Category Archives: Southern Discomfort

And people say such awful things about him…

Bet you didn’t know that when he was passing through here (or perhaps sometime thereafter), W. Tecumseh bought a brick for Riverbanks Zoo.

Neither did I. I learned this quite inadvertently over the weekend during an outing with the twins. We happened to be closer to the bridge than to the tram station when we decided to head back to the car on the garden side of the river, so we walked, and discovered the above.

And to think, people say such awful things about ol’ War Is Hell. So he burned Columbia? A lot of those blocks were already messed up, as Chris Tucker, who apparently did NOT set the city on fire when he was here, might say…

The South won’t rise again, but it will keep on making head fakes in that direction

Imagine the irony! I was listening, via Pandora, to an excellent live version of Levon Helm singing his masterpiece, “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down.” It opened with a little horn riff on “Dixie” itself. The song is simply magnificent, capturing everything that was noble and tragic and horrible and epic and personal in our ancestors’ fall into defeat.

So imagine how it was ruined for me by, even as I was listening to it and appreciating it, reading this low farce from Karen Floyd:

Dear Subscriber

An unprecedented event recently occurred, where the president of the United States issued a report to the U.N. Human Rights Council that bashed a state law. In a desperate attempt to gain the awe and admiration of global elitists, President Obama sounded off about the many “sins” in America’s history, including Arizona’s new illegal immigration bill.Obama writes, “A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.” He also went on about how he is seeking to offer free health care to illegal immigrants.

The context of this U.N. forum is to discuss human rights in the United States. Apparently, Obama thinks that Arizona’s law is in violation of human rights, which is why he is not only suing the state, but also reporting it to the U.N. council.

Lesson learned everyone: a liberal will always seek the praise and respect of foreign powers over the rights of the American people or the Constitution.

As a direct result of Obama’s ridiculous report to the U.N., the Arizona law will come under formal review on November 5 by the three member countries of the UN Human Rights Commission: France, Japan, and Cameroon. The U.N. Commission will then issue directives on what they recommend the United States do in response to the Arizona law.

This is simply outrageous! How can an American president sell out his own countrymen to a foreign entity over a state law that simply enforces existing federal laws? Our president should be bowing to the people’s demands, and NOT the whims of an international organization.

Folks, it is time to fight back. We desperately need trusted conservatives like Mike Mulvaney, Nikki Haley and Jim DeMint to fight for our liberties and state sovereignty. The elitists in Washington are trying to allow a foreign power to dictate your life and safety. Will you allow this to happen?

Click here to help fund conservative change and individual rights! Let’s help elect individuals who will enforce the Constitution and stand up for our rights and sovereignty.

Sincerely,

Karen Floyd

SCGOP Chairman

P.S. Let’s take the battle to them and send Obama a message! Please click here to donate now.

Just as elites conned the poor white population into being their cannon fodder in a lost and bankrupt cause in 1860, this new strain of Radical Republicanism keeps playing on the same resentments and sensitivities and inferiority complexes to manipulate the great mass of white voters in the South today.

They just keep on driving Dixie down.

Because, um, because he’s a DEMOCRAT, right?

First, let me apologize that I’ve been missing in action all day. Some kind of horrific stomach bug. I’m somewhat better now, but then I haven’t eaten since breakfast.

But just to say I’ve posted something, let me share this…

Back on this earlier post, a reader named Rose wrote:

I don’t know why Republicans think Democrats don’t own guns. Most of my family members are moderate Democrats (although we do unfortunately have a few loony Tea Party cousins) and we own guns. Shotguns, rifles and handguns. We hunt. We shoot targets. And I guarandamntee you that I’m a helluva better shot than Haley.

So I don’t understand why Southerners think only Republicans like guns.

Well, as it happens, Rose, Vincent Sheheen is a regular Southerner, as he noted in a story by Yvonne Wenger:

Sheheen said he also supports gun rights.

“As chairman of the South Carolina Sportsmen’s Caucus and gun owner, I have repeatedly worked with the NRA to protect the gun ownership rights of South Carolinians,” Sheheen said in a statement. “There is no candidate that is a stronger supporter of Second Amendment rights and as governor, I will make sure the rights of citizens to own guns are never infringed.”

So how come this “Gun Owners of America” (of which I had never heard before Nikki touted their endorsement; had you?) didn’t endorse Vincent? Yvonne wondered, too, and asked. Here’s what she didn’t learn:

The group’s director of communications Erich Pratt said Monday that the reason why Sheheen did not receive the endorsement wasn’t immediately available.

Don’t you love it? “Wasn’t immediately available!” Of course, the answer most likely is that the folks making this decision probably didn’t know squat about Vincent Sheheen or his positions on issues, and didn’t care. They just went with the Republican who mouths extremist slogans. So, if she’s one o’ US, he’s gotta be some gun-hatin’ hippie liberal weirdo, right? Stands to reason…

This kind of reminds of the national media’s ecstasy over the idea that South Carolina might elect an “Indian-American woman.” It never occurs to them that as a Lebanese-American Catholic, Vincent would also score two firsts as governor. As if that sort of thing mattered. And like the “Gun Owners of America,” they don’t care, either.

Maybe they’d care if Will Folks claimed to have had an affair with him.

Uh-oh. I shouldn’t have had that thought when my stomach was already queasy…

Prominent Indian-American politicians in the South — all 2 of them

Salon has a piece on how our own Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal work to carve out a place for themselves in the GOP of the South. An excerpt:

There’s no doubt that the religious conversions of Haley and Jindal, the two most prominent Indian-American politicians, have powerful personal and spiritual roots. But it’s also inarguable that being Christians with Anglicized names has made it easier for them to create bonds with the overwhelmingly white and deeply religious voters who dominate Republican politics in the South.

That basic imperative, to project an identity that voters aren’t threatened by, is one that all minority candidates in all regions of the country can relate to. But for Indian-Americans, who are only now stepping into American politics in sizable numbers, figuring out how to do so is still a work in progress…

Find the whole piece here.

Why does it have to be a “hate crime?”

OK, I’ve ignored it and ignored it, but now that there’s going to be a march tomorrow, I have to ask:

Why does it have to be a “hate crime?”

I mean, set aside the usual grim joke, as in: You mean, as opposed to those love crimes in which someone is shot and then dragged behind a truck for 11 miles?

And set aside the weirdness of the emergence of a group calling itself the New Black Panther Party, which hearkens back to a day long before the term “hate crime” was invented. It seems… anachronistic, out of sync.

I’m just asking, why does it have to have the political element of being called a “hate crime”? Why not just prosecute the perpetrating to the nth degree? I mean, if this guy’s guilty, he’s at least going to spend the rest of his life in prison, right?

As you know, one of the few things I agree with libertarians about is that in THIS country, there should be no such thing as a “hate crime.” The idea of punishing the political intent behind a crime — essentially, punishing thought, however represensible — is utterly and completely unAmerican. The only way thought or intent should come into the prosecution calculation is in trying to determine whether the perpetrator meant to do what he did, and understood what he was doing.

And yes, I know the answer to the question I pose in my headline above; I just consider it to be insufficient. The answer to “why must it be a hate crime” is that it’s deeply important to a lot of people to feel singled out to be victims of heinous crimes on the basis of accidents of demography to know that society disapproves of such mistreatment. But the legitimate way for society to show that is by fully punishing the actions, not by outlawing the abominable attitudes.

Punish the crime. Not the fact that the person who did it is a hateful bastard. That’s for God to deal with, not the state.

Getting Sirius about Alvin Greene

OK, it wasn’t such a surprise when NPR wanted to talk with me about SC politics. But this request took me aback a bit:

Hi Brad,
This is Dan Pashman, I produce Whatever with Alexis and Jennifer on the Martha Stewart channel on Sirius. It’s a general interest talk show, and we’d like to invite you on to talk about Alvin Greene. I’m sure you’re very familiar with his story, but the intrigue surrounding it is just starting to break through on the national level, and we’d love to get the local perspective. How did he win the primary? Is this some kind of joke? Is he really as unlikely a candidate as it seems? What are folks in the state saying about him? And are you sure this isn’t some kind of joke? We’d like to do this today at 6 pm eastern, you could do it from a land line phone and it would take about 15 minutes. The show is lighthearted and fun, we do some politics and the hosts are curious about Greene, but it’s definitely not wonky. The hosts also talk a lot about dating and celebrities, etc, so we cover a lot of ground and this interview can definitely have a fun element to it. Please let me know if you’re available.

Thanks,
Dan

Anyway, I’ll be on tomorrow (we moved it back a day) at 6, if you can listen. I can’t not having satellite radio.

By the way, Dan wrote me later to ask if I could answer his questions above so that he could prep the stars of the show. Here’s how I replied:

How did he win the primary?
No one knows. These were all factors in what happened, though:
— No one was paying attention to that race because whoever it was was expected to be a sacrificial lamb and lose to DeMint in the fall.
— The candidate expected to win, Vic Rawl, didn’t campaign all that much. He thought he had it in the bag. And indeed, if you had asked me who was going to win that, I would have said, “Vic Rawl.” Not that I cared. I assumed that Vic Rawl would be the guy to lose to DeMint in the fall, that that was that. (I’ll tell you, I did not vote on that race. I saw Rawl’s name there, and recognized it, but decided I didn’t know enough about him to vote for him — of course, I’m used to knowing more about candidates than most people, and in this case, I hadn’t even met the guy.)
— Alvin Greene’s name came first on the ballot. Never underestimate the power of that in the absence of name recognition.
— “Greene” is considered to be a “black” spelling of the name. So it’s assumed that lots of black voters, not knowing either of these guys, chose him because he sounded like the black guy.
— Bottom line, his winning makes all the sense in the world to Alvin — he ran, right? so why wouldn’t people have voted for him? — and totally blows the minds of everybody else.
Is this some kind of joke?
Not to Alvin Greene. He’s serious as a crutch.
Is he really as unlikely a candidate as it seems?
Yes.
What are folks in the state saying about him?
Democrats are saying as little as possible. Republicans are saying “Greene-Sheheen,” loudly and often. Vincent Sheheen is the Democratic nominee for governor.
And are you sure this isn’t some kind of joke?
Yep. To folks outside the state, and to Republicans inside it, it IS a joke. But not to other South Carolinians. We’ve had enough embarrassment.

Greene media juggernaut cranks up (snicker!)

Two things to share…

First, this photo, which may or may not be legitimate; I have no idea. It was brought to my attention by Scott English, Mark Sanford’s chief of staff, via Twitter. He got it from the Washington Examiner. PhotoShop or reality? Either way, it’s a primo example of the current rage in political comedy, the item that allows us all to sneer at Alvin Greene. (Speaking of PhotoShop: I not only cropped the picture before posting it here; I also lightened it up and increased the contrast. We have standards here at bradwarthen.com.) The knee-slapping cutline that came with the picture:

This sign is from US 521, near Greene’s hometown, and hotbed of support, in Manning, SC.  No signs for Republican Sen. Jim DeMint were spotted anywhere near the area, suggesting that Greene has opened an imposing lead in the early-advertising race.

Yuk, yuk, chortle, snort.

Which brings me to my second point: At what point does mocking Alvin Greene simply becoming mocking a man for being poor, black and unemployed and from a small town in South Carolina? At what point do the Republicans who are LOVING this, or the mortified Democrats who hide their faces in shame that THIS is their nominee, or smart-ass bloggers who post satirical photos (real or fake; irresponsible bloggers just don’t care, do they?) get called on the carpet for the so-far socially acceptable practice of running down Alvin Greene?

Food for thought, there…

The mullahs aren’t all bad: Iran bans the mullet

Folks, that Alvin Greene story I referred you to earlier is the most-read story at The Guardian‘s Web site in the past 24 hours. Yes, The Guardian. In London. England.

So it is that, after celebrating the Gamecock’s national championship last week, we return to the harsh reality that the world will continue to view us as a fascinating oddity, the source of the world’s oddest political stories.

Sigh.

To distract myself from this, I checked out the second most-read story on The Guardian‘s site in the last 24. Turns out to be this:

Iran bans the mullet

Islamic republic aims to free itself of ‘decadent’ western hairstyles

Imagine a country where a man with a ponytail could have it cut off by the cops, as could one with a mullet, or one whose hair was slathered in gel, fancifully spiked, or simply too long. Repeat offenders would face stiff fines, while their barber-accomplices would have their shops closed.
It may sound like paradise, especially if your own crazy-haired days are behind you. It’s actually the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose cultural ministry has just unveiled (although that’s perhaps not the most appropriate word in this context) a list of approved hairstyles in an attempt to free the country of “decadent” western cuts.
And people say bad things about repressive Islamic regimes. A government that bans the mullet can’t be all bad. At least it shows that when the mullahs decry our culture, they actually do have a clue as which parts of our culture are truly awful.
Of course, we don’t need any of their forced haircuts or such over here. Over hear, we have the free market to punish such sins against good taste. I mean, just see if you can get a job paying big bucks if you wear a mullet to the interview. Of course, if you DO try it and it WORKS, get back to me and maybe I’ll grow me one. I’m not proud. I’ll just stay out of Tehran.
Oh, and if you want to know more about the Iran coiffure crisis, here’s an earlier story that was in the Telegraph. Seems that lately, I’m getting more and more of my News That Matters, international and local, from British newspapers…

“It’s not a joke,” says Greene of his “GI Alvin” plan

Lest you be dismissive of the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate, first check out his plan for bringing jobs back to South Carolina, as reported by The Guardian (which, last time I checked, was not part of the SC MSM that should be covering this election):

“Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays. Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an army uniform, air force uniform, and me in my suit. They can make toys of me and my vehicle, especially for the holidays and Christmas for the kids. That’s something that would create jobs. So you see I think out of the box like that. It’s not something a typical person would bring up. That’s something that could happen, that makes sense. It’s not a joke.”

No, I’m not making this up. It’s not a joke. A new twist on GI Joe. That’s his plan. You know, as a guy who was unemployed for a really long time, I’m resenting the picture he’s presenting to the world of guys like us. And for the record, I have NOT shown any dirty pictures to co-eds.

But as a Mad Man, I think I smell a tagline in the making. He could build his whole campaign around it: “It’s not a joke!”

And you know what, it isn’t. Not a funny one, anyway.

Backup tagline: “It’s not something a typical person would bring up.”

And as I could tell the client in all honesty, there are plenty more where those two came from…

The Newsweek endorsement of Nikki Haley

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

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

This actually goes beyond an endorsement. This is a declaration that this woman IS our future. She IS the Face of the New South, and no one dare say her nay, least of all that — what’s his name? — the Democratic nominee. You know, the Catholic Lebanese-American — but who cares about that, right?

And if you think their excitement about her goes any deeper than that, you are not very familiar with the MSM.

But we are the ones who will have to live with what the national MSM is trying to ordain, the narrative that they have adopted and are extremely unlikely to deviate from. She may have come to their attention as the result of alleged scandal, but the narrative has adapted that as merely an example of how far the Dark Atavistic Forces of Reaction will go to stop their new darling.

The only good thing about this is that the national media is so ubiquitous that someone out there will raise questions. They will say, OK, if those allegations were lies, why doesn’t she — the supposed champion of transparency — want to release her public e-mail records, but instead hides behind an exemption to DUI law specifically carved out to protect lawmakers (you know, those awful Bubbas who fight so hard to resist transparency!). Or maybe they will take a look at those videos in which she obsequiously courts the neo-Confederate vote. Or maybe they’ll ask what other little consulting deals she might have had aside from that $40,000 from a company wanting access to her “good contacts.”

But those won’t make the headlines. They won’t supplant or derail the master narrative.

Newsweek has staged its coronation. Watch for other media to follow.

Nikki Haley, Vincent Sheheen offer clear choice on Confederate flag

The contrast between Vincent Sheheen and Nikki Haley will be sharp on a lot of issues, and we’ll get to them over the coming months.

But today, I want to highlight the difference between them on the Confederate flag flying on our State House grounds, as a window into broader differences. (And why that issue today? Because today is the 10th anniversary of the day it moved from the dome to the spot behind the soldier monument.)

Gina Smith in The State provided the following vignettes showing the difference. From Vincent Sheheen:

If elected governor in November, Sheheen said he is open to discussing the removal of the flag from the State House grounds. He was elected to the S.C. House a year after the compromise.

“We must develop an environment that creates jobs,” Sheheen said. “We cannot give up any edge that South Carolina has in attracting a large employer coming to South Carolina. After the last eight years, we must be proactive in creating a positive image of our state to the world.”

Sheheen offers no details, though, including locations where he would consider having the flag relocated.

“I have no predetermined proposal on the flag, but would like to work with legislative leaders, business leaders and community leaders to finally reach consensus. My job as governor will be to bring people together to reach consensus on how best to heal any divisions, including the flag,” he said.

It is unclear whether Sheheen supports the NAACP’s boycott.

And from Nikki Haley:

Haley wasn’t elected to the House until 2004. Haley believes a compromise was reached and the issue resolved.

“It was settled and it has been put away. And I don’t have any intentions of bringing it back up or making it an issue,” she said in a recent interview with the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Instead, Haley said her focus is on making state government more transparent and more business-friendly. “If the people aren’t focused on the flag, it’s hard to see why the governor and General Assembly should be,” said Rob Godfrey, Haley’s spokesman.

Haley implied in the Sons of Confederate Veterans interview that she would work with the NAACP and others who want the flag removed from the State House grounds to address the NAACP boycott. “I’m the perfect person to deal with the boycott. Because, as a minority female, I’m going to go and talk to them and I’m going to go and let them know that every state has their traditions. … But we need to talk about business. And we need to talk about having (businesses) come into our state …”

As you see, Vincent understands that the time must come when we stop portraying our state to the world as a haven for neo-Confederate extremists who insist upon continuing to embrace the worst moments of our history. He’s just too diplomatic to put it in quite those terms. If he had the chance, he’d get it down. By the way, his Uncle Bob, the former speaker, had the best idea of all about what to do about the flag: Replace it with a bronze plaque noting that it once flew here. That’s a solution that would enable us to move on. But the GOP leadership refused to seriously consider that or any other reasonable solution on the ONE DAY they allowed for debate before rushing to embrace this “compromise” that settled nothing.

Nikki, however, promises not to touch it, which is the standard South Carolina Republican response. And now that she’s promised it to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, that’s that. Which is a real shame, given that since she wasn’t in the Legislature at the time, no one could legitimately pretend that she is in any way bound by the “compromise” of 2000. She wasn’t a party to it.

She’s come a long way from being the inspiring emblem for tolerance that she truly was when she ran in 2004, when I took up the cudgels for her against the forces of ugly nativism. I’d like to see the national media folks who are SO EXCITED, in their superficial way, that an Indian-American woman might be elected in South Carolina take a moment to consider this. They also might want to watch her cozying up to the neo-Confederates in these video clips. Just something that should go into the calculation…

Note also the HUGE difference in their understanding of the impact of the flag on economic development. Vincent understands that if we want the rest of the world to take us seriously, the flag needs to come down. Nikki thinks the only obstacle to economic development here is the rather sad, ineffective boycott by the NAACP, which is weird on several levels.

Folks, Joe’s got enough money. You can stop giving now

It’s rather incredible that after all those millions that rolled into his (and opponent Rob Miller’s) coffers right after the “You Lie!” incident, Joe Wilson would still be trying to raise money.

But that’s how it works these days. Candidates raise money so they can set up a real steamroller of an operation that will raise them MORE money, on and on. Rob Miller’s probably doing the same thing and just doesn’t have my e-mail address or something.

Anyway, here’s Joe’s latest. Note the bombast. Note the hyperbole. Note the over-the-top demonization of the opposition. Yeah, it’s all extremely destructive to our ability to have a civil society, but hey — who cares if it works in infuriating people enough to give money, right? Here it is:

The clock is ticking to end the spending spree in Washington.  But Nancy Pelosi and her gang of liberals are trying to pull out all the stops to silence our conservative beliefs.  You have less than 24 hours left to have your voice heard since tonight at midnight marks the end of the financial quarter.
Just this week, Democrats launched an initiative aimed at tripping up conservatives and trying to play gotcha games.  Since liberals can’t win with their ideas like government-run health care and raising our taxes, they have to play games instead.
I have been busy meeting with constituents constantly in the Palmetto State.  Hard work is something I greatly value, and my promise has always been to be accessible and accountable.  This recent video will show just one example of my commitment to the Second District of South Carolina.
I realize we are in a tough economy, unemployment is far too high and the liberals in Washington need to get out of the way of small businesses and stop spending your money endlessly.
Going up against people who we’ve all seen will do or say anything isn’t easy.  This is a team effort.  Momentum is on the conservative side, we’ve seen it recently with the historic elections of Republicans in New Jersey and Massachusetts.
My opponent is taking in big bucks from unions and extreme groups like Moveon.org. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has even chipped in a few grand to the opposition.  Such donations will tell you where he really stands.
November may seem like a long way away, but we’re in a battle of ideas.  Our side will win and we will do it together. The financial quarter ends at midnight tonight.  Just $100, $50 or $25 will go along way in helping us send a strong message to Nancy Pelosi.
Please keep our conservative movement running strong as we build momentum for the fall.
Sincerely,
Joe Wilson
US Congressman
PS – The financial quarter ends at midnight tonight. All the political pundits will be reporting on our fundraising totals. Please click here, to make a small donation and let Nancy Pelosi know that big government isn’t the path to economic freedom.
Yeah, things may be tough and you may not have a job, but I’m hoping I can get you to hate those other guys enough to cough up some of the money from your tiny unemployment check to help me stop ’em.

God have mercy upon us.

Like Joe would actually do anything to change the country, even by this pitiful standard, if re-elected. The point is to re-elect Joe, because he really likes being your congressman. He really does. It’s sort of touching, really, the extent to which he digs it, and gets all breathless about it. (I suppose Joe would send out letters gushing about just that, but his well-compensated consultants advise against anything that positive.) He’s like his late predecessor Floyd Spence in that respect. Floyd never tried to DO anything in Washington; he just loved being a congressman and having his picture taken with famous people, and voting a safe, conservative way, and doing constituent service so that folks would let him keep doing it. He never rocked anybody’s boat, and normally Joe doesn’t, either. It’s not his nature.

Which is what makes the “You Lie” thing so weird. I think Joe shocked himself that night, losing control like that. Which is why he apologized… until he saw all that money coming in.

That huge, gigantic, enormous Confederate Flag rally Saturday

Just now I was cleaning up the storage card on my Blackberry (a.k.a., my Double-Naught Spy Camera), and I ran across this shot I took at the intersection of Main and Gervais at 1:17 p.m. Saturday.

This was the huge rally to support the Confederate flag on the North lawn of the State House.

What rally, you ask? Well, it’s right there in front of you. Look about 50 feet past the monument — see that knot of flags back there? All clumped up together? What you can’t see too well in this low-res photo is that they are all massed together in front of a camera, with the State House steps behind them, trying to make it look on camera as though the lawn is just PACKED with Confederate flag supporters. At least, that’s what it looked like was happening from where I was. Maybe there was something else on that tripod, I don’t know.

Best part of this picture? I think, based on his comments here, that that’s our own Michael Rodgers counterdemonstrating in the foreground (in the red shirt), being confronted by what I think is a counter-counter-demonstrator, but I didn’t stick around to find out, because the light turned green.

In my day, I’ve seen some flag rallies. I’ve seen some pretty big pro-flag gatherings, that fairly filled the space before the steps, with re-enactors and all sorts of pomp — groups numbering three or four thousand. And of course, I’ve seen the historic King Day at  the Dome in 2000, when 60,000 gathered to say take it down.

And therefore, I can say without fear of contradiction, this was pathetic.

Want to see a REAL cigarette tax increase?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vic Rawl throws in the towel

This just in from Vic Rawl:

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

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

Back on a previous post, Greg Jones said:

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

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

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

And therein lies the problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truer words than Jake’s never spoken in SC

Well, I’ve gotta hand it to Jake Knotts — he stood up as what he is and spared no words about it: He is a redneck. And he was right to be proud of the supposed ephithet. A farmer suntan is a mark of hard work, something of which a simple kind of man should be quietly proud. Or blusteringly proud, depending on his inclinations.

In saying that, he touched on something — a minor, side issue, really — I tried to explain in my column about why we VERY RELUCTANTLY endorsed him against Mark Sanford’s candidate in 2008. The decision nearly killed Cindi Scoppe from sheer mortification, but there was one silver lining in it for me: I had always felt a tiny bit of middle-class guilt over always being against the rednecks (on video poker, on the lottery, on the Flag, and so on), and sometimes doing it in a way that betrayed class snobbery on my part. I figured, endorse this rough, brutish son of the soil against the Club for Growth snobs just once, and for the next 20 years I wouldn’t have to feel that guilt again. Yes, I’m being a little facetious, but also a little bit serious.

Anyway, you can’t deny (unless you are a Republican Party functionary, in which case you will deny it most vehemently) the truth of what Jake said about the hypocrites of his party, who defend Nikki from his brutishness because she’s their gal, and their likely standard-bearer in the fall. Unlike Henry McMaster, Jake will not humbly join that train; he remains what he is, with all the good and bad that entails.

What is Jake right about?

He’s right when he says that if he’d only called Barack Obama a “raghead,” the Lexington County Republican Party would not have indignantly censured him and sought his resignation. Calling the president a “raghead” would be merely a comical slip, compared to the deliberate demonization of the president through such devices as Henry’s “Vultures” ad. If Jake had only been talking about Obama, it would merely have put him on the ragged edge of what is increasingly his party’s mainstream (as the mainstream is more and more infiltrated by Tea Party extremism). Oh, Carol Fowler would have fired off an indignant statement. The Black Caucus may have drafted a fiery resolution that would have died a lonely death on the House floor. But within the Republican Party, only a deafening silence. The righteous fury we’re hearing is coming from advocates for Katrina Shealy and Nikki Haley. It’s coming from the Sanford wing of the party, which is seeing the chance to achieve what it could not in eight years of holding the governor’s office — seize control of the party.

He’s ABSOLUTELY right when he alludes to the uncomfortable truth about the newly politically correct GOP. It deserves to be carved into granite somewhere over at the State House:

“If all of us rednecks leave the Republican Party, the party is going to have one hell of a void.”

Indeed. Where would the S.C. GOP be without rednecks? In the minority, that’s where. That’s assuming they went back to the Democratic Party where they came from.

I was just over at the State House myself, and fell into conversation with Dwight Drake, and I happened to ask him — now that he’s out of it — how he thinks Vincent-vs.-Nikki contest will shake out.

He said that of course one must start with the obvious — that this is a majority Republican state (actually, a plurality-Republican state, but why quibble?) … which caused me to interrupt him to say, “Which it wouldn’t be if all the rednecks left, as Jake said.” And he readily agreed.

Of course, he would agree, being a Democrat. But if Republicans were totally honest, they would agree, too. There is no question that the balance of power in the South shifted from the Democrats to the Republicans as Strom Thurmond and George Wallace led legions of rednecks to abandon the Democratic Party. No, not everyone who switched parties was a redneck; some were mere pragmatists who saw there was a heap of white people in their districts and if they wanted to be elected, they needed to go with the GOP. But that would not be the case if not for the rednecks. However much of the GOP vote may be thus described — 15 percent, 30 percent, whatever — it’s enough to mean there are more Republicans than Democrats.

And while your more high-minded sort of Republican — the kind who like to imagine themselves as the sort who 50 years ago would have been Republican, when in the South it was not much more than a debating society making up a demographic roughly the same size as the Unitarians (the kind who are feeling SO broad-minded because they may have a nonEuro, something that would excite relatively little comment among Dems) — may protest loudly at the notion, on some operational level, consciously or unconsciously, every Republican with the pragmatic sense to win a primary knows this. Occasionally we see overt manifestations of it, such as in 1994 when the GOP unashamedly boosted their primary turnout by including a mock “referendum” question on the Confederate flag. Or when, having taken over the House as a result of that election, the new majority made it one of its first orders of business to put the flying of the flag a matter of state law, so that no mere governor could take it down.

Lord knows that other pathetic gang the Democrats has enough to be embarrassed over, but this is the big dirty secret of the Republican Party. Huh. Some secret. Everybody knows it.

The Republican Party can talk all it wants to about conservatism and “small government,” yadda-yadda, but we all know that it has political control in these parts because of the rednecks in its ranks. That’s just the way it is.

Fun Post IV: Jon Stewart’s latest on SC

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Alvin Greene Wins South Carolina Primary
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

I say it’s a “Fun Post,” but you know what — the fun of being mocked by “The Daily Show” is starting to wear thin. Even Jon Stewart, so charmed by us last week, seems to be getting sick of all the absurdity here in what he terms “America’s whoopie cushion, South Carolina.” There was an edge to his delivery last night — as when he said, “Only South Carolina can take a silk purse and turn it into a sow’s anus” — that seemed to say, “Enough already with you people!”

Vic Rawl files protest of Alvin Greene’s win

Photo of Vic Rawl from his Facebook page. I mean, I THINK it's Vic Rawl. It's HIS Facebook page so it's gotta be him, right?...

Vic Rawl had a press conference down in Charleston today — yeah, like I’ve got time to run down to Charleston — to announce that his erstwhile campaign has filed an official protest of his bizarre defeat by Alvin Greene in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Here’s his statement:

STATEMENT OF JUDGE VIC RAWL
June 14, 2010
Good afternoon, and thank you all for coming.
Earlier today, our campaign filed a protest of last Tuesday’s election results with the South Carolina Democratic Party.
We have filed this protest not for my personal or political gain, but on behalf of the people of South Carolina.
There is a cloud over Tuesday’s election. There is a cloud over South Carolina, that affects all of our people, Democrats and Republicans, white and African-American alike.
At this point, the people of our state do not have the basic confidence that their vote will be counted.
The strange circumstances surrounding Tuesday’s vote require a thorough investigation. For better or worse, this protest process is the only platform currently available for that investigation.
And let me be clear: regardless of the outcome of this protest, a full and unblinking investigation of this election and the overall integrity of South Carolina’s election system must go forward. Whether our protest is upheld or not, I intend to bring my full energies to electoral reform well into the future.
I want to speak briefly about the bases for our protest.
First is ongoing analyses of the election returns themselves, which indicate irregularities.
Second are the many voters and poll workers who continue to contact us with their stories of extremely unusual incidents while trying to vote and administer this election.
These range from voters who repeatedly pressed the screen for me only to have the other candidate’s name appear, to poll workers who had to change program cards multiple times, to at least one voter in the Republican primary who had the Democratic U.S. Senate race appear on her ballot.
For those who experienced problems voting, I urge you to go to our website, www.vicrawl.com and use the form there to report them. You can also call our Election Integrity Hotline at 843-278-0510.
Third is the well-documented unreliability and unverifiability of the voting machines used in South Carolina.
It is worth noting that these machines were purchased surplus from Louisiana after that state outlawed them.
The full details of our protest will be presented on Thursday.
For the people of South Carolina, getting to the bottom of Tuesday’s results will build confidence, either way.
I also hope that a full and frank discussion of our voting system will result in substantial reform.
At the risk of repetition, this protest is not about me, or my personal political fortunes. Indeed, if the protest is upheld and a new election ordered, I have not decided whether to run in it.
But, either way, I am not done with the issue of fixing our elections.
Lastly, let me make something clear. Like all of you, I am aware of the controversies surrounding Mr. Greene. This protest is not about him either.
I would like to speak directly to Mr. Greene and say: “Sir, this is not about you, and it’s not about me. I wish you and your family nothing but the best in the weeks and months ahead.”
I will be happy to take questions.

Yeah, I’ve got a question, which I would ask if I were indeed in Charleston: What’s YOUR explanation for how this happened? You keep saying it’s not about you, but isn’t it, to some extent? Don’t you share some of the blame? I mean, I admit that I share some blame, for not voting in that race. But maybe if you’d been a little more visible, I would have voted for you. Maybe.

Anyway, we’d all like to get to the bottom of this. So protest away, by all means.