You know things are bad when really nice, well-mannered people — such as Moms — start using strong language. I enjoyed this portion of a letter in today’s paper:

    I am a full-time, working, middle-class mother of two. Times are getting very bad for me and my husband, as well as for all American middle-class working families. The main item that needs to be on all Americans’ minds is why the gas prices ever rose more $2 in the first place. This is shocking.
    If other countries wanted to hurt the United States, this is how they do it, and we are letting them. It is time to start drilling in the United States, and the heck (sorry) with those other countries.

I can see the kids bouncing up and down in the back seat now: "Mom said a bad word! Mom said a bad word!" After the last couple of decades of linguistic deviance being defined ever-downward, with the situation exacerbated (sorry) personally by my current "Sopranos"-watching binge, coarsening my ears to a level I find distressing, it warms my heart to run across a nice lady who gets red-faced over a public "heck," even when provoked.

And she is indeed provoked. She goes on to say:

    Americans need jobs, and we need to start relying on ourselves again. If the only reason we are sitting on the oil is to protect some kind of animal or bird, I am sorry, but put them in a zoo, and drill for oil. I understand that statement will make some people mad.

Sorry, Mr. Chipmunk and Mr. Bluejay, but Mom’s had enough, so you march straight to your zoo, and none of your guff, now. Don’t you make Mom come down there, or she will tan your bottom (sorry)…

Meant to post this a couple of days ago when it happened, but I was just cleaning my desk, saw it again, and realized it was timeless.

State government employees were rioting in Srinigar, India (and you libertarians think our state employees are a lot of bother), demanding regularization of their jobs and a hike in their pay. Or something. You know how it is with foreigners, always rioting about something. But at least this time, you might be able to identify with them. Energy costs seem to have set them off.

Anyway, the police dispersed them with PURPLE WATER, shot from water cannon. Doesn’t it seem like a better place and time for something that psychedelic would have been Chicago in 1968? Everybody would have just stopped struggling and gone, Whoa…!

As conversation fodder, here’s a quick recap of how the candidates we endorsed did on Tuesday:

WON — Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham,
the quintessential conservative Republican, is an erudite advocate of
reason and sound policy, taking courageous stands that make him a
leader in the Senate.
RECOUNT — Michael Cone appears to be the stronger of two
weak Democratic candidates for the same office.
WON — GOP Rep. Joe Wilson
is dedicated to the service of the 2nd Congressional District, and his
views come closer than his opponent’s to those of his constituents. 
LOST —  Democrat Blaine Lotz,
also seeking the 2nd District seat, is an Air Force veteran and former
assistant secretary of defense, and well grounded in both foreign and
domestic issues.
RECOUNT? — Democratic state Rep. John Scott
and his opponent have similar positions, and electing his opponent to
succeed Sen. Kay Patterson in District 19 would seem like a reward for
the unacceptable state of the Richland 1 schools he has overseen for 16
years.
WON — Democratic Sen. Darrell Jackson
(District 21) understands our state’s challenges and is focused on
fixing the way we fund education, and improving public health and
financial literacy. He has a good track record of working across party
lines to get things done.
IN RUNOFF — The pro-voucher/anti-government groups
that are trying to intimidate our Legislature would claim credit if so
powerful an incumbent as GOP Sen. Jake Knotts (District 23) was defeated, strengthening their hand in a battle that goes far beyond their immediate issues.
WON — Richland County Council Chairman Joe McEachern,
a Democrat running to succeed Mr. Scott in House District 77, would
work to free local governments from the constraints of meddling
legislators, overhaul the broken tax system, restructure state
government and provide a good public education for all children.
WON — Michael Koska’s
campaign for the Republican nomination in District 77 grows out of his
grassroots involvement in local transportation issues. He would be more
effective than his off-putting opponent.
IN RUNOFF — Republican David Herndon
seeks to replace Rep. Bill Cotty in District 79 to make sure an avid
voucher proponent doesn’t win. He is committed to improving the public
schools, in part to strengthen the economy, and he’s fairly
knowledgeable about tax policy.
WON — Democratic Rep. Joe Neal’s
(District 70) depth of knowledge in education and health care is
impressive, and he fights effectively for equal educational opportunity
for children regardless of their address, to force attention to the
medical needs of those too sick to care for themselves and to promote
civil justice.
WON — Democratic Rep. Jimmy Bales’
(District 80) work as a high school principal gave him the real-life
understanding of the challenges of educating poor children that most
legislators lack; and he appreciates the need to overhaul our tax
system and to give the governor more control over state agencies.
WON — Democratic Rep. Chris Hart
(District 83) is focused on the big picture that his challenger shows
little interest in, and he is committed to creating a stronger public
education system to help transform our state.
LOST — Republican Mike Miller
understands our state’s problems, wants to bring more services to
District 96 rather than more parades and seems more supportive of
improving public schools than the incumbent.
WON — Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott,
a Democrat, established a cutting-edge DNA testing lab, has been in the
forefront in the battle against gangs and engages citizens through his
innovative community advisory board and community policing programs.
WON — Lexington County Sheriff James Metts, a Republican, is an accomplished, experienced law enforcement officer who has implemented groundbreaking programs.
WON — Democratic incumbent Damon Jeter has the experience and broader focus to make him the better choice in Richland County Council District 3.
LOST — Democrat Johnny Bland has been active in the community and area schools and outshines his opponents in Richland Council District 7.
WON — Republican Val Hutchinson,
running for re-election in Richland District 9, is an effective leader
who has promoted good growth, called on developers to help provide
infrastructure, opposed the proliferation of billboards and objected to
an unneeded baseball park.
WON — In Richland District 10, Democrat Kelvin Washington has a firm grasp of issues, understands how county government works and would hit the ground running.
IN RUNOFF — Richland County Democratic Clerk of Court Barbara Scott
WON — Richland County Coroner
Gary Watts (Democrat)
WON — Lexington County Republican Auditor Chris Harmon
WON — Lexington County Republican Clerk of Court Beth Carrigg.

At least, I THINK all of those are right. I just worked up a ferocious headache ALT-TABBING back and forth and clicking. Please holler if you spot any errors.

Also, I’d appreciate it if someone would check my math. Among our endorsees, I count:

• 16 won.
• 3 lost.
• 3 are in runoffs.
• 2 are in recounts.

So that means that after the runoffs and recounts, our worst-case scenario would be 16 won, 8 lost (batting .667) and our best-case would be 21 won, 3 lost (batting .875). Logically, one would expect something between the two.

Of course, as I always explain, endorsements are not predictions. They’re about who should win, not who will win. But since some people like to say, inaccurately, "you got it right" or "you got it wrong," based on outcomes, I bow to the inevitable and try to at least give them the right numbers. (And again, holler if I got something wrong. I’m insecure because of the headache, and because no one’s here to check behind me.)

I’m gonna go home now.

The July/August issue of Foreign Affairs has an interesting piece on "The Deep Roots of American Zionism," by Walter Russell Mead of the (gasp!) Council on Foreign Relations.

His point is a fairly simple one — and, when you think about it, one that should be obvious: People who talk about some sort of discrete "Israel lobby" pushing the U.S. to favor Israel miss the point that politicians choose this course because the overwhelming majority of U.S. voters — gentile voters — want them to. An excerpt:

… This does not mean that an "Israel lobby" does not exist or does not help shape U.S. policy in the Middle East. Nor does it mean that Americans ought to feel as they do. (It remains my view that everyone, Americans and Israelis included, would benefit if Americans developed a more sympathetic and comprehensive understanding of the wants and needs of the Palestinians.) But it does mean that the ultimate sources of the United States’ Middle East policy lie outside the Beltway and outside the Jewish community. To understand why U.S. policy is pro-Israel rather than neutral or pro-Palestinian, one must study the sources of nonelite, non-Jewish support for the Jewish state.

The premise, which makes perfect sense, is supported with poll data and the like.

But my favorite part was where he got into the history of this attitude in our country, specifically the part where he cites the Albany Presbyterian pastor John McDonald’s 1814 prediction that Americans "would assist the Jews in restoring their ancient state. The pastor cited the 18th chapter of Isaiah, which I have to confess I don’t think I recall having read before. The salient part, verse 7:

At that time gifts will be brought to the LORD Almighty
       from a people tall and smooth-skinned,
       from a people feared far and wide,
       an aggressive nation of strange speech,
       whose land is divided by rivers—
      the gifts will be brought to Mount Zion, the place of the Name of the LORD Almighty.

Interesting. Not the first thing that would come to mind if you just read it, but if you read it with that interpretation in mind, you have to go, Whoa…

Also interesting is that in the particular translation I’m citing above, the first verse reads:

Woe to the land of whirring wings
       along the rivers of Cush…

Other translations clarify that we’re talking insect wings here (as in the insect-infested regions of the Upper Nile), but I like this version. Whirring wings. And I thought Da Vinci was the first guy to think of helicopters. Could the land of whirring wings be the place whence Black Hawks come?

Even farther afield, what do you call somebody who hails from Cush? A cushion? Anyway, it sounds like a place where I might like to work… Get it — "Cush" job?

I’m going to go away now…

Something pretty important happened in the last couple of days, and I’m not talking about Obama cinching the nomination. This is bigger than that, with longer-term ramifications. In it’s own way, it’s more amazing than Hillary Clinton actually giving up on the idea of winning the White House, which is something I’ll believe when it actually happens.

And it actually seems to be good news, and in a year in which S.C. lawmakers as usual failed to enact a cigarette tax increase after much ballyhoo, all on account of the governor’s firm belief that it’s, well, a tax, we could use some of that.

So I was happy to see the release from Sen. Jim DeMint late Tuesday:

Washington,D.C.– Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South
Carolina) responded to the U.S. Department of Energy’s submission
to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of a license application seeking authorization
to build a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

 “It’s time we begin the Nuclear Renaissance in America and Yucca Mountain is a vital step,” said Senator DeMint. “As one of the most abundant and clean sources of energy, nuclear power is crucial to the economic future of America. If Congress is serious about reducing carbon emission, non-emitting nuclear energy must play an even larger role than it does today.”

“Without Yucca Mountain, America will not have a safe and secure place to permanently store nuclear waste and instead waste will pile up at existing reactors. Eventually this will cause them to shutdown and reduce our nation’s energy supply. I call upon Senator Reid to fully support the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s review of the license application so we can expedite this process and help make America more energy independent.”

We have of course been talking about Yucca Mountain, and the government’s dithering over whether to go ahead and dump our waste there rather than leave it lying around all over the country, for a period of time that would seem to rival how long the stuff will remain radioactive.

So now, after we jump through a bunch more hoops, maybe we’ll have a place to put the waste from the nuclear plants that we’re getting ready to build in SC — something else we should have done way before this, as the best way of producing our electrical power, and which we’re finally going to see the benefit from in 2019. Maybe.

This progress is slow and incremental — in fact, the term "geologic" is a good one to be using here — but it is progress. If I’m not jumping up and down about it, it’s because I believe that we need to be moving faster on this and every other plank on the Energy Party Manifesto if we are to have any noticeable, beneficial effect with regard to our dependence on foreign oil and global climate change.

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
LAST WEEK, a friend and source whom I won’t embarrass by naming here (but who knows good and well who he is) included me in a group e-mail that began, “Hello All: Take a look at this flip flopping by the straight talker.”
    Needless to say, the home of this friend and source is lavishly decorated with pictures of Democrats he has known and loved.
    I didn’t look at the YouTube clip about John McCain to which he was pointing me, but responded, “Geez… can’t this stuff wait until after Labor Day?”
    The next morning, The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed piece about Barack Obama having “shifting explanations for his views.” The piece was written by Karl Rove (the Republican James Carville).
So now we know: The next president of the United States — whichever one we choose — is less than perfect. It’s possible to pick his words apart. He’s human. Allegedly. Whoopee.
    I’m glad I have the June 10 state and local primaries to think about. While the national spin machines idle at full speed on a subject about which we don’t have to make a decision until November, I’ve been absorbed with matters closer to home. Here are some passing observations that we haven’t had room for in the editorial endorsements (so far):

Youth vs. experience
    Unfortunately, you can’t get away from national politics when you’re dealing with a congressional race.
    At first glance, the two men seeking the Democratic nomination to go up against U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson in the fall are a study in contrasts. Rob Miller is a young man just starting out in (civilian) life, after serving as a Marine captain in Iraq. Blaine Lotz has had two careers, first in the Air Force, then in the civil service, both dealing with military intelligence.
    While both decry partisanship in general (a good point to make, because Joe Wilson is very much a partisan), most of their positions are cookie-cutter national Democratic Party material. Both would, for instance, withdraw combat troops from Iraq, but not all troops; both care deeply about the economy, and so forth.
    In the end, you go back to the resume differences. A Miller aide wanted to make sure I knew that Mr. Lotz, who says our Iraq invasion was “ill-conceived,” served right under Donald Rumsfeld at the time. Mr. Lotz says giving operational intelligence advice was not his job, and he was not consulted.
    But if he is tainted by that experience, Mr. Miller has a lack of depth on issue after issue. He takes the positions that you expect a Democrat to take, but he is largely unable to go deeper than the slogans.
    Experience vs. innocence, the taint of association vs. lack of sophistication. That’s the choice.

No way to know
On Friday, we endorsed the incumbents for clerk of court in both Richland and Lexington counties, auditor in Lexington and coroner in Richland. We did so because no independent source has indicated to us that there is anything wrong with the jobs these functionaries are doing.
    We made the point (as always) that such purely ministerial positions, which do not set policy, should not be elective. The functions of their offices are simply too esoteric for voters — or editorial page editors — to tell from the outside who is best suited.
    To illustrate our frustration:
    Gloria Montgomery is one of four people seeking the Richland County clerk of court position. She worked in the office for years under incumbent Barbara Scott, and ran unsuccessfully against her boss four years ago. “As a result of my running, I was terminated” two days after the election, she says. Ms. Scott says politics “had nothing to do with it.” So why was she fired? The incumbent won’t say because it’s “a personnel matter.” Under South Carolina law, that’s that.
    Does that make us uncomfortable endorsing the incumbent? Sure. But we lack evidence that Ms. Scott isn’t doing her job, or that Ms. Montgomery, or either of the other two candidates, would do it better. So we took the less risky option, and came away believing more firmly than ever that such nonpolitical jobs should not be filled by election.

Quick takes
    I’m almost out of space, so here are some very quick impressions about other races:

• We recently endorsed David Herndon for the GOP nod in House District 79. Last week, he blasted the private-school-voucher advocacy group SCRG for using misleading tactics in backing his opponent Sheri Few. SCRG responded by telling the world that Mr. Herndon indicated on an SCRG questionnaire that he supported vouchers. Mr. Herndon responded that the form was mistakenly filled out that way by a campaign worker, and reiterated that his opposition to such schemes is a large part of why he’s running (and of why we endorsed him).
• We backed Kelvin Washington to replace Bernice Scott in Richland District 10, but we didn’t mention that he is Ms. Scott’s son-in-law. (He’s also a sharp dresser, being the only candidate out of 45 to wear a bowtie to his interview.)
• Sheriffs, unlike clerks, should still be elected. But we believe those elections should be nonpartisan, and Lexington County Sheriff James Metts agrees with us. With all three candidates (Jake Knotts, Katrina Shealy and Mike Sturkie) in the heated, high-stakes GOP contest for Senate District 23 all seeking his support as South Carolina’s longest-serving Republican, he could do without the party label right now. With two primary challengers of his own, he’d prefer they leave him out of it.

Sort of the way I feel about presidential politics right now.

Still trying in vain to catch up on all these candidate interviews. Well, at least I can catch up on one of them — the race for the GOP nomination in S.C. Senate District 23.

In past weeks, I’ve posted video clips of both the incumbent, Jake Knotts, and challenger Mike Sturkie. Here’s a link to the Knotts video, and here’s one to the Sturkie video.

Today, I unveil a clip of Katrina Shealy, who is seen as Sen. Knotts’ stronger opposition. Compare and contrast.

Cindi sent this to me this morning, and I apologize for just getting to the e-mail and passing it on now — I’ve had three candidate interviews today. Anyway, here’s what she sent me:

    Since the House adopted an amendment to the Senate cigarette tax bill (a very minor amendment), there was no vote on the bill itself. (As I explained in a recent column, once the House votes to amend the Senate amendment, the bill automatically goes to back to the Senate; so in a sense if you vote for ANY amendment, you are at least voting in support of the bill.) So while it’s extremely doubtful that the House will override a veto, we can’t know or sure. It could be that some of the representatives who voted for a revenue-neutral bill simply PREFER that, but would still support the Senate version if it’s that or nothing.
    The closest I see to an indication of willingness to accept the Senate version (and it is a far-from-perfect indication) is the first vote, on a motion to send the bill to committee, which likely would have killed it. I would read voting against that motion (ie, voting YES on the tabling motion, below) as support for the cigarette tax increase:

H. 3567–SENATE AMENDMENTS AMENDED AND RETURNED TO THE SENATE
    The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:

H. 3567 <http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/web_bh10.exe?bill1=3567&session=117> ( Word <http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/3567.doc> version) — Reps. Rice, Gullick, Cotty and Agnew: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-21-620, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TAXATION ON CIGARETTES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF TAX ON EACH CIGARETTE FROM THREE AND ONE-HALF MILLS TO TWO CENTS; TO ADD SECTION 44-6-157 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE REVENUE GENERATED FROM THE TAXATION ON CIGARETTES MUST BE USED TO EXPAND MEDICAID COVERAGE TO CHILDREN EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE AND YOUNGER WHOSE FAMILY INCOME DOES NOT EXCEED TWO HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL; AND TO CREATE THE HEALTH CARE TRUST FUND TO PROVIDE MEDICAID BENEFITS TO INDIVIDUALS WHOSE FAMILY INCOME DOES NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL AND WHO ARE UNINSURED AND TO PROVIDE THAT REVENUE IN EXCESS OF THE CHILDREN’S MEDICAID COVERAGE FROM THE CIGARETTE TAX MUST BE CREDITED TO THE HEALTH CARE TRUST FUND; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-910, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO SALES TAXES GENERALLY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AS OF JULY 1, 2009, THE THREE PERCENT SALES TAX IS ELIMINATED ON UNPREPARED FOOD WHICH LAWFULLY MAY BE PURCHASED WITH UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD COUPONS, TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN GENERAL FUND TRANSFERS TO THE EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT FUND FOR EACH FISCAL YEAR TO OFFSET EIA REVENUES LOST AS A RESULT OF THE LOSS OF SALES TAX ON THE SALE OF UNPREPARED FOOD, AND TO REDUCE THE SALES TAX ON UNPREPARED FOOD TO TWO PERCENT AS OF JULY 1, 2007, AND ONE PERCENT AS OF JULY 1, 2008.

Rep. SHOOPMAN moved to recommit the Bill to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Rep. OTT moved to table the motion.

Rep. MULVANEY demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:

Yeas 84; Nays 31

Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander         Allen              Anderson
Anthony           Bales              Ballentine
Bannister         Bingham         Bowen
Brady               Branham        Brantley
Breeland          G. Brown        R. Brown
Clyburn            Cobb-Hunter   Coleman
Cotty               Crawford        Dantzler
Davenport        Delleney         Erickson
Frye                Funderburk     Govan
Gullick             Hagood          Harrison
Hart                Harvin            Haskins
Hayes              Herbkersman   Hiott
Hodges            Hosey              Howard
Huggins           Hutson            Jefferson
Jennings          Kelly                Kennedy
Knight              Limehouse      Lucas
Mack                Mahaffey        McLeod
Miller               Mitchell           Moss
J. H. Neal        J. M. Neal        Neilson
Ott                  Owens             Parks
Phillips             Pinson             E. H. Pitts
Rice                 Rutherford      Scarborough
Scott                Sellers            Simrill
Skelton             F. N. Smith     G. M. Smith
J. E. Smith        J. R. Smith     Spires
Stavrinakis        Stewart          Taylor
Toole                Vick                Weeks
Whitmire           Williams         Young

Total–84

Those who voted in the negative are:
Barfield         Battle         Bedingfield
Cato             Chalk          Clemmons
Cooper         Duncan        Edge
Gambrell      Haley           Hardwick
Harrell         Kirsh            Leach
Littlejohn    Loftis           Lowe
Mulvaney     Perry            M. A. Pitts
Sandifer       Shoopman    D. C. Smith
G. R. Smith  Talley          Thompson
Umphlett       Walker       White
Witherspoon

Total–31
So, the motion to recommit the Bill was tabled.

——————————————————————————————————-

I believe this is what many considered the critical amendment — the one by Harrell and Cooper to use all the proceeds for tax breaks for health insurance. It was defeated 60-58, with a yes vote being to stick with the Senate version (or, one could argue, to hold out for SOME OTHER proposal yet to be voted on at the time).

Reps. HARRELL and COOPER proposed the following Amendment No. 4A (Doc Name COUNCIL\BBM\10648HTC08), which was tabled:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking the remainder of the bill after line 12 beginning on page 2 and inserting:
/ (B)   For all purposes of reporting, payment, collection, and enforcement, the surtax imposed by this section is deemed to be imposed pursuant to Section 12-21-620.

(C)   For purposes of this section and Section 12-21-620(2), ‘cigarette’ means:

(1)   any roll for smoking containing tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance other than a tobacco leaf; or

(2)   any roll for smoking containing tobacco, wrapped in any substance, weighing three pounds per thousand or less, however labeled or named, which because of its appearance, size, type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging, pricing, marketing, or labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette described in item (1). However, such a roll is not considered to be a cigarette for purposes of this section and Section 12-21-620(2) if the roll is not treated like a cigarette for federal excise tax purposes under the applicable federal law in effect on July 1, 2008.

(D)   Notwithstanding another provision of law providing for the crediting of the revenues of license or other taxes, the revenue of the surtax imposed pursuant to this section must be credited to the general fund of the State and used to replace income and sales tax revenues not collected in a fiscal year in the following amounts:

(1)   the amount of state sales tax revenue as estimated by the Board of Economic Advisors not collected because of:

(a)   the sales tax exemption allowed pursuant to Section 12-36-2120(76); and

(b)   the exemption allowed pursuant to Section 12-36-2120(74) reduced by the amount of sales tax revenue not collected pursuant to that exemption as it applied in fiscal year 2007-2008.

(2)   five million dollars for the smoking cessation income tax credit pursuant to Section 12-6-3671 with any unused revenue added to the amounts available pursuant to item (4) of this subsection;

(3)   four million dollars for cancer screening with any unused revenue added to the amounts available pursuant to item (4) of this subsection;

(4)   the balance of the revenue, as estimated by the Board of Economic Advisors, for the small business health insurance income tax credit allowed pursuant to Section 12-6-3673.

(E)   Revenue of the tax imposed pursuant to subsection (A) replacing sales tax revenue must be credited as sales tax revenues are credited by law."
SECTION   2.   Section 1 of Act 99 of 2007 is amended by deleting subsections B and C which read:
B.     Notwithstanding the sales and use rates imposed pursuant to Chapter 36, Title 12 of the 1976 Code, the rate of tax imposed pursuant to that chapter on the gross proceeds of sales of items described in subsection A of this section is five and one-half percent for such sales from July 1, 2007.
C.   Beginning with the February 15, 2008, forecast by the Board of Economic Advisors of annual general fund revenue growth for the upcoming fiscal year, and annually thereafter, if the forecast of that growth equals at least five percent of the most recent estimate by the board of general fund revenues for the current fiscal year, then the applicable state sales and use tax rate imposed on items described in subsection A. of this section is reduced, effective the following July first, by one and one-half percent in the first year and by one percent every year thereafter. That reduced rate applies until a subsequent reduction takes effect. If the February fifteenth forecast meets the requirement for a rate reduction, the board promptly shall certify this result in writing to the Department of Revenue. On the July first that the rate attains zero, the provisions of subsections B. and C. of this section no longer apply.
SECTION   3.   Section 12-36-2120 of the 1976 Code, is amended by adding a new item (76) to read:

"(76)   the gross proceeds of the sale of legend or prescription drugs or medicines, legend or prescription biologicals, and legend or prescription bioabsorbable implant devices dispensed or administered to a patient or otherwise used in the treatment of a patient in the office of a medical doctor licensed pursuant to Chapter 47 of Title 40 or of a dentist licensed pursuant to Chapter 15 of Title 40, and not otherwise exempted."
SECTION   4.   Article 25, Chapter 6, Title 12 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 12-6-3671.   (A)   There is allowed as a refundable credit against the income tax liability of a resident individual the expenses incurred by the taxpayer in a taxable year for participating in a smoking cessation program undertaken by the taxpayer prescribed by and under the supervision of a physician licensed pursuant to Chapter 47 of Title 40, to include physicians fees and costs of FDA approved smoking cessation therapies and other smoking cessation methods approved by the supervising physician. Only a taxpayer who has expenses for a smoking cessation program no portion of which is paid or covered by a third party payer, is eligible for this credit. The Department of Revenue shall prescribe a form on which this credit must be claimed that must be filed with the taxpayer’s South Carolina individual income tax return. The form must require that information and documentation determined necessary by the department for the administration of this credit.

(B)   The credit allowed pursuant to this section is not included in the calculation of the taxpayer’s income tax liability on the return, but is instead calculated by the Department of Revenue after the close of the filing season and paid to the taxpayer as provided in subsection (C).

(C)   Each eligible taxpayer incurring smoking cessation expenses in any year is entitled to a credit for that year in the amount of three hundred dollars or the amount of his expenses, whichever is less. If the amount available to fund this credit as provided by law in any year is not sufficient to give all eligible taxpayers their full credit, then the Department of Revenue shall proportionately reduce these credits accordingly. If the amount available to fund these credits as provided by law in any year exceeds the total amount of the credits claimed by all taxpayers as provided above, then any taxpayer with expenses over three hundred dollars for that year is entitled to an additional credit as determined by the department equal to his excess expenses stated as a percentage of all excess expenses times the available funds.

Section 12-6-3672.   (A)   There is allowed as a refundable credit against the income tax liability of a resident individual the costs incurred by the taxpayer in a taxable year for cancer screening. Only a taxpayer who has expenses for such a screening no portion of which is paid or covered by a third party payer, is eligible for this credit. The Department of Revenue shall prescribe a form on which this credit must be claimed that must be filed with the taxpayer’s South Carolina individual income tax return. The form must require that information and documentation determined necessary by the department for the administration of this credit.

(B)   The credit allowed pursuant to this section is not included in the calculation of the taxpayer’s income tax liability on the return, but is instead calculated by the Department of Revenue after the close of the filing season and paid to the taxpayer as provided in subsection (C).

(C)   Each eligible taxpayer incurring cancer screening expenses in any year is entitled to a credit for that year in the amount of three hundred dollars for each screening or the amount of the expenses, whichever is less. If the amount available to fund this credit as provided by law in any year is not sufficient to give all eligible taxpayers their full credit, then the Department of Revenue shall proportionately reduce these credits accordingly. If the amount available to fund these credits as provided by law in any year exceeds the total amount of the credits claimed by all taxpayers as provided above, then any taxpayer with expenses over three hundred dollars for that year is entitled to an additional credit as determined by the department equal to his excess expenses stated as a percentage of all excess expenses times the available funds.

Section 12-6-3673.   (A)   As used in this section, a ‘qualifying small business taxpayer’ is a taxpayer resident and domiciled in this State with fewer than twenty employees, all of whom are based in this State claiming a federal income deduction for employee health insurance premiums on all employees.

(B)   A qualifying small business taxpayer is allowed a refundable state income tax credit as provided in subsection (C) against the tax imposed pursuant to this chapter for health insurance premiums deducted by the taxpayer on the taxpayer’s federal income tax return. The Department of Revenue shall prescribe a form on which this credit must be claimed that must be filed with the taxpayer’s South Carolina individual income tax return. The form must require that information and documentation determined necessary by the department for the administration of this credit.

The credit allowed pursuant to this section is not included in the calculation of the taxpayer’s income tax liability on the return, but is instead calculated by the Department of Revenue after the close of the filing season and paid to the taxpayer as provided in subsection (C).

(C)   Each eligible taxpayer deducting health insurance premium expenses in any year is entitled to a credit for that year in the amount of three hundred dollars or the amount of the expenses, whichever is less for each employee covered. If the amount available to fund this credit as provided by law in any year is not sufficient to give all eligible taxpayers their full credit, then the Department of Revenue shall proportionately reduce these credits accordingly. If the amount available to fund these credits as provided by law in any year exceeds the total amount of the credits claimed by all taxpayers as provided above, then any taxpayer with expenses over three hundred dollars for that year is entitled to an additional credit as determined by the department equal to his excess expenses stated as a percentage of all excess expenses times the available funds."
SECTION   5.   This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor, and where not otherwise provided, sales tax provisions in this act take effect July 1, 2008, and income tax provisions in this act apply for taxable years beginning after 2007. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. COOPER explained the amendment.

Rep. SCOTT moved to table the amendment.

Rep. COBB-HUNTER demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:

Yeas 60; Nays 58

Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander    Allen              Anderson
Anthony       Bales             Battle
Bowen         Bowers           Branham
Brantley       Breeland        G. Brown
R. Brown      Clyburn         Cobb-Hunter
Coleman      Cotty             Dantzler
Davenport    Funderburk    Govan
Gullick          Haley            Hart
Harvin          Hayes           Hodges
Hosey           Howard        Jefferson
Jennings       Kennedy       Knight
Mack            Mahaffey      McLeod
Miller           Mitchell         Moss
J. H. Neal     J. M. Neal     Neilson
Ott               Owens          Parks
Phillips          Pinson         Rice
Rutherford    Sandifer       Scott
Sellers           D. C. Smith  F. N. Smith
J. E. Smith    Stavrinakis   Vick
Walker          Weeks          Williams

Total–60

Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine      Bannister         Barfield
Bedingfield    Bingham          Brady
Cato             Chalk               Clemmons
Cooper         Crawford          Daning
Delleney        Duncan            Edge
Erickson        Frye                Gambrell
Hagood         Hardwick          Harrell
Harrison       Haskins            Herbkersman
Hiott            Huggins            Hutson
Kelly              Kirsh               Leach
Limehouse     Littlejohn        Loftis
Lowe             Lucas              Merrill
Mulvaney       Perry               E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts     Scarborough    Shoopman
Simrill           Skelton            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith    Spires             Stewart
Talley           Taylor              Thompson
Toole           Umphlett          Viers
White          Whitmire          Witherspoon
Young

Total–58

————————————————————

Here’s the vote on the amendment to use all the proceeds for income tax reduction:

Rep. MERRILL proposed the following Amendment No. 7A (Doc Name COUNCIL\BBM\10655HTC08), which was tabled:
Rep. SCOTT moved to table the amendment.

Rep. COBB-HUNTER demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:

Yeas 68; Nays 52

Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander      Allen            Anderson
Anthony        Bales            Battle
Bowers         Brady            Branham
Brantley       Breeland        G. Brown
R. Brown      Clyburn         Cobb-Hunter
Coleman      Cotty             Dantzler
Davenport   Funderburk     Govan
Gullick        Haley              Harrison
Hart           Harvin             Hayes
Hiott          Hodges            Hosey
Howard       Jefferson        Jennings
Kennedy      Knight             Limehouse
Littlejohn    Mack               Mahaffey
McLeod       Miller              Mitchell
Moss           J. H. Neal       J. M. Neal
Neilson        Ott                Owens
Parks          Perry               Phillips
Pinson         Rice                Rutherford
Scott            Sellers             Skelton
D. C. Smith    F.N. Smith     J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith    Stavrinakis     Vick
Walker          Weeks            Whipper
Whitmire      Williams

Total–68

Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine        Bannister        Barfield
Bedingfield      Bingham         Bowen
Cato               Chalk              Clemmons
Cooper           Crawford         Daning
Delleney         Duncan            Edge
Erickson         Frye                Gambrell
Hagood          Hardwick         Harrell
Haskins         Herbkersman   Huggins
Hutson          Kelly                Kirsh
Leach            Loftis              Lowe
Lucas            Merrill             Mulvaney
E. H. Pitts     M. A. Pitts      Sandifer
Scarborough   Shoopman      Simrill
G. M. Smith   G. R. Smith    Spires
Stewart          Talley            Taylor
Thompson      Toole             Umphlett
Viers              White            Witherspoon
Young

Total–52

So, the amendment was tabled.

As we get closer to the actual general election contest beginning, I keep running across Hillary-style messages such as this one from the Democratic Party:

"Clyburn and Fowler Against Third Bush Term"

Columbia, SC – South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler and House Majority Whip Congressman James E. Clyburn addressed Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s visit to South Carolina and the possible impact his presidency could have on the state today during a press conference.
    "South Carolina doesn’t need a third Bush term and that’s all John McCain has to offer voters. His policies and outlook on the war in Iraq, the economy and healthcare show he is clearly out touch with everyday Americans. Why else would he say that a lot of Americans’ economic problems are "psychological?"  Those of us who weren’t lucky enough to marry multimillionaires know those problems are real," said Fowler.
    "Senator McCain is trying to give President Bush a third term and that would be disastrous for South Carolina and this nation," Congressman Clyburn said.  "We can’t afford four more years of failed Republican policies that have devastated working Americans with skyrocketing gas prices, record foreclosures, and lack of affordable health care.  We can’t afford to remain in Iraq indefinitely when we can’t take care of our veterans and those on the homefront.  We need a change in direction, and continuing the disastrous Republican policies is the wrong way to go."

I realize that running against W. again is an attractive and entertaining fantasy for Democrats, particularly those of the red-meat Clinton variety. It plays to their own hostility toward the Prez, and has the added bonus that Mr. Bush’s approval ratings are almost as low as those of the Democratic Congress.

But if they really want to win in November — and I get the impression that they do — Democrats need to figure out that they’re not going to get the chance to do that. First, there’s the 22nd Amendment, and then there’s the small matter that Mr. Bush isn’t actually running this year. On the contrary, the Republican who has been rightly seen (for at least eight years) as sort of the Republican anti-Bush is a shoo-in for the nomination.

Democrats can keep telling themselves that they’re running against Bush, but there’s this other little problem, one which political parties love to ignore and deny, but which is true nevertheless: Presidential elections are won by winning over those of us who subscribe to neither party.

And independents can tell the difference between Bush and McCain. Maybe you can’t, but we can. And we like McCain, for some of the same reasons that we like Obama. So with these two guys running against each other — as opposed to a contest between, say, Clinton and Bush (the ultimate partisan fantasy) — you need to get a new line.

Hillary Clinton has pulled off the Makeover of the New Century: She, it seems, is now the Voice of the People, while Barack Obama is the Tool of the Elites.

You know, the woman who killed health care reform by drafting her big plan in secret with all the wonks, a la Dick Cheney doing energy…

And if you believe in her latest incarnation (and to my amazement, increasing numbers in PA and NC have in recent weeks), Warthen Landmark Real Estate Co. has some prime property it would like to show you…

Now this is twice this week John McCain has ticked me off with one of his fund-raising e-mails:

My Friends,

This week, I laid out an economic plan aimed at providing immediate and long-term relief for all American families. One of the key components of this plan is a suspension of the federal gas tax on gasoline from Memorial Day to Labor Day of this year.

The effect of this "gas tax holiday" will be an immediate economic stimulus – taking a few dollars off the price of a tank of gas every time you fill up. And because the cost of gas affects the price of food, packaging and just about everything else, this immediate step will spread economic relief to every family in America.

My friends, this election will be shaped by the big issues we face as a nation, not the small ones. To effectively communicate our solutions to these issues, I will need a united base of support and financial resources to communicate my message to the American people. That’s why I ask you to join my campaign by making a financial contribution by following this link right away.

Sure, any politician can pander over gasoline prices, and many do. What gets me is when a candidate who should know better does it.

So it was that I was highly offended when Al "Earth in the Balance" Gore asked Bill Clinton to open the tap on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve right before the 2000 election. Al knew better.

So should Sen. McCain, who’s been working for years with his buddy Joe Lieberman to do something about global warming.

For elaboration on my point, I refer you to the Energy Party platform. The main problem with $4-a-gallon gas — aside from the overall inflationary pressure it exerts — is that too much of it goes to petrodictators. If more of it were in the form of tax, as smart folks from Tom Friedman to Charles Krauthammer to Jim Hoagland to Robert Samuelson have been saying for years, it might actually do the country some good. It would drive down demand, thereby driving down the price that the exporters can demand, undermine the bad guys from Iran to Sudan, and we could use the dough for research on hydrogen and other alternatives…

No, this isn’t about politicians’ involvement in prostitution. It’s about something that struck me about this press release I just got from Jim Clyburn:

March 12, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CLYBURN: WHAT DO REPUBLICANS HAVE AGAINST VOLUNTEERISM?

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn today released the following statement criticizing House Republicans for defeating the GIVE Act, HR 5563, legislation that promotes volunteerism and reauthorizes national service programs.
    “What demonstrates true American values more than volunteering?  What better way to give back to our country and community than engage in service work? When our cities and our towns are in crisis, how do we rebuild them and get our neighbors back on their feet?  With volunteers—people giving their time, their care, their resources to make our neighborhoods and our nation a better place.  I am truly confounded as to why my colleagues would divide on partisan lines and defeat a bill that strengthens and provides for our national service organizations.
     “This bill was approved unanimously by the Education and Labor Committee 44 to 0.  It authorizes extremely successful and effective organizations such as AmeriCorps, VISTA, Retired and Senior Volunteer Program, Foster Grandparent Program, and Senior Companion Program. It also creates a new service-learning program called Summer of Service, which engages youth in service through summer volunteer opportunities.
     “What do my Republican colleagues have against volunteerism?”

                    -30-

Rep. Clyburn has been a party leader too long. He seems to think he’s backed his opponents into a rhetorical corner, when the answer to his question is obvious to anyone but a guy who talks too much to members of his own party: Republicans have nothing against volunteerism. Some of them just don’t like paying for it. And they have a point, although a limited one. Republicans see no need for Congress to "authorize" people to volunteer in their communities; the Constitution guarantees freedom of association, etc.

Does that mean there’s something wrong with these programs Mr. Clyburn supports? No, or at least, not necessarily. There’s nothing wrong with the concept of paying for a program that employs volunteers. As the former president of our local Habitat for Humanity, I can tell you that volunteers only get you so far; you’ve got to have cash to build houses.

As for governmental volunteering, you can look at good examples from the Peace Corps to our post-draft military. I’m also familiar with cases in which paid volunteers were not terribly useful, but they got paid anyway.

My point is that in a debate such as this, both sides often have points. But too little of the rhetoric we hear acknowledges that. Note the simplistic advocacy on this blog, which includes the too-oft-repeated emotional "argument" that goes like this… "the almost $1 billion for volunteerism here is merely a drop in the
bucket compared to the $2 trillion price tag on the war in Iraq." As though the expense of the war were either an argument that we shouldn’t prosecute the war, or that we should fund the volunteer programs. Which is isn’t; nor does it demonstrate the opposite in either case.

… or this, from an extremist in the other direction, which inevitably invokes Alexis de Toqueville.

I don’t know whether, if I were a member of Congress, I would vote for this bill or not. Since it was just now brought to my attention by Rep. Clyburn, I would seek more time to decide. That, by the way, is theoretically why we delegate people to go make laws for us — to study and consider, not reflexively go one way or the other.

But I’m pretty sure that, whichever way I voted, I would not think that either a "yes" or a "no" would be absolutely, unquestionably right and true.

Noticing that apparently only one commenter had actually read Katon Dawson’s piece this morning back on this post, I thought I’d make it easier by linking it here.

I’m curious about y’all’s reaction because I’ve been intrigued over the last few days by the reaction that Friday’s editorial engendered, pro and con. I didn’t think it was all that much to get excited about myself. I just posted it on the blog because I had written it, and I knew I wasn’t going to have a Sunday column to post, so it just seemed like a good substitute.

But I’ve gotten more reaction — positive and negative — to this than to anything in awhile. It’s the biggest sleeper since that little E.W. Cromartie piece (which was not written by me). And yet it’s mostly stuff I’ve said before. Sure, it was an editorial, so it was more than me saying it, but like all editorials it reflected the consensus of the board. And there’s nothing outlandish about that consensus — it’s pretty much the one that has emerged over at the State House the last few years, among Republicans as well as Democrats. In fact, it’s more vehement among Republicans.

That’s one of the things that struck me about Katon’s piece — a party leader might say those things out of a sense of duty, but not many Republican officeholders would. The piece was for me a good illustration of the absurdities of partisan thinking. I mean, what non-brainwashed person thinks Mark Sanford equals the GOP leadership in the Legislature, or Lindsey Graham equals Jim DeMint?

But it struck me as particularly ironic in this case, given how little Mark Sanford does for most Republicans. One fan wrote in to me betting that the governor’s office put Katon up to this. My response was, if I’m Katon Dawson (and mind you I’m stretching here to try to think like a party guy), I would say: "What have you ever done for this party, that I should do this for you?"

(This is The State editorial board’s Republican presidential
primary endorsement, which initially appeared online on 1/15/08, and in
the paper 1/16/08. Here is a column that went with it, and here is a video explaining it.)

FOR SOUTH CAROLINA, and to some extent for the nation, the choice
among Republican candidates for
president has come down to two men.

First
Rudy Giuliani, then Mitt Romney looked at political realities and fled
the Palmetto State, deciding their priorities lay elsewhere. Fred
Thompson seems to be running in this first-in-the-South primary just to
say he did. Ron Paul keeps on being Ron Paul, former nominee of the
Libertarian Party.

The two remaining contenders here happen to be
the two strongest candidates — Mike Huckabee and John McCain. Gov.
Huckabee is an exciting newcomer who shows a wonderful ability to
connect with voters’ concerns, and Republicans could do far worse than
to choose him. But his utter lack of knowledge of foreign affairs is
unsettling.

It’s not just about Iraq and Afghanistan. As freshly
demonstrated by the incident involving U.S. warships in the Strait of
Hormuz last week and the assassination earlier of the opposition leader
in the world’s most volatile democracy (which possesses nuclear
weapons, and shelters Osama bin Laden), our commander in chief will
need a far broader and deeper understanding of our relationship to the
world than on-the-job training can adequately provide.

Clearly,
the best Republican candidate to lead our nation at this time is U.S.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona. He has the necessary experience, not just
in time served, but in the quality of understanding he exhibits across
the board.

The value of his experience is multiplied by his
integrity and independence. He is a slave to no ideology or faction.
Not only will he work with anyone who wants to do the right thing
anytime, he is usually the driving force at the head of coalitions to
get the job done — from the Gang of 14 that broke Senate gridlock and
paved the way for the confirmation of conservative judges to his
principled leadership on campaign finance reform. He knew the political
risk he took leading the quest for a comprehensive solution to illegal
immigration, but he believed securing our borders was too important a
priority not to try.

He is deeply respected by his colleagues in
both parties, despite the fact that, as he jokes, he has never sought
the “Miss Congeniality” title. No one is as likely as he to fight,
expose and defeat waste, fraud or corruption.

Experience,
certainly. Integrity, even more so. But John McCain’s most conspicuous
virtue is courage. He is a brave and tough man who unlike some
candidates has no need to bluster, but is able to speak with humility
and generosity to those with whom he disagrees. A McCain presidency
would do much to restore confidence in American leadership, at home and
abroad.

There is of course the extraordinary physical and moral
courage that he displayed as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, where he
withstood nightmarish torture for years rather than let his country or
his comrades down. But he also possesses the kind of political
fortitude that keeps him from giving up on any worthwhile quest. He
evinces a wisdom born in pain, a confidence earned in many battles.
When others despair, John McCain knows he has seen worse, and keeps
striding forward.

For much of the past year, his candidacy was
dismissed, his support depleted, his coffers empty. He kept on, and
gradually won the doubters back to his cause.

More to the point,
consider the wisdom and courage he has displayed with regard to our
nation’s struggle in Iraq. For four years, he was nearly alone in his
insistent criticism of the Bush administration for sending too few
troops to quell the violence. When the president finally adopted the
McCain approach a year ago, the senator lent Gen. David Petraeus his
unwavering support at a time when so many in both major parties either
thought he was wrong, or simply lacked the courage to stand with him.
He was right all along.

John McCain has shown more clearly than
anyone on the American political scene today that he loves his country,
and would never mislead or dishonor it. He is almost unique in his
determination to do what is right, whatever the cost. And he usually
has a clear vision of what’s right.

So it is that we confidently
and enthusiastically endorse John McCain for the Republican nomination
for president of the United States.

(This is The State editorial board’s Democratic presidential primary endorsement, which initially appeared online on 1/22/08, and in the paper 1/23/08. Here is a column that went with it, and here is a video explaining it.)

THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY in South Carolina this year offers voters an unusual choice. Earlier votes
have winnowed out the most experienced candidates, leaving a field with fewer accomplishments and differences on policy, but including two candidates who come with the promise to make history just because of who they are.

Looking at the remaining field: Rep. Dennis Kucinich offers a bold plan on health care, but his platform is an odd fit for us and for many in South Carolina. John Edwards has morphed away from the optimist who won South Carolina in 2004. The candidate who stayed mostly above the fray four years ago is angry now, and pushing hard to turn working-class angst into political opportunity. He also has tried to one-up the other top Democrats with the least prudent plan for withdrawing from Iraq.

On positions from Iraq to health care, the policy differences between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are minute. Much of the debate between them has involved making these molehills look mountainous or clashing over who-shifted-when.

The one most significant difference between them can be found in how they would approach the presidency – and how the nation might respond.

Hillary Clinton has been a policy wonk most of her life, a trait she has carried into the U.S. Senate. As her debate performances have shown, she has intelligence and a deep understanding of many issues. Her efforts in New York focused first on learning her adopted state’s issues in detail, and pursuing legislation that would not necessarily grab headlines.

But we also have a good idea what a Clinton presidency would look like. The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault – but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons’ joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication.

Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration – and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity – transcending party – is a core value in itself.

Can such unity be restored, in this poisonous political culture? Not unless that is a nominee’s goal from the outset. It will be a difficult challenge for any candidate; but we wait in the hope that someone really will try. There is no other hope for rescuing our republic from the mire.

Sen. Obama would also have the best chance to repair the damage to America’s global reputation. A leader with his biography – including his roots in Africa and his years spent growing up overseas – could transform the world’s view of America. He would seize that opportunity.

He would close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, which has damaged America’s moral standing, and strive to rebuild many diplomatic relationships.

Despite America’s bitter partisan divide, all sides should agree on this: In such an environment, little gets done. Congress has been largely useless under both Republican and Democratic leadership. Setting aside the ideological conflict for conflict’s sake to get anything worthwhile done has fallen severely out of fashion.

And America certainly has things to get done.

From terrorism and climate change to runaway federal entitlement spending, there are big challenges to be faced. Sen. Obama is the only Democrat who plausibly can say that he wants to work with Americans across the political spectrum to address such subjects – and he has the integrity and the skills of persuasion that make him the best-qualified among the remaining Democratic hopefuls to address these challenges.

He would be a groundbreaking nominee. More to the point, he makes a solid case that he is ready to lead the whole country. We see Sen. Barack Obama as the best choice in Saturday’s Democratic primary.

Barack Obama receives the endorsement of Caroline Kennedy.

Noting the endorsement of Barack Obama by the Kennedy clan, I’m reminded of those who think this campaign is "about race" just because black voters in S.C. went for Obama so big.

This got me to thinking about 1960. What I was thinking was that JFK’s own demographic probably went just as big for him, but no one would ghettoize him. Obviously, he could not have been elected if those were the only folks who preferred him to his opponent.

I haven’t found anything that speaks directly to my question regarding the Irish, but I did find this. Here’s an excerpt from a synopsis of The American Catholic Voter: Two Hundred Years Of Political Impact, by George J. Marlin, with the relevant part highlighted:

    Marlin’s analysis provides an in-depth look at two of the more celebrated Catholic election contests, the candidacy of Al Smith in 1928 and the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960. Where Smith was hurt by anti-Catholicism outside the major cities, Kennedy was able to hold together the old FDR coalition. As Marlin noted, the 1960 election of JFK was a victory not for Catholicism, but for liberalism. The tenuous hold the Democratic Party had on Catholics — Kennedy received 70% of the Catholic vote after Ike had "stolen" millions of them in 1952 and 1956 — camouflaged the fact that Kennedy’s Catholic vote percentage was 10 percentage points lower than what Al Smith had received, not withstanding the efforts by the Kennedy family, a supportive liberal media, and big city machines like Chicago’s Richard Daley that pulled out all the stops for JFK.

Note that Al Smith got 80 percent of the Catholic vote, doing better than Obama did with black voters in SC. Of course, being so identified with the Catholic vote, he lost the election. The Clintons hope to convince Democrats that Obama is Al Smith — or more specifically, Jesse Jackson. which is the modern equivalent.

But the Kennedy clan believe he’s JFK in this race. They see him as someone who transcends his own putative demographic group, even though members of that group may for their part take great pride in him. They suggest that his charisma, a quality that reaches across all demographics, a quality that distinguished JFK from Smith, makes him the natural heir to Camelot. In that, they agree with President Kennedy’s closest adviser, Ted Sorensen.

Think I’m exaggerating? Read the op-ed piece by the princess of Camelot herself, headlined "A President Like My Father." And excerpt:

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama….
    Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.
    We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960….

Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., Caroline Kennedy, Barack Obama, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.

A source with the McCain campaign here in the Midlands just passed on a report that the voting machines in Horry County have broken down.

But that’s not the really bad, or astounding, news.

The bad news is that they’ve run out of paper ballots, and are turning voters away from the polls.

If this is right, it’s extremely bad news for John McCain, and for those of us who think it’s important for our country that he be the nominee. And whomever you support, if you care about our republic, you’d have to agree with the McCain guy: "That’s a damned shame."

So what I want to know is, is this just one of these doomsday rumors that fly around on election days, or have any of y’all down on the coast experienced this? Gordon, you live down that way, right? What’s the word? Anyone else?

A colleague, perhaps seeking to make me, as an Anglophile, feel a tad more comfortable with our insupportable form of government in this state, passes along the following e-mail exchange:

Brad
    I pass along a conversation with a constitutional law expert on whom I rely frequently. I thought you’d find the ideas about our system of government interesting. (I’ve turned the notes around so you can read them in order.)

1. I ask whether there is some line, some standard that prevents attorneys from making outrageous statements to the court like the one the Legislature’s attorneys made when they DENIED that the one-county laws I wrote about in today’s column were one-county laws in violation of the constitution.

2. I get this elaboration of an earlier oral answer:

Cindi, this quote is taken from State v. Wright, 271 SC 534, 248 SE 2d 490 (1978).It somewhat summarizes what you were asking about.

Even if a defense is not recognized at the time of trial, an attorney will not violate the Code by asserting it if his position “(can be supported) by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of the law.” Disciplinary Rule 7-102(A)(2). To understand the requirement this rule places on attorneys, one must understand the words “good faith.” It is made clear by Ethical Consideration 7-4 that an attorney’s personal belief that a defense will fail is no evidence of bad faith:

The advocate may urge any permissible construction of the law favorable to his client, without regard to his professional opinion as to the likelihood that the construction will ultimately prevail. His conduct is within the bounds of the law, and therefore permissible, if the position taken is supported by the law or is supportable by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of the law. However, a lawyer is not justified in asserting a position in litigation that is frivolous.

Bad faith has been found in cases of repeated, groundless vengeance suits, In re Sarelas, 50 Ill.2d 87, 277 N.E.2d 313 (1971), or deliberate, knowing misrepresentations to the state of law. In re Clark, 96 Idaho 889, 539 P.2d 242 (1975). The spirit of these cases is that to prove lack of good faith, one must prove some sort of evil intent. There is absolutely no evidence that defense counsel had such intent. The transcript makes clear counsel’s good intent to do the best job he could for his client:

3. My response:
Thanks for sending that. Pretty high bar, particularly when you’re living in the Legislative State, where judges, in order to become judges, must swear an oath to assume that everything the Legislature does is constitutional. (I exaggerate only slightly.)

— Cindi

4. My expert responds:

I agree. Incidentally, my theory is that except perhaps at the appellate court level, the judiciary is in many ways simply an extension of the General Assembly. I think more often than not trial courts approach a matter much as a legislative committee would. What is fair here? What is "equitable"? What interests are involved? Who are the lawyers? This goes back to the time of legislative supremacy in England.

5. I respond:
Why am I not surprised that our system of justice would parallel a system borne of legislative supremacy?

6. My expert responds:

We are today and always have been more heavily influenced by British institutions than any other of the original thirteen colonies. The governor and the constitutional officers were appointees of the legislature until the end of the Civil War. This therefore was more in line with a parliamentary system. While we purport to accept separation of powers, it remains even today within the context of legislative supremacy.

Consider thyself edified.

What in the world does a former governor of Florida know about what sort of reform South Carolina needs? That, of course, is assuming that ReformSC is actually about reforming government, rather than being about a generic, easily-transferable, impulse to shrink government wherever you find it?

To help you understand where I’m coming from, Mark Sanford essentially stands for four things as governor:

1. Restructuring government, particularly to place the executive branch under the elected chief executive, thereby making it accountable to voters, and rendering it possible to set priorities to make the most of finite resources.
2. Cutting taxes, preferably the state income tax.
3. Less spending. Not less spending on this, or less spending on that, but just less spending, without any context. He has an arbitrary number in mind.
4. Demolishing public schools as an institution, starting with the thin end of the wedge — vouchers and tuition tax credits. (The wedge widens as a few people desert the schools, thereby undermining political support, thereby making for fewer resources to schools, making them worse, making them even less popular, prompting more people to desert them, etc.)

You may have noticed that there’s nothing special about items two, three and four. You will also notice — if reform means "taking something and making it work better" to you, as it does to me — that the only part of the Sanford agenda that qualifies as "reform" is the first item. (You could add as a reform his very earnest desire to set better priorities through the budget process, but this one seems so dependent on government restructuring being accomplished before the "executive budget" gets any respect, that I just lump it into the same item.)

This kind of reform — unlike cleaning up graft, or some such — is very specific to South Carolina. You won’t find, for instance, a Budget and Control Board or any other such extraordinary, hermaphroditic devices aimed at keeping the governor weak, in Florida. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

After having been responsible for state government coverage in two other states (Tennessee and Kansas) before coming to The State 20 years ago, I realized right away that things were really different in South Carolina. But it took me three years of directing a team of reporters covering every aspect of state government to understand fully how it was different, and what that did to our state, and what sorts of things we needed to do if we were every to catch up to the rest of the country.

I then spent the next year directing a special project delving into the unique structural problems of this state, and recommending remedies. Mark Sanford, as a candidate, studied a reprint of that project I gave him before making it his own, which is a major reason why we endorsed him in 2002. Before that, he had some vague ideas of what reforms might be needed, but he did not have a systematized set of recommendations.

So I find myself wondering, is Jeb Bush clairvoyant? How else would he, as an outsider, have any idea what sort of reforms South Carolina needs? And if he doesn’t, how could he in good conscience endorse a Sanford reform agenda? Anyway, I got to pondering on that after reading this passage in our news story today — a passage that apparently reflects what little our reporter could get out of the visitor on his way into the event, from which the press was barred:

    “Leadership matters in public life,” Bush said, adding that government structure should support that. He said voters want leaders who “say what they’re going to do and then do what they said they’re going to do.”
    About 75 people attended a morning event in Spartanburg, Reform SC director Chad Walldorf said, while more than 100 were at the Columbia lunch at the Lace House.
    Bush, 54, was elected to two terms as governor of Florida, serving from 1999 until January. He and fellow Republican Sanford became friends while serving in office.
    Bush said the country needs “principle-centered leaders.”
    “I’m here because I’m a huge fan of Mark Sanford,” Bush said.

What leadership? What principles? Well, it stands to reason that the only Sanford principles Jeb Bush is likely to understand, and the only areas where he could credibly claim to be on the same page, would be on items 2 through 4, which reflect generic values of the more libertarian, anti-government strain of Republican philosophy nationally.

Which takes us back to the first impression I formed of ReformSC. It dovetails very well with the character of, say, an SCRG — an outsider-financed (we think, since it doesn’t even pretend to be transparent) group pushing an outside, highly ideological agenda — and not at all with any sort of movement that would naturally rise up from the grass roots of South Carolina.

Not that a true grass-roots movement is likely to rise up and demand what we need in terms of government reform, since such remedies tend to arise naturally only from the mouths of wonks. And I say that as one of the loudest wonks on that particular bandwagon. But ReformSC does style itself as "South Carolinians coming together to Reform South Carolina," and therefore invites us to judge it on that basis.
 

This NYT story makes it clear than among the GOP candidates, the one who takes global warming and energy independence most seriously is John McCain:

Global Warming Starts to Divide G.O.P. Contenders
By MARC SANTORA
    While many conservative commentators and editorialists have mocked concerns about climate change, a different reality is emerging among Republican presidential contenders. It is a near-unanimous recognition among the leaders of the threat posed by global warming.
    Within that camp, however, sharp divisions are developing. Senator John McCain of Arizona is calling for capping gas emissions linked to warming and higher fuel economy standards. Others, including Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney, are refraining from advocating such limits and are instead emphasizing a push toward clean coal and other alternative energy sources….

The same story provides yet another tidbit of evidence that despite having taken his time getting into the race, Fred Thompson is still not ready to be taken seriously:

Fred D. Thompson, after mocking the threat in April, said more recently that “climate change is real” and suggested a measured approach until more was known about it….

Given the lateness of the hour and the fact that even the most stringent measures humans might enact can only have incremental impact in reversing damage, "a measured approach" is Republicanese for "don’t do diddly."