voters fired up (“It’s just wrong; it’s wrong all day long,” she says of school administrators’ opposition to a bill that would cost them money by jerking the junk food out of schools). That’s no small thing in a state as apathetic as ours.
She’s all about comprehensive reform — of the tax code, of the executive branch of government, of the school funding system — and her support for those vital changes predates her campaign, and seems far more heartfelt than her GOP opponents….
… to the bad…
… These relatively minor misrepresentations are merely the ones that jumped out at me in a single meeting with our board, and this pattern is disturbingly similar to Mr. Sanford’s signature approach: Take a legitimate problem that’s a bit too complicated or wonky to appeal to the masses, and tart it up to make it look like something it’s not.
Ms. Haley is rigidly ideological. All the Republican candidates support taxpayer-funded “choice” for private schools, but only she would veto a bill expanding public school choice if it didn’t help prop up private schools. All opposed the federal stimulus, but only she opposed accepting the money that we’re on the hook to pay for regardless, because doing so blew the “opportunity” to force the Legislature to make structural reforms….
… to this conclusion:
…When I first met Ms. Haley in 2004, I found her a bit green. But she clearly had a good head on her shoulders and was one of the best new candidates we met that year. As I wrote in our first endorsement of her, she was “so focused on keeping an open mind and being persuaded by facts rather than personality, preconceived notions and party dogma that she’s bound to make smart choices,” and “what she calls a business-like approach strikes us as merely a commonsense, proactive approach that people of any political persuasion should be able to take for granted.”
I wish the Nikki Haley who’s running for governor reminded me more of that person and less of Mark Sanford….
Sorry I haven’t posted yet today, and now I’m rushing off to lunch. But to give y’all something to chew on, I thought I’d share Lindsay Graham’s fairly positive report on his meeting yesterday with Elena Kagan:
Graham Meets with Supreme Court Nominee
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement after meeting with Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Graham is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“Ms. Kagan is not someone a Republican president would have chosen for a position on the Supreme Court. However, the questions the country and Senate will be required to answer are whether she is qualified for the job, possesses the appropriate temperament, and whether her judicial philosophy is within the mainstream of American jurisprudence. It is very important for a nominee to understand the difference between the role of a judge who interprets the law and an elected official who writes the law.
“We had a good meeting and discussed her qualifications and background in the law. We also discussed legal issues related to the War on Terror and positions she has taken in her position as Solicitor General. On many of these issues, we found common agreement.”
Judicial Experience:
“I do not believe that prior judicial experience is a prerequisite for sitting on the Court. Some of the most distinguished justices in history, such as the former Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist, did not have prior experience.
“However, Ms. Kagan’s lack of a judicial record will make the hearings even more important. Because she has no judicial decisions to review, her writings and opinions on issues regarding the law will be closely scrutinized. These documents will provide the committee and country a window into her judicial philosophy, qualifications and temperament.
On Military Recruitment:
“Ms. Kagan explained to me that any position she took regarding military recruitment at Harvard should not be taken as a lack of respect for the U.S. Armed Forces. She noted that her father was a World War II veteran. I take her at her word that she respects the military and our men and women serving in uniform.”
#####
Apparently, he did NOT ask her for her views on softball. That Lindsey Graham is all business…
Just got this release from our friend Phil Bailey:
Senator Leventis Condemns Attack on Spratt
Sumter, SC – South Carolina Senator Phil Leventis (D-Sumter) today condemned the National Republican Congressional Committee for their attack on Congressmen John Spratt. NRCC spokesman Andy Sere attacked Congressman Spratt by implying that his “memory must be failing him” and calling him “Amnesiac John” in a press statement on Monday.
Senator Leventis issued the following statement:
“Statements like that should have no place in our political debate. To denigrate a man who has committed much of his adult life to serving his state and his country is troubling. This type chicanery has no place in a public forum. No one from the National Republican Congressional Committee lives here and none of them would call a family or friend amnesic just because they have a disease which is well controlled.”
“It’s not the dog in the fight, it’s the fight in the dog. My good friend, Congressman Spratt, has one of the keenest minds in the Congress. His understanding of complex issues and ability to navigate the halls of government has served our state well. And disgusting comments like the ones from the Republicans are to be condemned.”
###
Amen to that.
This episode aside, I get really tired of John Spratt having strong opposition every two years, no matter what. That sounds really undemocratic of me; I know. Doug would say I’m defending perpetual incumbency, and it’s a good thing when these “career politicians” have opposition to keep them on their toes. But I say it for these reasons:
So that’s why I get tired of it. All that money spent, all that energy, every two years, just because Washington Republicans want another hashmark in their column.
Yesterday, I praised Henry McMaster for his latest campaign ad. Yeah, the praise was pretty damned faint, and I disagreed strongly with a great deal of what he was saying, but at least it was done with a tone and attitude that made you feel good about South Carolina — or at least got the impression that Henry felt good about South Carolina. And that’s too rare these days from our friends in the GOP.
Take, for instance, the pair of videos unveiled today by the Nikki Haley and Gresham Barrett campaigns.
We have Nikki labeling her rivals with the GOP cusswords “Bailouts,” “Stimulus spending” and “Career politicians” — about as neat a job of giving opponents short shrift as I’ve ever seen (as if those terms sum up the totality of who these men are) — before going on to say, in that hagiographic way she has, that SHE is the one true “conservative.” Whatever the hell that word means anymore. (It certainly doesn’t mean what it did when I was coming up.)
Then we have Gresham Barrett promising to be the meanest of all to illegal immigrants (the scoundrels!), and pass “a common-sense Arizona law.”
Sorry, folks, but neither of these glimpses of your values or your attitudes toward the world in general make me feel good about the idea of you being my governor. Not that you’re trying to please me, I realize; but that’s all I have to go by…
… you play the guitar on the M-T-V…
Oops, got off track there. Wrong video.
What I meant to do was applaud Henry McMaster for a positive campaign ad, which helps remove the bad taste from some of his Obama-and-his-allies-are-dangerous-radicals approach of late.
I don’t agree with everything Henry’s saying in this ad, titled “It’s time to show the world what South Carolina can do”:
I have a plan to put South Carolina back on the Path to Prosperity. We’ll grow small business with lower taxes and less regulation. Encourage innovation and recruit high paying jobs in emerging industries. Expand our ports and open our economic door to the world. Improve education with choice, accountability and higher standards. It’s time to show the world what South Carolina can do!
… especially the idea that “choice” is the very first thing our schools need. Or that “lower taxes and less regulation,” while laudable in themselves, will substitute for building the workforce that businesses want and providing the basic societal infrastructure they need. But what I like here is that Henry’s talking about SC presenting a positive face to the world (for a change), instead of making us look like the wacky extremists that too many think we are already.
He’s talking about what he’s FOR, rather than trying to resonate with negative people about what they’re against.
Good one, Henry!
Sorry not to be forthcoming with a post on the Sarah Palin/Nikki Haley event last evening. I’ve been too busy — my baby granddaughter spent the night with us last night, my youngest daughter came home from Charlotte and my wife and I had a lot of errands to run this morning (including, alas, taking her car in for several hundred dollars worth of repairs).
So I was living life instead of blogging. But I should add that I was glad I couldn’t post right away, because I’ve been… depressed… since that event. As I’ve turned over what to say about it in my minds (I almost corrected that to the singular after typing the S, but then realized that plural is correct; I am of several minds on all this), I’ve been unable to think of anything constructive to say. And even when I’m going to be scathingly critical of something, I want it to be for a purpose. I want there to be a constructive point in mind, something to add to a conversation that would help us all move forward somehow.
But I haven’t arrived. Instead, I’m feeling a level of alienation that would make Benjamin Braddock and Holden Caulfield seem happy and well-adjusted.
Part of it, but just a small part, is this problem I’ve been wrestling with of my increased sense of alienation from Republicans in general. I don’t like it; it runs against my grain. To react with constant negativity to Republicans and all their works suggest partisanship, an affinity for Democrats, to most people. Not to me — Lord knows, I still find the Democrats off-putting enough, and am still pleased not to identify with them either — but to other people. And when you write a blog, how you are perceived by others matters. But I can’t help it. While the Dems are merely no more irritating than usual these days, the Republicans have so aggressively, actively offended my sense of propriety and my intelligence as they have flailed about since the 2008 election, that even tiny things set me off now. I no longer have to see one of those maddening TV commercials — like the two I saw last night, Andre Bauer talking first and foremost about the need for smaller government (as if THAT were the main problem facing a state that’s laying off teachers left and right) and Henry McMaster talking about the “radicals” running Washington (as if that were any less crazy than the claims of the birthers). Now, just small things send me deeper into my funk. This morning I saw a sign for a candidate who had only one thing to say about himself, that he was a “Rock Solid… Republican” — as though that identification were sufficient, that reassurance that I am not one of them; I’m one of us. The sheer, obnoxious, impervious smugness of it…
(If I were a Democrat, I wouldn’t worry about this. They can console themselves with the fantasy that all they have to do is win the election, and their troubles are over. I’m always conscious of the fact that as many as 40 percent of voters would still be Republicans — just as between 30 and 40 percent are Democrats now, even with a Republican governing majority — and you’d still have to deal with them and reason with them if you really want to move our state forward. Especially in our Legislative State, you sort of have to build consensus to get things done. So when either party seems to be trying to drift beyond reason — say, when Dems were in the grips of Bush Derangement Syndrome — that worries me.)
But the alienation I’m feeling standing in that crowd of Haley and Palin supporters is different. Partly because these women aren’t positioning themselves as Republicans. On the contrary, they are relishing their animosity toward the people in their party who already hold a majority of public offices in this state. They are proud to antagonize and run against those Republicans with greater experience and understanding than they have. They turn their inexperience and lack up understanding of issues from a weakness into a virtue. Their fans cheer loudest when they hold up their naivete as a battle flag.
A little over a year ago, Nikki Haley was just an idealistic sophomore legislator who was touchingly frustrated that her seniors in her party didn’t roll over and do what she wanted them to do when she wanted them to do it. It didn’t really worry me when I would try to explain to her how inadequate such bumper sticker nostrums as “run government like a business” were (based in a lack of understanding of the essential natures not only of government, but of business, the thing she professes to know so well), and she would shake her head and smile and be unmoved. That was OK. Time and experience would take care of that, I thought. She was very young, and had experienced little. Understanding would come, and I felt that on the whole she was still a young lawmaker with potential.
I reckoned without this — this impatient, populist, drive for power BASED in the appeal of simplistic, demagogic opposition to experience itself. It’s an ugly thing, this sort of anti-intellectualism of which Sarah Palin has become a national symbol. This attitude that causes her to smile a condescending, confident smile (after all, the crowd there is on HER side) at protesters — protesters I didn’t even notice until she called attention to them — and tell them that they should stick around and maybe they would learn something. If a 65-year-old male intellectual with a distinguished public career said that to a crowd, everyone would understand it was ugly and contemptuous. But Sarah is so charming about it, so disarming! How could it be ugly?
Her evocations — echoed by Nikki — of traditional, plain values (and complementary exhibition of contempt for anyone who disagrees) seem so positive and good and right to the crowd that cheers such lines as Nikki’s about how good it is that traditional politicians are “afraid” (which, coming from different lips, would send a chill down spines). They don’t see the ugliness. After all, see how lovely the package is! See how they smile!
The thing is, I probably agree with these people about so much that they are FOR — traditional moral values, hard work, family, patriotism. And mine isn’t your left-handed liberal kind of patriotism (you know, as in “I oppose the war and criticize my country because I’m a REAL patriot,” etc.). No, in fact, my own kind of patriotism is probably even more martial and militaristic than that of these folks, if that’s possible, given my background. And I would never take a back seat to any of them in my belief in American exceptionalism. I may not like the smug way they talk about these things, but the values are there.
It’s the stuff that they’re AGAINST that leaves me cold. Paying taxes. Government itself. Moderation. Patience with people who disagree. Experience. Deep understanding of issues. They are hostile to these things.
And their certainty, their smugness, is off-putting in the extreme.
But as I stood there in that crowd and listened to the cheers at almost every questionable statement those smiling ladies muttered, I despaired of ever being able to explain any of this to these folks, of ever having a meeting of the minds. It’s THEIR alienation that makes me feel so alienated…
And that’s what has me down. I hope it will pass. But it wasn’t a good way to spend a Friday evening.
Just now saw this e-mail from Rob Godfrey with the McMaster campaign:
Brad,
I realize you may not be in the loop, on top of the news or very well informed about the gubernatorial race these days, and that’s why I always hesitate to respond to anything that shows up on your blog. But I did want to point out that the Boiling Springs Tea Party endorsement of Henry was released both by the organization itself and our campaign before anyone knew anything about Sarah Palin’s trip to South Carolina. Thanks.
Rob GodfreyMcMaster for Governor
I immediately suppressed the irritation one would naturally feel at a complaint worded that way. I decided not to take his opening words as being deliberately insulting or anything like that.
Instead, I immediately acknowledged his point and promised to pass it on to my readers here on the blog. (Golly, I’m grown up — don’t you think?) Since I was seeing it all on Friday, I had failed to notice that the item on the campaign Web site and the Tweet that drew me to it were both dated the 13th — the same day as Nikki Haley’s announcement that Sarah Palin was coming to endorse her. I was certain, there for a moment, that he was wrong, because I was sure that when I saw that Tweet it was only one or two down on his Twitter account — but I guess they don’t post that often, because sure enough, it was the 13th.
So, sorry about that. Of course, it doesn’t change the fact that we’ve known for some time that Nikki has been pulling out all the stops to be THE Tea Party candidate. Nor does it change my long-standing disappointment with Henry for refusing to distance himself from his party’s recent drift to the fringes — for, instead, pursuing them with his outrageous rhetoric about those “radicals” in Washington destroying our American way of life. And I realize that this would be most irritating to one in the trenches trying to get Henry elected. If I were on his campaign, I would be really ticked at someone like me. I would see that person as “out of the loop” to the extent that he was unrealistic about what it takes to get nominated in a Republican primary. I mean, doesn’t that washed-up, clueless Brad Warthen understand that Henry is the best of the Republicans, that he’s really a Graham Republican instead of a DeMint Republican, even if he dare not come out and say so right now?
Thinking about it, imagining that point of view, I almost get mad at myself.
In fact, I AM mad at myself for getting the sequence of events wrong, and attaching importance to it. And I’m truly sorry.
No sooner does Nikki Haley announce that she’s sewn up the backing of the goddess of the Tea Party movement than Henry McMaster has to weigh in with a “Me, too!”…
McMaster earns Upstate Tea Party endorsement
May 13th, 2010
Conservative group says attorney general is candidate Tea Party can trust
COLUMBIA, S.C. – One of South Carolina’s largest conservative grassroots organizations, the Boiling Springs Tea Party, today endorsed Henry McMaster for Governor. The Boiling Springs Tea Party has organized a network of thousands of Upstate conservatives since its founding last year and will encourage them to turn out voters for Henry McMaster in the June 8 Republican gubernatorial primary.In a press release, the group praised McMaster’s “outstanding character, judgment, experience, Christian conservative values, understanding of the state’s needs and proven dedication to accountable public service.”
Boiling Springs Tea Party organizer Maria Brady said in part, “Our search for a gubernatorial candidate with conservative Christian values grounded in the Constitution led us toward Henry because he embodies the ideals of our Founding Fathers. [H]e is clearly a candidate Tea Party patriots can trust to fight President Obama” and “stop bailout-peddling Washington politicians…”
Oh, but get this next part:
Attorney General McMaster thanked the group for the endorsement. “Washington radicals threaten our very way of life,” he said. [boldface emphasis mine]
And to thing I was wringing my hands over whether I was engaging in extreme rhetoric. Guess I can relax, huh? I’m the very soul of self-restraint, by comparison.
Ah, Henry, we hardly knew ye…
OK, just in case you didn’t have enough reasons to worry about Nikki Haley — the Sanford endorsement, all that Sanford cabal money buying ads in her behalf, and so forth, here’s one more for ya, courtesy of our ol’ buddy Peter Hamby:
(CNN) – Sarah Palin will be in Columbia, South Carolina on Friday to endorse state Rep. Nikki Haley for governor.
This will mark the former Alaska governor’s first political visit to the early primary state. Jenny Sanford, ex-wife of current Republican Gov. Mark Sanford, will also campaign with Haley on Friday…
“It is a tremendous honor to receive Governor Palin’s endorsement,” Haley said Thursday in a statement. “Sarah Palin has energized the conservative movement like few others in our generation.”Palin’s endorsement of Haley puts her at odds with her running mate in the 2008 presidential election, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona.
McCain has backed McMaster in the primary. McMaster chaired McCain’s South Carolina campaign in 2008.
Man-oh-man … like we didn’t have enough Crazy in South Carolina, we need to start importing it…
Hey, all that pandering to the Tea Party crowd Nikki’s been doing has paid off, huh?
Folks, I have a feeling that the GOP contest for the gubernatorial nomination just became an ideological knife fight. This is NOT going to be pretty.
On the bright side, this should be a settler for those ugly nativists who tried to trash Nikki in her first election — from whom I defended her, back in the days before she started going after the nativist vote (the only conclusion I can draw from her embrace of the TPs). Now they’ll have to face that she MUST be a “real American” — or else the self-appointed final arbiter of such things wouldn’t be coming to endorse her.
Just sort of noticed in passing that that release I posted yesterday about Jenny Sanford referred to her as the “former first lady.” And now I suddenly notice (gotta tell you, I don’t exactly devour most stories that have her in the headline), that’s the standard in news stories about her. Such as this.
Huh. I wonder — is that right? And if so, when did it happen? Automatically when she got her divorce? (It was flatly stated here, but who was the authority?) And if so, based on what rule or precedent? Who’s the arbiter, or the keeper of the style? Is there a written protocol rule, anywhere, on this?
Did someone just assume, and others followed suit? Maybe if I were still at the newspaper, I would have seen the memo. But I never saw a memo. I wonder if there was one. (Now watch: Like the guy in “Office Space,” I’ll get eight copies of it.)
It might be a small thing to you, but only if you’ve never been a professional journalist. Journalists have extensive debates about things like this. They form committees. They set rules. (We can be pretty ridiculous about it, something that is easy to parody.) Somewhere, someone has done that. And did they rule correctly?
I mean, isn’t she the first lady if she is still performing the duties of first lady, which last I heard she was? It’s not like anyone else is the first lady? Or is that the way we settle the issue of what to call That Other Woman?
While I was at a long lunch for the Azerbaijani journalists sponsored by the Columbia World Affairs Council, I got the following two e-mails in quick succession:
Senate overrides cig tax veto. about 3 hours ago via TweetDeck
33 to 13. Cig Tax Veto overridden about 3 hours ago via UberTwitter
That good news was coming from the spokesman for the Republicans in the Senate and his Democratic counterpart. And while they passed it on without comment, it was an occasion for rejoicing across party barriers.
This is a rare moment when the SC Legislature actually overcomes barriers and its own inertia to do the right thing. It happens so seldom that we should celebrate it.
Sure, there are plenty of ways to denigrate this accomplishment, and I’m familiar with all of them. A few:
It took only what, a decade? In spite of the fact that we’ve known for years that three-fourths of South Carolinians favored it?
In fact, 70 percent have indicated in polls that they would have gone all the way to the national average — an increase of twice this much — but the Legislature never even seriously considered doing that at any time.
Far too much of the discussion over the years has been over how to spend the money, even though that was irrelevant to whether the tax should be raised. The point in raising it was to price cigarettes beyond the reach of teen, and experience in other states has indicated that raising the price via taxes is a very effective way of accomplishing that.
Probably more than a few legislators voted this way, in defiance of their own inclinations, just for the pleasure of stuffing it down Mark Sanford’s throat.
But let’s set all that aside. The fact is that we no longer have the shameful distinction of being the one state that does the most to make sure kids have access to cheap cigarettes. And some lawmakers understood the importance of this opportunity to do the right thing for once. For instance, I share this other Tweet from Phil Bailey:
Sen. John Matthews just arrived. Been out with a back injury for a month. Cig Tax vote is that important to him. about 3 hours ago via TweetDeck
Let’s savor that accomplishment, and then march forward to address some of the other things we should have done years ago in South Carolina.
You know what’s way, WAY more important, and more ominous, than how the governor spent his weekend? It’s this:
Jenny Sanford to Hit Campaign Trail with Nikki Haley Friday
Friends,
Exciting news! Former South Carolina First Lady Jenny Sanford will be hitting the campaign trail with Nikki on Friday.
Jenny and Nikki will make stops along the South Carolina coast – Charleston, Beaufort County, and Myrtle Beach – and hold free, open-to-the-public town hall events in both Charleston and Myrtle Beach. They will also appear at private receptions in both Charleston and Beaufort County.
Below are the details of the events – if you’re on the coast, we hope to see you there! …
We all like to admire Jenny in the one and only sympathetic and admirable character in this past year’s melodrama, but as voters we need to be hard-nosed and remember this: She did more than anyone else to bring us the disaster that is GOVERNOR Mark Sanford, and she wants to do it again, which is why she’s pulling out the stops for Nikki.
And South Carolina just can’t handle any more of that.
Back in late February, Tom Friedman wrote the following about our senior senator:
And for those Republicans who think this is only a loser, Senator Graham says think again: “What is our view of carbon as a party? Are we the party of carbon pollution forever in unlimited amounts? Pricing carbon is the key to energy independence, and the byproduct is that young people look at you differently.” Look at how he is received in colleges today. “Instead of being just one more short, white Republican over 50,” says Graham, “I am now semicool. There is an awareness by young people that I am doing something different.”
But today, we have the following release from some of his erstwhile young fans:
Youth Activists Demand S.C. Leadership on Energy and Climate Legislation
(Columbia, SC) – Responding to Senator Lindsey Graham’s withdrawal from federal energy legislation and the offshore oil disaster, youth activists in South Carolina have called on the Senator to renew his leadership.
“Students at Clemson were proud to stand behind our hometown Senator in pushing for federal energy and climate legislation,” says Gabriel Fair, co-president of Clemson University’s Student for Environmental Action. “Lindsey Graham’s leadership really encouraged the young people who are fighting to cut carbon pollution and create a clean energy economy in this state.”
Over the previous months, Graham has led in federal energy and climate legislation. In February editorial in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman quoted Graham saying, “I have been to enough college campuses to know if you are 30 or younger this climate issue is not a debate. It’s a value. These young people grew up with recycling and a sensitivity to the environment – and the world will be better for it.”
Senator Graham’s withdrawal from the federal energy debate has disappointed students across South Carolina. “We’d like to stand behind our Senator again and hope he comes back to the table and strengthens the bill further,” says Fair.
Students in South Carolina are looking for the jobs comprehensive energy and climate legislation would produce. According to Winthrop University student Lorena Hildebrandt, “Young people face the highest unemployment rates in this country right now. Like many of my friends, I’ll be graduating college soon and looking for a job. That’s why building a new clean energy economy is so important to young people. It’s absolutely necessary we pass comprehensive federal legislation to create a clean energy economy.”
Graham’s backing away from the process occurs at a crucial time for federal energy legislation.
In light of the unfolding oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Americans are reconsidering our country’s dependence on oil. Recent polls have indicated that the Deepwater Horizon explosion has actually bolstered support for federal climate legislation, while support for drilling is falling.
According to a poll conducted last week by Clean Energy Works, 61 percent of Americans now favor a climate bill that would cut carbon pollution. Meanwhile, CBS News reported this week that forty-one percent of Americans feel the risks of offshore drilling are too high, up from twenty-eight percent in 2008.
Students on the coast are worried about what Graham’s pulling out will mean for federal legislation on energy and climate. “We’re disappointed here on the coast that Senator Graham walked away from federal energy and climate legislation,” says Marissa Mitzner, Sustainability Coordinator at Coastal Carolina University. “Especially with the oil disaster in the Gulf unfolding and our own South Carolina coasts vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and the threat of oil drilling, we need Senator Graham’s leadership more than ever.”
###
Face it, senator: You’re not even “semicool” now, not with the kids.
As for what a cool guy like me thinks, well, I’d certainly appreciate a better understanding about why the Dems’ recent moves on immigration mean you can’t lead on this.
Oh, and kids — Tom Friedman didn’t write that in “and editorial.” It was a column. He doesn’t write editorial.
This would be just a tiny glimpse into the efforts going on out there to override the governor’s veto of the measly 50-cent cigarette tax increase, but I provide it as an example:
As you are probably aware by now, Governor Sanford has vetoed the Cigarette Tax Bill which would increase South Carolina’s lowest in the Nation Cigarette Tax by 50 cents. The House and Senate may consider the veto as early as TODAY.If you are so inclined, I would ask you as a favor to me to call your Representative and Senator and urge them to override the Governor’s veto on this important Bill. I am working with the American Cancer Society on this, and this increase will deter teenagers from beginning to smoke and encourage current smokers to quit. The increase in funds prevent further cuts to much needed health care programs.Please take a moment and call your Representative and Senator and urge them to override the Governor. Then please forward this message to anyone else you believe may be willing to contact their Representative or Senator.If you don’t know who you elected officials are, you can click here to find out — http://www.scstatehouse.gov/cgi-bin/zipcodesearch.exeTo find House of Representative phone number, please click here — http://www.scstatehouse.gov/html-pages/housemembers.htmlTo find Senate phone numbers, please click here — http://www.scstatehouse.gov/html-pages/senatemembers.htmlThanks for your help!Mary M. Greene
Mary Green is a longtime lobbyist. I first came to know her when she worked for the S.C. Education Association.
Perhaps there’s some angle to this story that hasn’t been reported yet, some angle that will mean GOOD news for a change about air fares out of Columbia. But so far I’m not seeing any. In fact, this Charleston story doesn’t even mention that other city in the middle of the state:
Southwest Airlines has set a course for South Carolina.
The low-fare carrier said today it would launch service at both Charleston International and Greenville-Spartanburg International airports. The deal came after weeks of debate over proposed incentives to lure a discount airline. Southwest said it would offer the flights without any public assistance, aside from routine start-up help from Charleston International Airport.
The Dallas-based airline will start flights to and from South Carolina within the year. It will spend the next four or five months studying which cities to connect with the Palmetto State.
Officials estimate the airline will bring in 200,000 additional passengers annually.
Charleston’s cry for discount flights recently reached fever pitch in the wake of soaring rates after AirTran Airways’ December departure. Passengers watched as tickets to New York, for example, soared from a little more than $200 round-trip without a required overnight stay to nearly $800.
