Category Archives: Uncategorized

Carol Fowler and the Dark Side

Note: this item has been edited since it was first posted.

So you’re thinking things are pretty messed up with the primary date scramble? However bad you may think it is, Gail Collins of the NYT sees it as even worse, at least on the Democratic side:

    All the major Democratic candidates for president have signed a
pledge promising they will only go to Florida or Michigan when they
want to raise money.

    Among the really bad ideas in the history of the Democratic Party,
this ranks somewhere between butterfly ballots and William Jennings
Bryan.

And that is a pretty horrible idea — Ms. Collins specifically uses the example of John Edwards slapping backs with fat cats in Miami, but having to run the other way if other voters approach him in that state (which sounds weirdly familiar). But I don’t have to go back to WJB, or even to Palm Beach madness.

To find an electoral idea that bad — actually, even worse — in the annals of the Democratic Party, I only have to go back to the putrid Loyalty Oath that S.C. Democrats almost, but not quite, required before allowing folks to vote in their primary in 2004.

And here’s where these moments of shame come together — with the name "Fowler." As I recall it was Don Fowler, Carol’s husband, who thought the Great Loyalty Oath Crusade was a keen idea four years ago. He thought it wise to disenfranchise me and any other South Carolinians who would not swear to already being a Democrat. (So much for "growing the party," huh?)

Guess who is in league with what Ms. Collins calls The Dark Side this time?

    Ray Buckley, the chairman of New Hampshire’s Democratic Party, urged
that all questions be directed to Carol Fowler, the chairwoman in South
Carolina. “It was her idea,” he said.
    Fowler did not respond to a request for comment.

To paraphrase a question Ms. Collins poses, in italics:

What are these people thinking?

If you can call it that.

About Brad Warthen’s blog

This blog is about civil discourse on an infinite array of topics, but we will return, like a compass needle toward magnetic North, to South Carolina politics. It is my fervent wish that we engage our political questions with open minds and an eye to what works, without cant and party lines.

Ditto with national politics, which for the next few months will play an exaggerated role here, since South Carolina will play a prominent role in choosing the next POTUS.

You will see certain themes here — the rejection of political factions (especially the Democratic and Republican parties), sometimes through the medium of the UnParty; a somewhat more focused alternative called the Energy Party; advocacy of changing our forms of government on the state and local levels; the rejection of radical individualism; an unhealthy interest in popular culture, by which I am alternately attracted and repelled.

Another purpose — and perhaps the central purpose — is to provide a window into my own thinking, which is but one perspective on the newspaper’s editorial board. When I became EPE in 1997, I mandated that henceforth, editorial writers would produce a weekly column, so that readers could see the personalities, interests and attitudes that shape our official editorial positions. This blog is an attempt to go beyond what the columns are able to do.

Who am I?
I’m the Catholic, communitarian-leaning, 54-year-old editor of the editorial page of The State, South Carolina’s largest newspaper; I am a husband, and the father of five.


Paul’s having trouble — are you?

Folks, one of our regulars is having trouble leaving comments on the blog:

Brad,

Blog security may be a bit too tight.  I’ve tried to post an innocuous comment twice (yesterday and today) on the Doug Ross thread (“The Blog Summit”) from two different computers with two different emails (the old one which has always worked in the past and my new one).  However, I get the following error message: “Your comment has not been posted because we think it might contain comment spam.”  Comment spam?!  Now you wait just one cotton-pickin’ minute.  Who are you calling a comment spammer; why you lazy, sleazy, illegitimate, welfare-cheatin’, government-lovin’, tax-and-spend, liberal blog master.  Or should that be hard-hearted, uncaring, bigoted, ignorant, hypocritical, Neanderthal conservative?  Hey, when you call one of your most civil participants a spammer, the gloves come off!

I haven’t posted in a while but I’m still reading.  Have I missed some new instruction that will prevent me from being labeled a spammer?

Here’s the comment I tried to post:

Brad,

I recently suggested that the blog party to celebrate your millionth post would be best at your house.  I have this vision of all of our differences dissolving into joyous chants of “Toga, Toga!” and libertarians gatoring with liberals to “Shout.”  But I’d settle for dinner catered by The State at the Capital City Club.  If not togas, how about a costume party.  We could all come as Mary Rosh….

Thanks,
Paul

I asked him to try again, and he had the same problem. I have no idea what this is about. Anyone else having this trouble?

Meanwhile, I’m going back to post that comment for him.

Millions of peaches, peaches for me…

And, to make South Carolinians and New Mexicans both feel better, up in Massachusetts treasurers are raising their kids to be scofflaws, too:

{BC-Treasurer-Peaches,0320}
{Mass. treasurer detained for not declaring 3 peaches daughter} brought peaches from Italy
   BOSTON (AP) – A top state official learned firsthand how it feels to be suspected of smuggling at Logan International Airport. Customs agents caught his teenage daughter with contraband: three peaches from Italy.
   State Treasurer Tim Cahill said he and his family were detained and treated "like criminals" after they failed to declare the fruit and officers found it.
   "It felt like we were being interrogated and found guilty without any process, no explanation, no rundown of our rights," Cahill said. He said he didn’t even know his daughter had the peaches during the nine-hour flight home on Aug. 14.
   Cahill said customs agents told him he had to pay a $300 fine and would spend the night in jail if he refused to pay. He also said he wasn’t told about his right to appeal.
   Cahill said he was reluctant to talk about the episode until meeting last week with lawmakers and tourism industry representatives about the difficulties overseas travelers have faced entering the U.S. since the Sept. 11 attacks.
   "I do respect the difficult role that Homeland Security has," Cahill said. "It’s a balancing act. Unfortunately in my case, the balance was not struck very well. As a citizen who cares about security, I think that the time needs to be spent better and maybe on less serious issues than peaches."
   A spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, had no comment.

DOING something to help kids learn to read…

Got this message from a reader from down Samaria way:

From: Gary and Sally Heidebrecht
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 1:13 PM
To: Warthen, Brad
Subject: Kids and reading

Mr. Warthen,
    I just read today’s editorial re poor kids and reading.
    I have a different idea on this subject.
    Next year I will be President of the local (Orangeburg) Kiwanis club. I want a project which might make a difference for poor kids.
    My idea is to buy 8-9 books appropriate to 4th graders and give them to the kids, one per month. These would be inexpensive but hardback books. The books would belong to the kids and there would be no tests or pressure to read them. Hopefully a few would read them. I think it is important that the books actually belong to the kids, not to be returned.
    I think a big problem is that there are no books, newspapers, magazines or anything else to read in so many of these homes. They need some resources.
    Melvin Smoak (Superintendent of Orangeburg Distrct 5) has given me the go ahead for a pilot project ay Rivelon Elementary. There will be 50 kids in the 4th grade next year at that school, most of them from poor families.
    I don’t have a cost yet but Ellen Shuler (Executive Director of the South Carolina Center for Children’s Books and Literacy) is developing a list of books and getting costs. We expect  the cost to be about $150 per child or about $7500.
    Our club will make a contribution but we don’t have anywhere near that amount of money. My purpose in writing you is to ask if you might have any ideas about where I might apply for a grant to try this out?
    Boy, if this had a positive impact the $150 per child would sure look good compared to other alternatives.
    My sister is 14 years older than I and when she went to work she bought me two series of books when I was about 8-10 years old. I believe ownership of those books turned me into a lifelong prolific reader.
    Thank you for your attention.

Regards,

Gary Heidebrecht
Orangeburg

To which I replied that I would pass the word around to various folks who might be able to scrape up some funds. Maybe y’all can help in that. Anyone want to pitch in, or know someone who would?

Adjusting the focus on Edwards

Whoa, as Keanu Reeves might say.

I offer to write a midweek column if my colleagues just won’t gripe about my staying out on vacation an extra day, then I come in to work, and the column has created crazy buzz. It’s on the Drudge Report, the New York Post calls wanting to run it, and I can’t find time to catch up on my mail this morning…

Sure, it was an unusual column, in that I confided the sort of small things that a journalist picks up in the course of following campaigns, the things that form the almost unconscious impressions of character that usually don’t make it into print amid the policy pronouncements, spin-cycle "scandals" and repetitions of the Stump Speech. As you look through the comments coming in, you’ll see that some embrace this added dimension to reporting, and others dismiss it as utterly beneath contempt. The latter assessment was certainly predictable, which is why most writers don’t venture into this territory.

But if I’m going to evaluate a candidate in such a naturalistic manner, I feel obliged to share the following, which offers a colleague’s personal memory of the same event:

Interesting column this morning. Can I mention one thing to you? That day in the ed board back in 2004, I’m pretty sure that I mentioned his boots to him before he plopped down and showed them off. Just fyi.

Aaron Gould Sheinin
Staff Writer
The State

I appreciate Aaron sharing that, because it sharpens the focus of the particular sort of lens through which I was trying to examine Mr. Edwards. It doesn’t change my perspective; the contrast between his Andy Griffith-style (early Andy Griffith, a la first episodes of the first season, when he was still playing the Noble Hayseed to the hilt) conviviality with the board and his stiffing the regular folks is still there. But Aaron at least offers him the out of not having fully contrived that gesture on his own; he merely seized upon the opportunity.

What does Ravenel cocaine bust mean?

This post is now somewhat outdated. For newer, related material, see this post. Or better yet, go to the main page of my blog to see what else I’ve posted.

Aside from LIndsey being safe, at least until the extremists come up with somebody else?

  • It means the governor probably gets to pick a new treasurer. Greg Ryberg, whom we endorsed, comes to mind. He was the best candidate for the job, and he certainly wanted it — spending $2 million of his own money.
  • Mr. Ravenel’s supreme, cocky confidence as a candidate will be seen in a new light — regardless of his guilt or innocence.
  • More people will go back and watch my Grady Patterson video clip, and say to themselves, "He was old, but he was honest." (They’ll also say, "So that’s what he meant by ‘He makes up stuff.’)
  • These indictments have demonstrated that it’s harder to get away with being a corrupt official in South Carolina than it once was. After Charlie Sharpe and Thomas Ravenel, who else should be looking over their shoulders?
  • Cocaine isn’t as passe as those who put the ’80s way behind them may have thought it was.

That’s about as far as free association takes me so far. What do you think?

Why don’t we drive 55?

Samuel Tenenbaum is one of the most ardent members of the Energy Party, and he continues to push, with his characteristic energy, his own favored solution. I got this e-mail this morning:

Time for a national speed limit of 55 mph. Chevron says that it will save us 22
BILLION gallons of gas which would reduce the price of oil by the barrel by 8-10
dollars which would reduce on a per day basis millions of dollars to the
petrodictators and save lives here on our higways. It also reduces trade
deficits , reduces inflationary and interest rate pressures, health care costs
and care insurance with the reduced accident rates and it will be the the only
thing that we as a people have sacrificed for the wars. Can the
American people give up speed to honor those who have died fighting ? Do we have
any leader who will lead ? Where is the American media ?  If not now , when ?
Remember, Ch[a]vez, Putin and Ahmadinejab are laughing all the way to the bank .
Are you ?

I confess that, knowing my own impatience as a driver, I balk at this one, too — but Samuel’s right. I push for the higher gas tax, he pushes for this. We should do both. They are indeed the least we could do.

Sheheen gets it

Sen. Vincent Sheheen disagrees with me on  DOT reform. He thinks it’s possible to have reform with a commission; I believe it has to go, in favor of its becoming a Cabinet agency.

But either way, he and I agree on one thing: There’s no one in charge of state government, neither the governor nor the Legislature:

I have served three years in the state House of Representatives and three years in the state Senate. During this short time, I have reached the inescapable conclusion that our legislative branch not only does not control the government in South Carolina but is incapable of meeting its appropriate and necessary roles. The problem is not with individual legislators; the problem is how our Legislature has historically been structured and operated.

Our Legislature consists of part-time legislators who have traditionally focused almost entirely on lawmaking. They have little or no full-time staff. Even the major committees have just enough staff members to stay one step ahead of bills under immediate debate. As operated and structured, our Legislature performs almost no — I repeat, almost no — oversight of the operations of state government.

The closest thing to oversight that we regularly engage in is the budget process, during which each agency is appropriated money based on its stated needs. Truthfully, however, the budget process is not designed to evaluate critically the functions of each agency and program.

He groks the fullness. He suggests it took him three years to understand this. It also took me three years. It was late summer or early fall 1990 when I finally realized how out of control South Carolina was, and how it was designed to be that way. Actually, I should say it was designed for legislators to run, but that had become impossible.

Ever since then, we’ve been pushing for fundamental restructuring of South Carolina government, all branches and all levels. To put it simply, we have wanted the governor to be firmly in charge of the executive branch; for the Legislature to live up to its responsibilities to pass laws for the WHOLE state, and to be an effective check on the governor (advice and consent, oversight of agencies); and for the judiciary to be independent of the other two, as well as from the immediate passions of the electorate. And we wanted state government to leave local governments alone to run things as local folks saw fit.

Since the governor’s weakness is the easiest to see and understand, most folks think of "government restructuring" as being about taking away power from the Legislature and giving it to the governor. Yes, we want the governor in charge of executive functions, partly because that’s the natural and proper form, but also because NOBODY is in charge now.

Lawmakers have some limited power at DOT, to exert influence here and there on local projects — but NOBODY has any oversight of the entire agency and its scope of operations. The battle between folks like Sen. Sheheen and those like John Land, who wants NO reform, is to a great extent over whether the agency will operate coherently for the benefit of the whole state, or remain a haphazard favor bank for powerful lawmakers.

Anyway, it’s good that Mr. Sheheen sees the overall problem. When we launched this campaign with a massive, year long project in 1991, we didn’t call it "Power Failure: The government that answers to the Legislature." We called it "Power Failure: The government that answers to no one."

God bless Vincent Sheheen for getting it. Now we just need 169 other lawmakers to get it. I wonder how long it’s going to take them?

Yossarian and the PACT

Obsessing over the PACT

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
YOSSARIAN and his friends hated the bomb line, because it would not move. The bomb line was the red ribbon on the map outside the intelligence tent, indicating the extent of the Allied advance. As long as the line remained below Bologna, they would still have to bomb Bologna, and they’d heard the flak there was horrific. Yet no matter how hard they stared at the bomb line, for hours on end, it would not move for them.

    “I really can’t believe it,” Clevinger exclaimed to Yossarian in a voice rising and falling in protest and wonder. “It’s a complete reversion to primitive superstition. They’re confusing cause and effect. It makes as much sense as knocking on wood or crossing your fingers. They really believe that we wouldn’t have to fly that mission tomorrow if someone would only tiptoe up to the map in the middle of the night and move the bomb line over Bologna. Can you imagine? You and I must be the only rational ones left.”

    That night, wrote Joseph Heller in Catch-22, “Yossarian knocked on wood, crossed his fingers, and tiptoed out of his tent to move the bomb line up over Bologna.” As a result, there was much celebration the next day, and the brass decided to give a medal to whoever had captured Bologna, if they could find him.
    Only Bologna hadn’t been captured, and eventually they had to bomb it anyway.
    Each year at about this time, when kids are getting out of school after weeks stressing over the PACT, I wonder whether we’ve become Yossarian, obsessing over the wrong thing.
    The idea behind the bomb line was simply to indicate progress that would, or would not, be occurring regardless of whether the intelligence officer tacked a ribbon onto a map. The Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test was supposed to indicate progress that was, or was not, occurring in our schools.
    All year, South Carolinians stare at that indicator, obsessing over it as though preparing for it, administering it, taking it, compiling the numbers, printing hundreds of thousands of report cards, sending them home with the kids and publishing charts would somehow achieve educational excellence in and of itself.
    The final weeks of the school year are entirely taken up with the process. No more teaching; too busy testing.
    I suspect that there are more than a few harried educators who, if they could, would love to be able to just sneak up and move a line on a map, so as to save the trouble. Many of them believe fervently that the whole process is ridiculous. Why not just let them teach, instead of going through this rigmarole? Just let them take Bologna — that’s hard enough — and let somebody else worry about lines on charts?
    But it was easy to tell when Bologna was taken in 1945 — Americans in the streets, the Germans gone. Public education is more like Baghdad: Some on the ground see incremental progress, small steps against great odds. Those at a distance see nothing but failure, and demand benchmarks.
    That’s where the PACT started, by the way — frustrated business leaders who believed in public education but saw it falling short for too many worked with “conservative” politicians who believed money was being wasted on the whole system.
    The idea was a sound one: First, set standards of what we want kids to learn. Then, test whether schools are successfully teaching those things. To do that, you had to devise your own tests, because you had set your own standards.
    The scores would be used to hold schools accountable for teaching the standards.
    What we keep hearing is that they’re just “teaching the test.” If the test scores are nothing more than a red ribbon on a map, then “teaching the test” is a bad thing, an enormous waste of effort.
But if the test is truly based on the standards we want taught, then teaching the test means teaching the standards. And that’s what we want, isn’t it?
    Several weeks back, I heard a child fretting about a test she would be taking in school the next day, and wanting to study for it, but not having a clear idea how.
    When I heard the test was part of the PACT, I told her not to concern herself. Just relax, take the test. The hard work was behind her. Either she had learned all that stuff during the year up to that point, or she hadn’t. She wasn’t being tested; the school was. There was no grade. Something was being measured, that’s all — like dipping a thermometer into a river to check the temperature; there’s nothing the river could do about it one way or the other.
    I’m not sure she believed me; what I said didn’t square with the anxiety that had been communicated to her at school.
    That’s the trouble. The river knows it’s being measured, and has a huge stake in getting its temperature just right.
    When I was a kid, any day we took standardized tests was a good day. Just color in the bubbles with a No. 2 pencil! It doesn’t affect your grade! Relax and do it!
    And I did well on those tests (better than I did on the ones that counted, frankly). But the fate of my school didn’t depend on my score. The teacher didn’t care what percentile I fell into. She was just measuring the temperature; no sweat.
    If Jim Rex can replace the PACT with something that is “no sweat,” more power to him. But I have my doubts. The stakes remain too high for the ones administering it, and they’re likely to stay that way. The political environment, from the state to the federal level, demands that schools account for themselves.
    Still, if he can find a way to make the process less distracting while accomplishing the goals, that would be great. Spending the last few weeks of each school year fretting over the bomb line just isn’t healthy for anybody.

Another failed CIA plot

No, not that CIA, the other CIA.

This one was bizarre. How can people who grew up in this country have such a twisted idea of the judiciary’s role? The very idea of spending money to campaign for a judge based on the political effect of their rulings, rather than their legal soundness, is shocking within the American context. No matter how often they do it in Washington, thanks to Roe.

And neither BIPEC, nor the Palmetto Family Council, nor, apparently, CIA thought there was a thing wrong with it. Why else would CIA have posted this video?

How would they feel if the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and MoveOn.org campaigned against candidates for the S.C. Supreme Court (the way they campaign on the federal level, which is another appalling example of what Roe v. Wade has done to this country)?

You know what? As I asked that question just now, it hit me that they would might think it was just fine! All’s fair in love and war, and this is war!

Now, before all you conservatives unleash a bunch of tripe at me about defending the "liberal" candidate, I am not doing that. I’m defending the judiciary.

To the extent that I have an opinion on this, it is that Bruce Williams — the very one these "conservative" groups want — was the best candidate in this race. I didn’t consider it a tragedy if one of the others were elected, because all three were qualified. But it appeared to me that Williams was the most qualified. I didn’t study the matter the way I would have if I had been a lawmaker voting today, or if our editorial board had been endorsing, but from what I do know, I think I would have voted for him.

Why am I using the past tense? Because the election is over, and Don Beatty — the guy CIA was attacking with all that laughably lurid, over-the-top, nongrammatical  rhetoric ("Ultra Liberal Democrat Partisan") — won. He will ascend to the Supreme Court, and probably become the next chief justice.Toalbeatty

Now, think about this: Did the grotesquely inappropriate campaigning by these groups have a backlash effect? Did lawmakers choose the one with the lowest ratings (of the three) from the state Bar as a way of rejecting the guy with all the overeager friends? Possibly. I don’t think that would be appropriate either — lawmakers, with their inordinate power to choose the judiciary, have a solemn responsibility to pick the one they think best suited, not the one with the least objectionable friends — but it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that a few of the votes he picked up were influenced by that.

It’s an interesting thing to consider, anyway.

Beatty

Some low-life tries to impersonate me

Katon Dawson called to tell me about something that happened at the debate last night which supplied him with a bit of comic relief in the midst of a million headaches.

One of the biggest pains of all, of course, is dealing with the media. The state GOP credentialed about 400 alleged journalists and hangers-on, and of course, there’s always somebody who doesn’t want to play by the rules. Of course, with the press, there are a lot of such somebodies.

So at the very height of it all, Katon is standing next to lady who is helping out the party (he evaded myRollingstone_2
attempt to get a name), when she is approached by a surly, arrogant sort with a beard and tennis shoes, who says, "I don’t have credentials, and they told me to come over here."

The unruffled Flower of Southern Womanhood politely asks whom the gentleman is claiming to represent.

"Rolling Stone," he says.

But you can’t fool this lady: "You’re not the guy who went to the national convention with us."

Nevertheless, the interloper insisted, he’s the guy with Rolling Stone.

No, says the lady: "You’re not that guy." (The guy she’s thinking of is shown at right, holding a digital recorder over the shiny dome of ex-Speaker David Wilkins. The photograph, by the way, was taken by current Speaker Bobby Harrell.)

So why was this so funny to Katon? Here’s a little something I filed from the Republican National Convention in New York in 2004:

    You know me as the editorial page editor of The State. That’s not how they know me in New York. Here, I’m the guy from Rolling Stone magazine.
    S.C. Republican Party chairman Katon Dawson told me that no fewer than three hotel employees — the concierge, a doorman and one other — had said something about it. "How did you get the guy from Rolling Stone with you?" asked the doorman, apparently impressed. "What guy?" said Mr. Dawson. "You know, the guy with the beard and tennis shoes."
    "We didn’t tell him" my true identity, Mr. Dawson confessed. "It made us look cool."
    Well, I am no Hunter Thompson. I am writing this under the influence of nothing stronger than a cup of coffee and several antacid tablets. But I feel compelled to live up to my local reputation and send you a disjointed, rambling account of stuff that happened in New York that just didn’t fit into the three regular columns I did…

So that fella last night had a nerve trying to get away with something like that. Next thing you know he’ll be telling people he’s Raoul Duke.

Good thing that lady had been to New York, and knew better than to be fooled by the likes of him.

Another DOT vote

On Wednesday, Sens. Vincent Sheheen and Chip Campsen proposed a compromise compromise to try to break the Senate logjam on DOT reform.

Or maybe that’s a compromise compromise compromise; I don’t know. Lawmakers as a body refuse to do the simple, obvious thing that would actually address the structural problem with the agency’s accountability — eliminate the commission in any form and put the elected chief executive in charge. Since that’s not going to happen — despite some good efforts from Sen. John Courson and others — we have to look to something much less to make any progress at all.

Under the Sheheen/Campsen proposal, the governor would hire (and fire, at will) the director to run the agency "charged with the construction, maintenance, and operation of the state highway system pursuant the direction of the planning commission."

The current commission would be abolished. Legislators would appoint a Transportation Planning Commission (in the same way they now appoint board members), which would be charged with "developing a budget for the department’s operations and the systematic planning of the state highway system, the development of a statewide mass transit system, and the review and authorization of routine operation and maintenance requests and emergency repairs. "

Even this was too much for the Senate. While the reformers were willing to go along with it, they didn’t constitute a large-enough number. It was tabled on a 20-19 vote. An AYE is a vote to table the amendment; a NAY is a vote to support the amendment.

AYES

Alexander                 Anderson                  Ford
Hutto                     Jackson                   Land
Leatherman                Leventis                  Malloy
Matthews                  McGill                    Moore
O’Dell                    Patterson                 Peeler
Rankin                    Reese                     Ritchie
Short                     Williams

NAYS

Bryant                    Campsen                   Cleary
Courson                   Cromer                    Fair
Grooms                    Hawkins                   Hayes
Knotts                    Lourie                    Martin
McConnell                 Ryberg                    Scott
Setzler                   Sheheen                   Thomas

The Senate also rejected another plan, which means senators will return to work Tuesday to face the continuation of the John Land filibuster against the McConnell-Grooms plan — which in reality is a filibuster against any reform at all, because the effort here is to keep the bill from ever going to conference committee, where status quo supporters fear the Senate conferees will accept the House bill.

There, there, David

David Broder is positively distraught, as you can see on today’s op-ed page:

    The true insanity of the altered presidential primary schedule does not become apparent until you actually lay out the proposed dates on a 2008 calendar.
    The mad rush of states to advance their nominating contests in hopes of gaining more influence has now produced something that is so contrary to the national interest that it cries out for action…
    This way lies madness.
    Instead of there being a steady progression of contests, challenging and whittling the field of contenders in the wide-open races to select a successor to George W. Bush, it is going to be a herky-jerky, feast-and-famine exercise that looks more like Russian roulette than anything that tests who can best fill the most powerful secular office on Earth.

Sure, "This way lies madness" is a cliche, but Mr. Broder is a most moderate fellow, and he has to be really, really upset to say something like that.

You may not understand his passion unless you know this about him: David Broder actually believes that the primary system we’ve had up to now works. Or at least, if not up to now exactly, in some recent halcyon past that he recalls fondly and warmly amid the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire as he trudges through them every four years.

I admire David Broder. I respect him as much as anyone we ever run on our op-ed pages. But he has this quirk. He thinks the Republican and Democratic parties are good for America. To me, they are enormously destructive forces, tearing the nation apart between false, contrived extremes that in no way reflect, in any rational or consistent way, the actual needs of the country.

For my whole adult life, the parties have been enthusiastically engaged in a ferocious competition to see who can most insult our intelligence every four years. The choices they force upon us are enough to make anyone who cares about the United States of America weep.

Yes, the primary schedule is messed up. But the whole process was messed up already.

Jake got blogs!

Y‘all won’t want to miss this: Apparently, Glenn McConnell and Jake Knotts will be enlightening us as to the influence that blogs have on the political process.

You know, of course, that the Confederacy developed the first blog. It sank in Charleston harbor after sinking a Yankee newspaper. Blogs would not be seen again until after Al Gore invented the Internet.

Anyway, here’s the release:

SCPA MEDIA ADVISORY
THIS WEEK IN THE SENATE
WITH PRESIDENT PRO TEM MCCONNELL

This week’s SCETV Senate teleconference hosted by President Pro Tem McConnell on Thursday, May 3rd, at 9:30 a.m., will host Senator Jake Knotts, R – Lexington and Senator Kevin Bryant, R-Anderson as they discuss how blogs impact the legislative process.

We encourage you to personally attend this live program in the President Pro Tem’s Office on the 2nd Floor of the State House off the main lobby near the front door. To facilitate those who cannot attend, you can:

Ask questions ahead of time and have them read on the show:

Email them to Bill Rogers at brogers@scpress.org.

Deadline for submitting your questions is: Wednesday at 5:00 p.m.

(In the event of technical glitches with your calling in, it would be a good idea to still email your questions in to Bill Rogers to ensure that they are asked.)

  • No questions are given to the program participants until they are asked live on the programs.
  • Your questions can deal with any state or local matter you wish to ask of any of the program participants.  They do not have to be limited to the topic being discussed on the program.
  • This program has maintained a non-partisan approach and features guests representing opposing sides of the issues discussed.

To watch or listen to this week’s program live, just log on the internet:

Go to :  www.myetv.org/ 
Click on “pressroom” (left column) and then click on the statehouse dome.  This will take you to both This Week in the House and This Week in the Senate live. 
You can also call a toll-free number to listen in: (800) 846-8813. This is a listen only mode, so a question cannot be posed on this line.
The live feed only works during the telecast.

FYI, Sen. Bryant actually does have a blog, and is pretty conscientious about keeping it updated.

 

Blue Bayrou

Segolene

Over here, candidates marry babes. Over there, candidates sometimes are babes.Bayrou

As you probably know by now, our own Segolene Royal, honorary UnParty member, is in a tough runoff for president of France.

A bit of good news came in mid-week. Francois Bayrou, the centristUnion for French Democracy candidate who was knocked out in the first round of voting, played the sore loser and refused to endorse either of the remaining hopefuls.

Normally, of course, my sympathies would be with the centrist, all things being equal.
Sarkozy_2
But all things are not equal here. Look at Bayrou (right). Look at Nicolas Sarkozy (left). How could any true Gaul, any true homme, choose either of them over her? Besides, the centrist is out of it, and that leaves Segolene and a representative of De Gaulle’s party, and I could never vote for those jokers.

Sure, they say she’s a Socialist, but people are always saying terrible things about beautiful women.

We’ll talk about the debate TOMORROW

If we talk about it today, I’ll go crazy.

Seriously, Scarlett, I can’t bring myself to give a damn right now. But in the morning I will. That’s when I’ll rejoin sidekick Andy Gobeil on his "Big Picture on the Radio" show on S.C. ETV radio, to talk about the debate.

Joining us will be a third amigo, my colleague Mike Fitts. I’ve asked him to come along to help with the awkward pauses. Mike follows this stuff a little more closely than I, since he’s our national guy. At least, I know he’s talked to Bill Richardson; I don’t even know what he looks like. I know Joe Biden, though. I think everybody in South Carolina has met Joe Biden, he’s been down here running so long.

Here’s hoping they get winnowed out a little before we have to start having endorsement meetings with them.

Anyway, Andy and the gang have a big lineup for their coverage tonight. Maybe you can use this in lieu of a program:

For Immediate Release
April 25, 2007
ETV’s "The Big Picture" Set to Interview Presidential Candidates
After Thursday’s Debate, April 26 at 8:30 p.m.

Columbia, SC…
On Thursday, April 26, ETV’s coverage of the first-in-the-nation presidential debate will include two supplemental programs – The Big Picture and Project Discovery.
    At 8:30 p.m., immediately following the debate, a special edition of The Big Picture will begin to broadcast from the South Carolina State University campus.  ETV news and public affair’s Managing Editor and Host Andrew Gobeil will interview all available candidates for their perspectives on how the debate went, the role South Carolina will play in their presidential bid, etc.
    Confirmed candidates thus far include:

  • Joe Biden
  • Bill Richardson
  • Chris Dodd
  • Dennis Kucinich
  • Mike Gravel

    Former Senator John Edwards has also indicated that he might participate. 
    Additionally, Gobeil will speak with state and national figures, including:

  • U.S. House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn
  • Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg
  • Sen. John Matthews, D-Orangeburg
  • Joe Erwin, former party chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party
  • Dr. Scott Huffmon, Associate Professor of Political Science at Winthrop University
  • Dr. William Hine, Professor of History, South Carolina State University

    "The Big Picture" will be simulcast on ETV Radio and also streamed over the Internet by going to www.myetv.org. 
    Earlier in the day, Project Discovery will air live at 1 p.m. and will be seen on ETV and also broadcast directly into classrooms across the state.  This special episode of the occasional series gives students around the state a behind-the-scenes look at the Democratic debate, what it takes to put on such an event, and its impact on the Palmetto State, as well as the nation.  The program will also encourage students, who may be too young to vote, to become involved and stay interested in politics.  Students will be able to call in to 800-763-ETV1 with their questions.

                             ###

In fact, when I saw that release I thought maybe they didn’t need me, and called to see if Andy would let me off the hook.

He then explained that the release was about tonight, as it clearly said. Tomorrow, it’s just him and me. And now Mike. Tune in.

Why are the anti-war folks trying to help Bob Inglis?

… Especially now that he’s not voting with them any more?

Mr. Inglis got himself into major trouble with his poorly explained vote on the meaningless resolution against our Iraq involvement. Apparently, he’s been trying to back away from that since. Now he’s ticked off the other anti-war folks:

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq
http://www.NoIraqEscalation.org
For Immediate Release                 Contact:  Moira Mack
April 26, 2007

Rep. Inglis Defied the Will of South Carolinians on Iraq AGAIN

Despite Glaring Failures of Bush Iraq War Policy, Rep. Inglis Voted in Lockstep with the President on Iraq for the 8th Time

Washington, DC -– Wednesday the U.S. House of Representatives voted to bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq in an historic vote on the Iraq Accountability Act. The conference committee’s version of the Iraq Accountability Act would send President Bush legislation that sets timetables for the safe, responsible redeployment of American troopsInglis out of Iraq.  Just like the last time the House considered such legislation, Rep. Inglis failed to support the exit strategy that South Carolinians are demanding and instead voted to continue President Bush’s failed policy of unending war. In fact, all of the Republican Members of Congress from South Carolina defied the will of South Carolinians.

“In a slap in the face to South Carolinians who have been demanding a responsible end to the war in Iraq, Rep. Inglis once again failed to stand up to President Bush’s failed Iraq policy. South Carolinians are fed up with the President’s open-ended war and  his stubborn refusal to face the reality of the situation in Iraq and they will not sit idly by while their Member of Congress allows the Bush Administration’s ineptitude to continue,” said AAEI spokeswoman Moira Mack.

“Rep. Inglis is officially lap dog to the Bush Administration. After four years, the deaths of over 3,300 American soldiers, tens of thousands wounded and almost $400 billion spent, it’s long past time to bring a responsible end to the war. South Carolinians will remain active and continue to rally, protest, hold press conferences, and call their Members of Congress until our troops are safely home from Iraq.”

This is the 8th time Rep. Inglis has voted in lockstep with President Bush on Iraq (vote history attached).

   

Moira Mack
    Hildebrand Tewes Consulting, Inc.

                                    -30-

Notice all the angry cliches that are so typical of these kinds of releases, on so many issues, but particularly this one — "lockstep," "lap dog." Of course, they threw in a little "alternative reality" twist, saying he was defying the constituents’ will. But I don’t think they meant to be ironic. I think they really think "the people," and all of "the people," want us to give up in Iraq.

Seriously, when I first saw the headline, I honestly thought it was saying that he had voted against our involvement in Iraq again. Then I read on.

All that said, I’ve got to remember to give Mr. Inglis a call. I’ve been perplexed both my his original vote, and by his apparent reversal. In the past, he’s always been willing to go his own way, and damn the political consequences. Of course, that’s one reason why he sat out a couple of years before being re-elected.

Also, I would hate to seem him supporting the surge because he’s been intimidated into it as a matter of party loyalty. I hate party loyalty. I’d rather see him support it for the reasons I do — because we have to try to succeed in Iraq, not give up. Yet not so long ago, he was voting for giving up — or so it seemed.

It’s confusing.

Oh, wait, here’s his explanation. See what you think of it.

 

A place to talk about tonight’s debate

Democratic

On a recent post, Randy Ewart observes:

I think someone on a previous thread wrote something about a presidential debate being held in SC somewhere…

Yeah, I heard about that, too. And fortunately, I think our newsroom has pretty well covered the bases of what can be said about it in advance.

For my part, I have little to say about it beforehand, and I’m sort of concerned I won’t have much to say about it after the fact. These cattle-call debates, which allow each candidate to spit out a soundbite or two, are pretty much useless. In that amount of time, with that many people, there is no realistic hope of reaching an informed decision based on anything meaningful. These formats are of little use until you get down to two or three candidates, and frequently that doesn’t work, either.

Basically, it’s a show, and I don’t have high expectations.

But what do y’all think?