Category Archives: The Nation

How about a “Let Joe Go” party?

11 Replies

wilson

Yesterday, my wife got the envelope above in the mail.

It contains the usual “paint-yourself-as-a-victim-of-the-inhuman-opposition” language that we are accustomed to seeing in fund-raising appeals:

I’ve been under attack by the liberal left for months because of my opposition to their policies, especially government-run healthcare. They’ve run commercials in the Second District and flooded my office with phone calls and protestors. They’ve done everything they can to quiet my very vocal opposition to more government interference in our lives. Now, it’s gotten even worse.

Hmmm. Could the fact that it’s “gotten even worse” have anything to do with the form that Joe’s “very vocal opposition” has taken?

Of course, Joe goes on to express regret — but not really — for his outburst, in a classic political non-apology apology:

I am also frustrated by this and, unfortunately, I let that emotion get the best of me. Last week, I reacted by speaking out during the President’s speech. I should not have disrespected the President by responding in that manner.

But I am not sorry for fighting back against the dangerous policies of liberal Democrats. America’s working families deserve to have their views represented in Washington. I will do so with civility, but I will not be muzzled.

Of course, he needs your money to buy himself a bigger megaphone…

Call the tone “defiant regret.”

You see, in the world of hyperpartisan politics, you NEVER really give ground to the other side, because it is ALWAYS wrong. Raking in the big bucks means never having to say you’re sorry and mean it.

You can’t mean it, and you can’t be seen as meaning it, because you’re counting on getting contributions from the very people who are GLAD you yelled “You lie!” at the president.

This is why I don’t mind Joe’s outburst nearly as much as I mind his continued, deliberate efforts to cash in on it. Anybody can lose control for a moment. Remind me to tell you about the time I yelled out in church when I was four years old, an incident that some old folks in Bennettsville still talk about. I didn’t mean any harm.

But this cold-blooded campaign to benefit from that outburst is what I find unforgivable. I find it contemptible on all sides: Democrats demonizing Joe, and Joe demonizing them back. But Joe is my congressman, and he’s the one I hold accountable. I’ve always liked Joe personally. We get along fine. But that’s because I always thought he was the sort of guy who’d REALLY be sorry about such an outburst.

Anyway, this mailing was an invitation to a “Welcome Home Reception” for Joe in West Columbia on Sept. 28 at Kenny Bingham’s house. One is asked to RSVP to fellow blogger Sunny Philips… and to contribute between $25 and $500, or more.

The “LET’S GO JOE!” seems an unfortunate choice of a battle cry. It sort of begs the opposition to come back with “Let Joe Go,” which has more of a ring to it. Maybe someone — someone other than Rob Miller — should have a party with that on the invitations, and welcome Joe home for good.

Dems aren’t putting all their bets on Miller

2 Replies

Well, this is interesting. I followed a link on Facebook that said:

Stand Against Joe Wilson

And it led to this Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee page. All it was was a generic party come-on urging folks to give money to “send a message to Republicans like Congressman Joe Wilson.” In other words, it wasn’t actually about the 2nd District or about South Carolina at all; it was about something I couldn’t care less about — whether there are more Democrats or more Republicans in Congress overall.

But I did like that it didn’t mention Rob Miller. There was no reason why it should, since it wasn’t really about this race. But as useless as parties are (and as shamelessly as they try to whip up and cash in on outrage), I was glad to see in this case, to the extent it was about the 2nd District at all, it was NOT about one particular candidate.

The 2nd District needs options. It doesn’t need a fait accompli, whether it’s Joe Wilson or Rob Miller. And it has disturbed me that up to now, people who wanted to express their opposition to Joe have given money to Rob.

Not that I’d recommend giving to this fund, either. As I said, I wouldn’t give two cents to help either party achieve or maintain majority status. I think the ideal in Congress would be a dead tie, with a handful of independents (like my man Joe Lieberman) in position to call the shots. Hey, I can dream, can’t I?

It already failed, yet we’re just starting to track it?

12 Replies

Thought it was really conscientious of Richard Eckstrom to promise to keep us posted on how the stimulus money is spent:

More than a half-billion dollars in stimulus money from an estimated $3 billion have come through state government so far, according to a news release from Eckstrom’s office.

“The debt from this spending extends far into the future of our children and grandchildren, so we owe it to those future generations to ensure the funds are spent without impropriety and with accountability and transparency,” Eckstrom said in the statement.

“People deserve easy access to how this money is spent. Not only that, but when spending is done in the open, public officials are usually more accountable,” he said. “They know their spending decisions will be examined by the public. If transparency is important under ordinary circumstances, it’s even more critical with massive infusions of cash like this, which can invite opportunities for waste, mismanagement and even fraud.”

The stimulus-spending details will be updated monthly, Eckstrom said.

OK, let me get this straight — one sixth of this has been spent. You are going to keep us posted as it is spent, which also indicates that this is something that is ongoing, and most of it has not yet occurred. Am I reading that right?

And yet, you already declared the stimulus a failure back on July 13 — the 13th day of the budget year. More than two months ago.

What am I missing here?

An early interview with Rob Miller

17 Replies

The first time I met Rob Miller, he was still a captain in the United States Marine Corps. He was having breakfast at the Capital City Club with Samuel Tenenbaum and Bud Ferillo. They were talking with him about his plan to leave the Corps and run for Congress in the 2nd District. He was in civvies — a blue blazer and conservative tie, as I recall — but he was marked as a Marine by two things: His head was shaved, and he compulsively called every man he addressed “sir” in a way that made you feel like he was just barely containing himself from saluting. (Marines always do this, and I find it disconcerting. I’m a lousy civilian; I should be calling them “sir,” not the other way around.)

When next I met him, a few months later, his hair had just started to grow out, and he was both a civilian and a candidate for the 2nd Congressional District. About all I knew about him was that he had been a Marine, he was a combat veteran, having served two tours in Iraq, and he was Bobby Hitt’s nephew (I had worked for Bobby when he was managing editor of The State in the late 80s) — and that some prominent Democrats had taken an interest in his campaign, at least to some extent.

Other than that, he was a blank slate for me, so this interview did a lot to form my impression of him as a candidate. It was not a strong impression. I did not feel like he was ready to run for this office. He seemed uncertain in talking about why he was running, and had to grope for answers to questions that simply asked him to elaborate on what he had said in his opening remarks. He had this trouble in spite of having a little notebook with him, to which he repeatedly referred.

Now, in complete fairness to Capt. Miller: This was very early in his transition to civilian life. I thought he seemed more poised and confident later in the campaign, such as in the October debate with Joe Wilson that I helped moderate. (The header photo above is from that event.) Unfortunately, the link to that video no longer seems to work, and I lost everything that I had put on my laptop in September and October of that year when my laptop was stolen (although I don’t think I had anything on him from that period anyway). So the one thing I have to refer back to is this video from May of that year.

We did not endorse Capt. Miller in the primary, which is what this interview was about. We endorsed Blaine Lotz, who had had a somewhat more extensive military career than the captain (he had retired from the Air Force as a colonel), and a far greater grasp of national security issues — after the Air Force, he had a distinguished civilian career at the Pentagon specializing in intelligence, and in 1998 he was appointed by Secretary of Defense Cohen to be Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight. Of course, he was still in that position under Donald Rumsfeld, for which S.C. Democrats were apparently unwilling to forgive him. Or maybe they didn’t even know that; he didn’t seem to get as much exposure in the campaign as did Capt. Miller. In any case, Miller won.

Even though he made a better impression in the fall, we still did what many of you will no doubt consider unforgivable — we endorsed Joe Wilson. It was a tepid endorsement, but an endorsement all the same. In that same editorial, we also endorsed Jim Clyburn (also unenthusiastically) and John Spratt (wholeheartedly). An excerpt:

Newcomer Rob Miller seems poised to give incumbent Joe Wilson a real contest this year. The Democrat is an ex-Marine, an Iraq combat veteran and a member of a prominent South Carolina family (his uncle used to be managing editor of this newspaper). He seemed uncertain about issues in the primary campaign, but still managed to beat a former Air Force general [I don’t know where that came from, since his bio online says he retired as a colonel] with an impressive resume. He has gained confidence in the intervening months with an aggressive, populist, anti-establishment message. Combine that with the Obama Effect, and you have a candidate with a chance.

But we endorse Republican Wilson, who demonstrates a greater command of the issues, and is much more attuned to the wishes of voters in the district’s gravitational center, Lexington County. Yes, he’s a hyper-Republican, and we’d like to see a less partisan candidate with competitive credentials. But Rep. Wilson is a hard-working, earnest representative who is truly devoted to serving his district and his country, and voters will be better served to re-elect him.

In the 6th District, we see both strong similarities and a stark difference. The similarity is that the incumbent, Jim Clyburn, is just as partisan as Mr. Wilson, and much more successful at it — he’s the third-ranking Democrat in the U.S. House, the majority whip. It’s his job to line up votes for Speaker Nancy Pelosi; he takes the job seriously and does it well.

Where this district, which runs from Richland County through the Pee Dee and down the I-95 corridor, differs from the 2nd is in the fact that Mr. Clyburn is strongly supported in every part of it. He is closely attuned to his district’s wants and needs, and passionately devoted to serving its people. Consequently, he faces weak opposition in Republican Nancy Harrelson, who is running on a populist platform in some ways similar to Mr. Miller’s.

We endorse Mr. Clyburn, a highly experienced and savvy public servant who is clearly better qualified.

By the way, about that reference to “a populist platform in some ways similar to Mr. Miller’s” — while he seemed more confident and polished by the fall, the persona he had adopted was that of the somewhat ticked-off champion of the common man, which was sufficiently at odds with his previously self-effacing junior-officer demeanor that it seemed contrived. At least, that’s the way I remember it. I wish I could find that video to check my memory.

Anyway, my point in sharing all this is to answer the question that a couple of folks have asked, which is, what do I mean when I say Rob Miller was unimpressive, and that I’m distressed that Joe Wilson’s outburst has now put so much money in his campaign coffers that it seems no other, stronger challenger is likely to emerge?

Again, I offer the caveat that this video is from very early, but this is how I initially formed my impression of Rob Miller. After that my impression was modified, but not entirely. Bottom line, I think it’s a lousy situation that here we are in the market for a replacement for Joe Wilson — a moment in which a challenger might have a chance — and the flood of money to Rob Miller (because he happened to be the guy standing there at the time) has probably precluded the possibility of a stronger candidate emerging.

See what you think.

Well, the fix is in in the 2nd District

13 Replies

Joe Wilson’s outburst last week should have created an opportunity to upgrade our congressional representation in the 2nd District (which is where I live and vote).

Unfortunately, the dynamics of the perpetual partisan shoutfest centered in Washington have utterly precluded that. The fix is in, all we have to look forward to in 2010 is more of the same.

Thanks to the way the partisan spin machines have manipulated this affair (mutually supporting each other in their common cause of constant political conflict), Joe Wilson and Rob Miller have both raised enough money to make each a fait accompli for his respective party’s nomination. This is it, the choices we will get.
The choice will be between Joe Wilson, as reflexive a party follower as you’re likely to find in the GOP, and Rob Miller, who is a nice young man who deserves our deep gratitude for his service as a United States Marine, but (from what I’ve seen so far) is no more capable of expressing independent thought that goes beyond his party’s cliches than Joe is.

Our chance to improve the quality of representation in the 2nd District has been blown away by this hurricane of money — a hurricane driven entirely by the mutually-supporting partisan spin cycles of the two parties, and NOT by the interests of the people of the 2nd District. (It works just like a hurricane, too — first you get furious winds tearing at you from one direction, then after the eye passes and you think it’s over, furious winds tear at you from the opposite direction. But it’s all the same storm.)

If it weren’t for the constant, furious spinning of those machines (which are really one machine ultimately, since neither can “justify” its existence without the other — do you think I’ve made that point in enough parenthetical asides yet?), this past week might have been a time for some thoughtful individuals to step forward and send up test balloons about a possible candidacy. But that won’t happen now, with the way the knee-jerkers on both sides have inflated the campaign warchests of these two.

You know, if I could figure out how to put groceries on the table while doing it (which is sort of my top priority these days), and if I thought there was some possibility of wresting attention away from these well-financed inevitabilities, I would run, win or lose, just so the voters of the 2nd District would have a real choice, one that offers a break from absurdity as usual … But those are two really big ifs.

Meet the new boss; same as the old boss… And make no mistake, we WILL get fooled again.

Bob Inglis and others who broke ranks deserve our attention

8 Replies

There was  no question that Joe Wilson should have apologized to the House for violating its rules and just generally for conduct unbecoming a gentleman (and unbecoming Joe Wilson, if you know him — he’s generally a gentle man). Barack Obama was not the only person insulted by “You lie!” If you insult a guest at a social occasion, you apologize to your host as well as the insulted guest.

But as soon as it became something that the Nancy Pelosis of the world were trying to MAKE Joe do, all question of right action went out the window. It became a matter of which side is going to win? That’s what everything boils down to these days in our nation’s hyperpartisan capital. Thought doesn’t go any deeper than the playground equation of whether one can be compelled to say “uncle.” And once a crowd had assembled, and members of his own gang were assembled around him urging him not to give in (and sending him $1.6 million), Joe wasn’t about to give in.

Silly and contemptible, but that’s party politics for you.

So I don’t attach much importance to the vote yesterday to express weak “disapproval” of Joe’s outburst. The outcome was predictable. Republicans voted against, and Democrats voted for, and since there are more Democrats than Republicans, Joe got “punished” — punished in a manner so insubstantial that it put me in mind of what Huck Finn said about Aunt Sally’s attempts to discipline him: “I didn’t mind the lickings, because they didn’t amount to nothing…”

I guess we all tend to choose up sides, but for my part, I tend to lump all the partisans of both parties on one side, and myself on the other. To me,  they all act alike. Not only that, but their actions so perfectly complement and support each other that it’s almost as though they were colluding. Think about it: It would have been impossible for the House Democrats to make such a production over the matter, with a formal vote of official disapproval, if Joe hadn’t cooperated with them so beautifully by childishly refusing to apologize to them. Everyone played his assigned part to perfection. Or almost everyone.

In fact, I’d ignore the whole affair, except for the fact that the vote wasn’t entirely along party lines. For instance, South Carolina Republican Bob Inglis voted for the “disapproval” resolution. Because he did that, because he thought for himself and did something that might cost him the support of many in his tribe, what Bob Inglis has to say about the subject actually matters. Unfortunately, I didn’t see much about what he had to say on the subject in the paper — just the usual ritual pronouncements from the people who voted along party lines, and you knew what they would say.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a statement on his decision to vote as he did on his Web site. But I did find his statement from the other night about the president’s speech. (That’s the video version of it above. Note his fundamentally respectful way of disagreeing with the president — something that shouldn’t be noteworthy, but is.) And because he stood up for decorum and had the courage to vote against his own party, I paid more attention to what he had to say about health care than I otherwise would have. By the way, here’s what he had to say at the time — before it had been inflated into another meaningless contest between the parties — about Joe’s outburst:

OBAMA: “The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” One congressman, South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, shouted “You lie!” from his seat in the House chamber when Obama made this assertion.

THE FACTS: The facts back up Obama. The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, but wouldn’t get tax subsidies to help them. Still, Republicans say there are not sufficient citizenship verification requirements to ensure illegal immigrants are excluded from benefits they are not due.

Bob Inglis has always been a thoughtful guy who stands up for what he thinks is right, regardless of the dictates of the tribe. I’ve always appreciated that about him, even when I think he’s wrong — such as when he opposed the troop “surge” in Iraq. His iconoclasm causes me to care about what he says, which puts him in a lonely category in the U.S. House. A man who’s willing to pay a political price for his views deserves to be heard.

I would also like to know more about the thinking of those Democrats (Arcuri, Delahunt, Giffords, Hinchey, Hodes, Kucinich, Maffei, Massa, McDermott, Moore, Taylor and Teague) who voted against the mild “disapproval” resolution. I haven’t seen anything from any of them, but if any of my readers would kindly provide a link, I’d like to read what they had to say. It interests me far more than the ritual pronouncements of party orthodoxy…

S.C. GOP tries to be cool (an effort which, of course, was doomed to failure)

8 Replies

I’m a Republican from SCGOP on Vimeo.

Nowadays, I’m feeling sorry for the Republicans. There were times in the past when I felt sorry for Democrats, but not at the moment. I don’t like the parties at any time, but at least I can work up some sympathy when they are losing.

I remember back in the late 80s and early 90s, as the Republicans marched inexorably forward in lockstep toward their dominance of the state, I found the Democrats totally charming in their own feckless way. They remembered a time before party politics (when there’s only one party, there might as well be none), and they were sort of Ashley Wilkes-like in their gentlemanly wistfulness for a time when people weren’t so crass about party affiliation. (The Republicans, meanwhile, were more like Scarlett O’Hara and Rhett Butler, doing whatever it took to succeed, with no looking back.)

Now the Republicans are the hapless losers, and they are taking on the tone and vocabulary of losers, and since I love seeing parties lose, it makes them lovable in my eyes.

This is the inescapable point to be mined from the latest party video, which borrows from another lovable loser, the Microsoft-based PC. After Apple had so devastatingly mocked the haplessness of the PC alongside the oh-so-hip Mac in ad after ad, Microsoft came back with the message, “I’m a PC,” in which it embraced the image of the four-eyed, unhip loser, and tried to make THAT cool.

Now S.C. Republicans have their derivative “I’m a Republican” ad, which endeavors to make the same point: No we are NOT cool, but we like ourselves the way we are and hope you will, too.

The ad has its good points — at a time when many in the rest of the country believe Joe Wilson meant “You lie, boy!,” the ad preaches a message of inclusiveness, showing black and brown faces in far greater preponderance than you will see at most GOP gatherings. While it may stretch  credulity, it’s a good message to send right now, to South Carolina and to the nation. The fact that they wanted to send that message deserves praise.

And the production values aren’t too bad.

Beyond that, the hackneyed phrases sort of grate at me. I find myself thinking, Is this the best we can do in South Carolina, or in the nation? Just repeat these same, often meaningless, lines?

Not that it doesn’t get creative, but when it does, it’s kind of weird. My good friend Eric Davis mentions “conservative solutions,” which strikes me as a bit off. If you’re a conservative, doesn’t that mean you think things are fine and we don’t need any solutions? Maybe not, I think further. Maybe it means that we DO need solutions, but the time-honored ones we employed in the past will work just fine.

But then he throws me another breaking ball that causes me to swing and miss completely — “conservative change.” I’m  sorry, but I thought being conservative means not wanting change, sort of by definition. You know, “conserve,” as in “keep,” “stay,” “maintain,” “preserve,” and so forth.

The message I come away with is this: “We know y’all want change, change you can believe in, which is why you’re not voting Republican. But hey, we can give you change; we can give you … conservative change! Yeah, that’s the ticket.”

Some will say, “The Democrats aren’t delivering change, either, just the same old partisan games,” and if you’re speaking of the Democrats running Congress, for instance, you’d be completely right. But it IS what they run on. It IS kinda their brand, you know. You’re supposed to judge them (and for my part, I judge them fairly harshly) on how well they deliver what they promise.

But Republicans aren’t about change. They’re about conserving. Stick to what you know, guys. Don’t try so hard to be cool.

So you like being what you are, and are proud to call yourselves Republicans. Fine. Whatever floats your boat. Me, I like using PCs, even though Macs are cooler (one of my daughters just bought  one last week), so I understand. To each his own.

But stick to what you know.

What doomed Lehman? Richard Fuld’s ugly mug

6 Replies

glower

With this week’s anniversary, all sorts of analysts will be telling us why they think Lehman Bros. went under. Why should I be left out?

My theory is simple: It was Richard Fuld‘s face. Fuld himself is said to harbor deep resentment (and he’s got a face built for it) that the gummint bailed out all the other kids on the block, but not him. I think it’s because the various officials involved in such a decision knew they’d have to draw the line somewhere, and Fuld’s perpetually glowering, arrogant, self-important visage was the deciding factor.Lehman Brothers

For the year or so leading up to last year’s collapse, I saw the image at right in The Wall Street Journal a lot, and in my mind, this one face had come to symbolize the very worst of the Wall Street “Master of the Universe” mentality. I suggest that I was not alone in this. If the bailout gravy train had to be stopped somewhere, there was no way this guy was going to get a helping hand to be the last one aboard. (There’s something a bit off about that metaphor, but I’m going to stick with it, because that’s what I think Richard Fuld would do, even if it meant running his entire thesis into the ground.)

Yeah, I know, people who understand a lot more about this situation than I do (such as people who, for instance, have a clue what in the heck people who worked at Lehman Bros. did for a living) can probably explain in detail why I’m wrong, citing all sorts of facts and figures and graphics with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was, demonstrating conclusively that there were all sorts of objective reasons why Lehman was allowed to fail while others were not. I acknowledge that. But I’m pretty sure that one could also find a bunch of other knowledgeable analysts who could prove that the opposite was true.

What I’m saying is that, given all the highly complex variables involved, there was a point at which intangibles came into play. And I think the people making the final call were sick of this guy looking down his nose at them and the rest of the world — or they understood at least that if you had to pick a fall guy, Central Casting couldn’t have come up with one less likely to excite widespread public sympathy than this guy.

That made the decision a lot simpler than it would have been otherwise.

This is not a new theory for me; I’ve just refined it over the past year, and this seemed a good time to trot it out so you could admire it. Here’s what I said about the best-known image of Fuld’s face last year:

It was the sort of picture that no sane company publicist would ever have distributed, unless it wanted its CEO to be hated. And you knew this was a CEO; the picture just radiated, “I’m the kind of guy who thinks he’s really hot stuff because I’m so absurdly overcompensated.” And you know, I seldom think that when I look at people. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt (something that drives some of y’all crazy, because you’re always wanting me to join you in despising somebody, and I just don’t feel like it — not necessarily because I’m a nice guy; I just don’t feel like it). But this picture INSISTED that you not like the guy. If a psychologist included this photo in a Thematic Apperception Test, I suspect there would be a surprising uniformity in the stories the subjects would tell.

Lindsey Graham’s delicate position

50 Replies

lindsey

I found Lindsey Graham’s townhall meeting very interesting. While I disagree with him substantively about the subject at hand — health care reform — it’s always interesting to listen to him because he’s a smart guy who has a lot to offer to any policy question. In other words, while he clings loyally to support of Joe Wilson as a fellow Republican, he’s not a guy who’ll ever reduce his objections to a shouted “You Lie!”

Let’s dispense with the disagreement first — Sen. Graham fails to persuade when he says his crowd-pleasing things (Republican voters got calls at home asking them to come) about how we don’t want the gummint taking over any more of our lives. The argument that we can’t have a public option because the private sector can’t compete only condemns the private sector in my mind. The senator’s replies to the student who objected that private companies compete quite successfully with the Postal Service were weak. He got the crowd to cheer by mentioning the huge public subsidy the Postal Service needs to keep going, which to ME argues that its private competitors do just fine. He then argued that competition doesn’t work the same way in health care, which is true, which is why we can’t expect the market to solve our problems. (Lindsey agrees at least with that. He’s for regulation, not a new government entitlement program.)

But the senator repeatedly stressed how we should find things on which we agree and work from there — he talked about areas of agreement between him and Russ Feingold (who agrees with me that the way to go is single-payer) — and I know he means it, so I listen all the harder to what he has to say.

And I was fascinated with his central argument. It was this: It would cost too much. And he doesn’t trust the American people, including all the anti-gummint types in that room, to prevent the program’s costs from going out of control. He kept doing an interesting thing… he kept getting the crowd to cheer with assertions about how inept the gummint is, and how we don’t want it intruding any more into our lives, and then he’d ask how many people there were on Medicare (quite a few) and how many would voluntarily give it up (no one).

So basically, he repeatedly demonstrated that this crowd that was so willing to moan at the awful gummint and laugh ironically when Lindsey referred to Obama’s promises to control costs LOVES its gummint-provided health care — at least, those who have it do. He even said it fairly direction once: “Everybody clapping (at one of his shots against government), half of them are in a government plan.”

And the costs of that government plan, Medicare, are so out of control that he doesn’t want to create another program that would be JUST as popular, even among people who THINK they don’t like government programs, and that therefore would be just as costly, if not more so.

That’s what I heard, and it was interesting.

As he alluded more than once, Lindsey Graham walks a fine line, trying to be a moderate as a Republican from a beet-red state. Another time he said many who were applauding had tried to rip him a new one over immigration reform. He referred to having voted to confirm Justice Sotomayor. So it was fascinating to see him use populist techniques to get a crowd to support him on something where his position is that essentially, he doesn’t trust them, the people, not to support a program that would bankrupt us.

This, by the way, is why I won’t jump to run for office. I’m not sure I could maintain that balance between stroking people and leveling with them that you’re taking a position they may not love. I think I’d get fed up with it pretty fast.

Lindsey Graham doesn’t. And while I can see the contradictions inherent in what he’s doing, I can also respect him for being willing to wrestle with those contradictions — even when I believe that, substantively, he’s wrong on the issue.

Quick! This is our chance to pass some rational laws!

12 Replies

Tom Davis’ Tweets have brought it to my attention that all the really serious anti-gummint types from across the nation are all gathered in Washington for some sort of ritual or other. Tom is saying 300,000 (when he’s not saying 2 million) and the WashPost says “tens of thousands.” Whatever.

Quick! Let’s convene the Legislature! This is our chance to pass some rational laws, while the main obstructionists, the people who have done the most to hold our state back in the 19th Century, are away…

If we only act quickly, before they get back, we can have:

  • Safety laws that prevent, for instance, toddlers from driving ATVs…
  • Comprehensive tax reform…
  • Adequately funded colleges (we’ve cut funding more than any other state)…
  • A Confederate flag-free State House…

And on and on. Oh, if only they would stay there, and allow an Age of Reason to dawn in the Palmetto State. We have way, WAY more than our share of such folk, and always have. It’s why we fired on Fort Sumter, and it’s why we lag behind the rest of the country on so many measures of social, economic and even physical health….

Clowning around with health care

8 Replies

Maybe you can help me out with something. I was driving down Sunset Blvd. in West Columbia this morning, and sorta kinda saw something for a fraction of a second, and I’m not sure I know what I saw. If you saw it, maybe you can clear this up.

I was driving past Joe Wilson’s office, and as I whiffed by, happened to glance at a clump of three people (at least I think there were three) loitering on the sidewalk at the corner.  One was sitting on a bicycle. I don’t remember what the second person was doing. The third was holding up a sign that said “Stop Clowning around with our Health Care.” I think. We’re talking split-second here, and I turned away before any of it registered on my mind.

The person holding the sign was wearing a blue outfit with white designs on it from neck to toe. It may have been a clown outfit, but I’m infering that from the sign. He or she may also have been wearing clown makeup, but I have no idea at all about that, because his/her face was blocked by the sign during that tenth of a second or whatever it was.

As I drove on, a number of questions occurred to me:

  • Did I read the sign right?
  • Was the person dressed as a clown? Possibly not. The power of suggestion from what I think the sign said overwhelmed what other information was available to me.
  • Were the other people involved in the demonstration, or just curious passersby?
  • Was this person working for Joe Wilson, and saying President Obama was “clowning” with our health care? (If so, hasn’t Joe called enough attention to himself?)
  • Was this person protesting that Joe Wilson was the one “clowning around with our health care?” (I’ve noticed that one of the favorite epithets hurled at Joe from leftist bloggers is “ass clown,” for some reason) If so, he or she was going to a lot of trouble to send a confused message. You’d have to stop and talk to find out, which not many are in a position to do at that stretch of road at that time.

I was in a hurry to get downtown just then, but I went back that way later to check. No one there. No clown. No guy on a bike. No third person who barely registered. All gone. Must have been a drive-time thing. Or my imagination. I wonder what I saw, and what it was supposed to mean?

Anyway, right after I saw them, as those questions were going through my mind, I reached a stretch where orange roadwork cones were jamming the traffic into one lane. I found myself behind a big white pickup truck. It had a bumper sticker on it with a message that there was no mistaking:

OBAMA

SUCKS

Such is the state of political discourse these days in the 2nd District…

Eight years ago today

3 Replies

SEPT. 11 ANNIVERSARY

What is there to say on the 8th anniversary of the attacks on America? I suppose I could say the same things I said on the 7th, and add what I said a couple of days before that.

Or I can quote what President Obama said today:

“Let us renew our resolve against those who perpetrated this barbaric act and who plot against us still,” Mr. Obama said. “In defense of our nation, we will never waver.”

And add what he said back in August, to a VFW gathering in Phoenix:

The insurgency in Afghanistan didn’t just happen overnight and we won’t defeat it overnight, but we must never forget: This is not a war of choice; it is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda could plot to kill more Americans.

With more than a few out there faltering, I thought it would be good to bring those words to the fore.

SEPT. 11 ANNIVERSARY

Sorry, but calling the president a ‘liar’ is out of bounds for BOTH parties

45 Replies

Sigh. I really don’t want to have this argument with friends, especially not on the anniversary of 9/11, but I can’t let what Kathryn said over on Facebook stand without responding.

It was in reply to this post back here, in which I asserted that Democrats drag themselves down to Joe Wilson’s level when they respond to him by saying, “Bush lied.” I had thought it would be a teachable moment, in which I could say, See how bad y’all sounded over the past four years? See what it’s like when someone refuses to respect the president for partisan causes, declaring him and all he says illegitimate?

My good friend Kathryn responded:

Wait–Bush did lie, and got us into a war, and Obama didn’t lie last night at all–quite the contrary, and Wilson knew it according to the papers. Wilson was out of line and Democrats’ saying things today doesn’t put us on the level of a tantrum during the President’s speech either. Sorry.

To that, another friend, Randy Ewart, added:

I concur with Fenner – well said!

You know, I’d hoped we’d put this behind us when Bush went home to Texas. I certainly heaved a sigh of relief. I never liked the guy. I always resented the fact that he was president, when it should have been John McCain. (Remember how South Carolina ill-served the nation back in 2000?)

But the eight years of hatred that Democrats spewed at the guy, starting from the very beginning, with the Long Count in Florida, was an ugly thing to behold. And yes, it started that early. I remember a couple of conversations I had with Mike Fitts back in the summer of 2001, asking if he could explain the vitriol to me. It was obvious that Dems didn’t just disagree with the guy; they hated him. Which wasn’t good for the country. Yes, I had seen and decried the venom that Republicans had directed at Bill Clinton well before he’d had a chance to do anything to deserve it, too — I particularly recall the bumper stickers saying “Don’t Blame Me — I Voted for Bush” that cropped up on cars before his 1993 inauguration. But the reaction to Bush seemed to go even a step farther — and this was well before the “sins” that Democrats usually list when explaining their distaste for the man.

Oh, and I don’t recall Bush lying. Yes, I realize it’s an article of faith among y’all that he DID (what was it again — the WMD that he and everyone else firmly believed were there in Iraq, seeing as how he had actually USED some of them — or something else?), just as it is an article of faith among Republicans such as Joe Wilson that this president is lying when he tries to set the record straight. It is so important to them to conflate their twin bugaboos — “socialized medicine” and illegal immigration — that it is heresy for anyone (particularly the Chief Heretic) to suggest otherwise, heresy so foul that it wrings furious cries from their lips at inopportune moments.

(Just an aside: Isn’t it ironic that two men who have grabbed national attention by calling these two presidents liars are both named Joe Wilson? Oh, and that other Joe Wilson was wrong, too — the intel he brought back from Niger did NOT conclusively refute the yellowcake reports, according to the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report.)

And I’m not even going to get into that “got us into a war” stuff, except to say that we were already IN a war. Argue whether we should have reopened the front in Iraq when we did, fine. But we were already in a war.

I know y’all mean what you say, but I’m sorry — I see an obvious symmetry between Joe calling this president a liar and y’all calling the last one the same.Y’all have your perspective as Democrats, and Joe has his as a Republican. And I have mine as founder of the UnParty, so consider the source.

Joe’s sorry, but he’s not sorry… In fact, he wants you to reward him by sending him money

13 Replies

You might say that Joe Wilson’s behavior last night was a case of politics-as-usual — the never-ending partisanship for its own sake — taken to a new low.

And today, Joe is continuing as though he had done nothing wrong, and in fact asks you to send him money to reinforce his behavior:

Today I need your help more than ever before. I’ve been under attack by the liberal left for months because of my opposition to their policies, especially government-run healthcare. They’ve run commercials in my home district and flooded my office with phone calls and protestors. They’ve done everything they can to quiet my very vocal opposition to more government interference in our lives. Now, it’s gotten even worse.

But I will not stop fighting against their policies that will only lead to more government interference, more spending, and higher deficits.

Will you stand with me today by making a donation to my campaign? If you do, I’ll be able to fight back against the attacks by the liberal left.

But what about his apology, you ask? Well, he addresses that:

I am also frustrated by this, but watching my Democratic colleagues in Congress scoff at the protests of their constituents has made me even more infuriated. Unfortunately I let that emotion get the best of me and I reacted by speaking out during the President’s speech. I should not have disrespected the President by responding in that manner.

But I am not sorry for fighting back against the dangerous policies of liberal Democrats. America’s working families deserve to have their views represented in Washington, and I will do so with civility. But I will not back down.

Now, I need your help. Last night, the liberals used my outburst as a rallying cry behind my Democratic opponent. Some of the nation’s most liberal online activists have helped him raise over $400,000 in just a few short hours.

Look, Joe, I don’t like it that Rob Miller has pulled in all that money as a result of your foolishness, either. Rob Miller was a weak candidate for Congress, and having a treasure chest dumped in his lap this way could set him up to be your only viable opposition again next year, with similar results. There are (surely) better-qualified people in the 2nd District (not me, but somebody), and they are liable to be scared off by Miller sitting atop a mountain of money. But who made that happen? YOU did.

And the remedy for that is not to send money to you… That would be a logical response only if one believes that this never-ending left-right warfare, the very dynamic that caused you to act as you did last night, is a good thing, something we want to keep supporting with our cash.

And no sane American should want that.

Pants on Fire: Who’s lying and who’s not on health care and illegal immigrants

13 Replies

Early this morning, I got an e-mail from Jim Clyburn’s office pointing me to this St. Petersburg Times fact-check site, which rated claims that Obamacare would institute free health care for illegal immigrants in its “Pants on Fire” category:

Finally, we consulted with Jennifer Tolbert, an independent health care analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan foundation that studies health care reform. Tolbert has read and analyzed all the major health proposals, including those of the Republicans, and the foundation provides point-by-point analyses of the plans on its Web site.

We’re hardened, battle-scarred fact-checkers, so false claims in e-mails don’t really surprise us anymore. But we sent Tolbert a copy of the latest from our in-box, and she was none too pleased.

“It’s awful,” she said. “It’s flat-out, blatant lies. It’s unbelievable to me how they can claim to reference the legislation and then make claims that are blatantly false.”

The claim that the bill provides free health care for illegal immigrants is particularly egregious, Tolbert said. “No one’s provided with free health care. That’s ridiculous,” she said.

We looked for promises of free health care for immigrants and found nothing. So we’ve rated this claim Pants on Fire!

Then, this afternoon, I ran across this CNN Truth Squad item, which found the following after Sen. Ben Cardin was jeered for saying his bill would not cover illegals:

The bill, HR 3200, would set up a health insurance “exchange,” in which consumers could compare policies and choose a plan. It would create a government-run health plan to compete with private insurers in that exchange, and extend subsidies for coverage to people who aren’t already covered by employers or federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

It specifically bars illegal immigrants from receiving those subsidies. Section 246, which is included in the part of the bill that sets up the exchange, forbids payments “on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

But when Cardin said undocumented workers “will not be in this bill,” he appears to have missed one point: It may require them to buy their own coverage.

That’s the conclusion of the Congressional Research Service, which issued a report on the topic this week. According to the CRS, noncitizens who can be considered “resident aliens” under U.S. tax law would have to buy insurance — and unlike immigration laws, the tax code doesn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.

That last part makes sense to me. After all, we’re already spending millions unnecessarily because of uninsured people — legal and illegal, foreign and native-born — are getting free care at emergency rooms, and the cost is passed on to the rest of us.

In fact, the idea of making health insurance mandatory — like auto insurance in SC — is one of the things I like best about what the president had to say last night (and probably what my libertarian friends like least). The bigger the pool the smaller the risk for each individual, and pretty much everybody will need health care sometime, so it makes no sense to let anyone opt out.

One question I don’t have the answer to — how the Cardin bill relates to what the president was pitching. I’m not sure about the correlation, although I can tell you that I got to the CNN fact-check from a page about the Wilson outburst. Can anyone help me on that?

And does anyone have any other reliable fact-checking sites to pass on?

Graham hits the wrong note

8 Replies

I was surprised, and disappointed, by this release this morning:

Statement from Senator Lindsey Graham on President Obama’s Health Care Address to the Nation

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made this statement tonight after the presidential address.

“I was incredibly disappointed in the tone of his speech. At times I found his tone to be overly combative and believe he behaved in a manner beneath the dignity of the office. I fear his speech tonight has made it more difficult — not less — to find common ground.

“He appeared to be angry at his critics and disappointed the American people were not buying the proposals he has been selling. The president’s confrontational demeanor increased the emotional and political divide. I hope the President will learn that true bipartisanship begins with mutual respect. Criticism of a public official is to be expected and not all criticism is demagoguery.

“When it comes to the public option, the President is either being disingenuous or misinformed. The public option, contrary to the president’s claims, will eventually lead to a government takeover of our health care system.

“One could easily be led to believe tonight’s speech is the beginning of a ‘go it alone’ strategy. If the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats go down this path and push a bill on the American people they do not want, it could be the beginning of the end of the Obama presidency.”

On a Member of Congress Accusing the President of Telling a ‘Lie’:

“The president’s combative tone did not justify a Member of Congress shouting out ’you lie.’ Our nation’s president deserves to be treated with respect It was inappropriate remark and I am glad an apology has been made.”

#####

I’m proud of Sen. Graham, and of John McCain, for so clearly and unequivocally calling Joe Wilson down for his insupportable behavior. But given that Joe DID what he did, and any commentary on the president’s speech is unfortunately bound to be considered within that context, Lindsey’s release this morning just seems way off-base.

You’re “incredibly disappointed” by the president’s tone? The president was “overly combative?” He behaved in “a manner beneath the dignity of the office?” The president’s demeanor “increased the emotional and political divide?” He’s the one who needs to learn a lesson about “mutual respect?”

Say what?

This was definitely not the morning to release a statement like that.

Such is my respect for Sen. Graham that whenever I find myself disagreeing with him (or Joe Lieberman, or John McCain, or Joe Riley), I stop and think again: Could I be wrong on this? So I analyze my own reaction. I think, Maybe the president was too combative. Maybe I didn’t notice it because I’m so completely fed up with the lies and obstructionism that are threatening to kill our hopes for a decent health care system in this country yet again. Maybe that’s what makes me think the president was, if anything, overly deferential to those who don’t give a damn about our health care, but want to see this issue be Obama’s “Waterloo,” because partisan advantage is more important to them than the good of the nation…

So I run those thoughts through my head, and then I think, Nah, this time Lindsey’s just wrong. That can happen, you know…

So should I run for Congress now?

16 Replies

The answer to the above question is an emphatic “No!” I mean, I need a job, but let’s not get carried away — I don’t need one badly enough to dive into all that partisan foolishness in Washington.

But I offer the question, upon which I elaborate in the above video, as an illustration of the kinds of crazy thoughts that can occur to one when faced with such displays as the one Joe Wilson put on last night.

I hear that in response to Joe’s acting out, his opponent in the last election, Rob Miller, pulled in buckets of campaign contributions since last night. Rob Miller is a nice young man, and I’m truly grateful for his service to his country in combat as a United States Marine, but he was a decidedly unimpressive congressional candidate in ’08.

Surely there’s somebody out there, someone better than Rob Miller and far better than me, who can offer us a real choice in 2010. Surely…

See how bad it sounds, Democrats?

13 Replies

A number of Democrats — well-meaning folk, mostly — have been showing their own fannies over on Twitter and Facebook by responding to Joe Wilson by saying, “Bush lied.” Yes, they really are. You push this partisan button on them, and they come out with that automatically. Examples:

  • Where was Joe when W was standing there lying through his teeth about WMD, etc?
  • Isn’t yelling You Lie! at Obama after 8 years of Bush like requesting Freebird after Lynard Skynard has left the stadium?

Do they not see that, rather than  highlighting Joe’s sin, they are demonstrating that they’re on his level? Can’t they stop and realize, “Oh, that’s what WE sounded like for the past 8 years… gosh, that’s embarrassing.”

But they don’t. They actually believe that when THEY do it, they’re standing up for truth and right.

When I see stuff like this — Joe’s outburst; the response of many Democrats — I lose hope for my country. This is what will cause our noble experiment in self-government to fail.

But then I’m encouraged when I read this Tweet from Anton Gunn, an Obama acolyte who truly believes in bipartisanship:

The level of partisanship is off the meter today. People don’t get it. If you row backwards and I row forward, we just spin in circles.

Thanks, Anton. We needed that.

Whatever it is, they’re against it

10 Replies

Last night, before I had heard what Joe Wilson had done (I had heard the hubbub, but neither made out “You lie!” not identified the shouter), I was already complaining about the far more civil, formal, GOP response.

The thing is, I always hate listening to those things. I hated them when Bush was president, and Clinton before him. Always just a pointless, nonconstructive exercise in perpetual partisan polarization. Does your party want to be heard during presidential addresses? Well then win the next presidential election.

Rather than having the opposition statement, the networks should just run the Groucho Marx clip, which says the same thing more honestly and more entertainingly: “I don’t know what they have to say; it makes no difference anyway: Whatever it is, I’m against it!” In fact, let’s go ahead and reproduce the lyrics in full:

[Groucho]
I don’t know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway,
Whatever it is, I’m against it.
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I’m against it.

Your proposition may be good,
But let’s have one thing understood,
Whatever it is, I’m against it.
And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it,
I’m against it.

I’m opposed to it,
On general principle, I’m opposed to it.

[chorus] He’s opposed to it.
In fact, indeed, that he’s opposed to it!

[Groucho]
For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night to morn,
Whatever it is, I’m against it.
And I’ve kept yelling since I first commenced it,
I’m against it!

It’s even, of all things, more gentlemanly than what we see from Washington these days. Who would have dreamed, ere now, that Groucho Marx, the master insult artist, could give civility lessons to South Carolina congressmen?

Seriously, if the opposition party — whichever one it happens to be at the moment — would simply surrender its response time and let the TV folk run this clip instead, I would think much more of that party than I do now.