Category Archives: Vincent Sheheen

Sheheen makes entirely unobjectionable speech at summit

Vincent Sheheen, speaking to the Clean Energy Summit this morning.

Does that headline sound a bit odd? Well… I was trying to capture what I tend to think, or perhaps feel, whenever I hear Vincent Sheheen speak publicly.

He says a bunch of perfectly fine things that I personally agree with, but he doesn’t make you go away all charged up and ready to do something — such as vote for him. Which could be key.

The speech was just fine. He was the keynote speaker at the Clean Energy Summit over at the convention center, and I thought all the points he made were good ones. I have every reason to believe the audience thought so, too.

The essence of what he said is captured in this excerpt from the op-ed he wrote to publicize the event ahead of time:

Now is the time for South Carolina to step forward as a leader in clean energy, which will benefit our state in many ways and move us toward a more prosperous future.

First, clean energy will help our state’s bottom line and create reliable and affordable energy sources for our citizens. When we create more energy from our own resources, we can stop sending South Carolina dollars out of state and keep them here to build our economy from within.

Currently South Carolina is a net energy importer. About $8 billion a year, a huge outflow, goes out of state to buy energy either as liquid fuel or fuel to power our electric-generating plants. By strengthening our own clean-energy sector, we can keep more of that money here to build our own economy.

In the next decade alone, we could create more than 30,000 jobs directly by attracting clean-energy companies or supporting homegrown ones. Add to that the tens of thousands of additional jobs that will be created in industries that support clean energy, and there’s a tremendous ripple effect.

Plus, with our great capacity to grow, South Carolina could expand further in the recycling, wind and solar industries to employ more than 60,000 within a decade, and our total clean-energy work force could jump as many as 74,000. That means more jobs, better jobs and good pay for the long-term for middle-class families. All we need is the right leadership to look ahead and build a more prosperous future.

Our state is blessed with natural assets that give us great potential to lead the nation. For solar projects, we have an abundance of sunny days. For wind, we have an expansive coastline. For biomass, we have 500,000 acres of available land that could provide great opportunities to sow and harvest energy crops. And of course, we have great people…

And so forth.

He tried creating a little suspense by saying he was going to, here and now, make an announcement about an industry that would bring lots of jobs to South Carolina… but I’m sure before he actually said “the Clean Energy Industry,” everyone figured out that was what he was going to say, so I don’t think the effect worked too well. Maybe if he’d done it a little more quickly… I don’t know.

Vincent always comes across as a really nice guy, so that’s good. He smiles a lot. He likes to salt his speeches with the little self-deprecating politician jokes that tend to go over well with Rotaries and similar audiences. For instance, he suggests that if wind turbines were placed outside the Senate and the governor’s office, “we can power the whole state.” People respond politely. And that’s about it.

I write this way because, as you no doubt have gathered in the past, I think Vincent Sheheen would make a good governor. He’s someone I would trust to make sound policy decisions on a wide array of issues. He would run an administration that would be open and honest, and he would strive for needed reforms to make government be more responsive and do its job better. He’d be a good-government governor, instead of an anti-government governor, which is what we’ve been accustomed to for more than a decade.

But can he get elected? I tend, when I hear him speak, to worry about his intensity, or seeming lack thereof. I don’t doubt that he will work hard as a campaigner, but I worry about his ability to connect sometimes, to motivate people to get on his bandwagon.

Maybe I worry too much. He came so close to winning last time, and now Nikki Haley has a record to run against, so maybe Vincent can win just by being Vincent. I don’t know.

I said something about all this to a friend who was there for the speech. I said Vincent comes across as a good, smart guy whose attitude is, “Sure, I’ll step forward and be governor, if no one better does.” My friend said, “Well, isn’t that what we want?” Meaning a citizen-leader who’s not power-starved or driven by some destructive ideology?

Well, yes. As long as such a person manages to get elected. We’ve seen enough of where good speakers get us. Nikki Haley is a good speaker, partly because she taps into the well of chip-on-the-shoulder demagoguery that has been popular in recent years. Actually, it’s been popular a lot longer than that in SC. Ben Tillman rose to power starting with a rip-roaring populist speech in my hometown of Bennettsville in 1885.

We definitely don’t need more of that.

But can an unassuming good guy get elected? We’ll see…

Sheheen was wrong to blame Republicans, embarrass Hayes

A Tweet this morning from Wes Hayes, the Republican senator from York County, brought my attention to this statement he had put out on Facebook:

It has come to my attention that a press release circulated by South Carolina Democrats today makes potentially misleading claims on my position and motivations for co-authoring an Op-Ed with Senate colleague Vince Sheheen calling for bipartisan efforts in the Senate to pass ethics reform.

All my years in the State Senate, I have sought to work both sides of the aisle to deliver reforms to make our state stronger; today’s Op-Ed is simply a continuation of my willingness to put partisanship aside to benefit our citizens.

The fact is that Governor Nikki Haley has been a champion for passing meaningful ethics reform and has worked closely with the legislature to ensure real reform is accomplished to rebuild the public’s trust in their elected officials. Even in the wake of partisan gamesmanship, she has led the collective efforts to get this passed. Governor Haley is to be applauded for her efforts, not attacked. It’s time to move forward in the Senate and pass this important legislation.

Please read the OpEd I co-authored with Senator Sheheen here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/05/30/2792454/hayes-sheheen-ethics-reform-all.html

Sen. Hayes has my sympathy for apparently getting in trouble for doing the right thing. I’m not sure what “press release circulated by South Carolina Democrats” made “potentially misleading claims” about his position. I had seen a release from Kristin Sosanie over at SCDP, which forwarded a message sent out by Phil Bailey of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

All Ms. Sosanie had said was:

ICYMI – Sen. Sheheen teamed up with GOP Senator and “Dean of Ethics” Wes Hayes in an op-ed in The State this morning calling on elected officials to put politics aside and finally pass ethics reform for South Carolina.

Which I thought was rather nice. I almost commented on it yesterday, it’s so unusual for one of the parties to refer to a member of the opposite party in such laudatory terms as “Dean of Ethics.”

That comment from Ms. Sosanie led into the forwarded email from Phil Bailey, which said:

Sheheen & Hayes urge electeds to put politics aside, stop delaying ethics reform in bipartisan op-ed

Columbia, SC- Today, Sen Vincent Sheheen penned an op-ed with Republican Sen Wes Hayes, calling for the Senate to put politics aside and immediately pass ethics reform in order for SC government to regain public trust. Sen Sheheen also released this statement:

“For the past seven years, I have fought for government restructuring and ethics reform. For the last three weeks, I have worked across the aisle to improve the House’s watered-down ethics bill so that it will actually reform ethics laws. For the past two days, I have voted and spoken up for the need to pass ethics reform. It’s time for the Governor, her Republican leadership in the legislature and members on both sides of the aisle to come together and finally pass real reform. The partisan bickering has to stop. The naked self-interest of the governor and other officials has to stop. We need real ethics reform, now.

“For months now, members of both parties have talked about the need for ethics reform. But action hasn’t followed. I am disappointed that for the past several days the Senate has delayed taking up ethics reform. Enough is enough. The Senate needs to move on ethics reform today, and the legislature should not adjourn until all its work is completed and that means we have reformed our ethics laws.”

Read Sen Sheheen’s bipartisan op-ed with Sen Hayes in today’s State newspaper:
http://www.thestate.com/2013/05/30/2792454/hayes-sheheen-ethics-reform-all.html

That was followed by the text of the op-ed.

Maybe it was another release, but if it was that one, well… it doesn’t characterize Sen. Hayes position or motivation in any way, other than to say that he and Sheheen “urge electeds to put politics aside, stop delaying ethics reform.” And the op-ed did indeed conclude:

Together, we can effect real change, but those who are holding this effort up must start by putting politics aside and putting the interest of the people of South Carolina first.

So what was misleading? Nothing — technically. But only technically.

If this was indeed the release in question, all I can conclude was that Hayes was blamed by some fellow Republicans for the language attributed in the release to Sheheen, specifically:

It’s time for the Governor, her Republican leadership in the legislature and members on both sides of the aisle to come together and finally pass real reform. The partisan bickering has to stop. The naked self-interest of the governor and other officials has to stop. We need real ethics reform, now….

I have two things to say about that:

First, someone in the GOP caucus needs to work on his reading comprehension skills. But that’s a minor point.
More importantly, Vincent Sheheen did the wrong thing in putting out that statement. And Phil, and whoever else was in a position to advise him not to should have spoken up. But the responsibility lies with Sheheen.

This was wrong for Sheheen to do on several levels. There he was, fixed firmly on the high road with his joint op-ed with Hayes, and he has to come out with a statement the next day blaming the governor and the Republicans?

Did Sen. Sheheen not notice that only seven Republicans voted against putting the ethics bill on special order Wednesday, while 13 Democrats did? And at least the Republicans had an excuse — namely, that some of them are certifiable, and trying to revive nullification.

The Democrats who voted against didn’t have a coherent excuse — not even a loony one.

Finally, it was completely inappropriate to embarrass Sen. Hayes by associating him, however indirectly, with such a comment. No, no one said that Hayes had said these things — you have an airtight defense there. But it was wrong to go on the defensive against the governor and her party within the context of talking about the op-ed — especially since the Democrats have so much more to answer for on this issue.

It was even against Sheheen’s own self-interest to do this. This was a leadership opportunity for him, a chance to impress independents and even some Republicans with statesmanship. What he should have done was chew out his fellow Democratic senators who had voted the wrong way.

Wes Hayes was doing the right thing. I’m sorry if it got him in hot water. This is the kind of mess that keeps people from stepping out from behind their parties and leading.

I hope Vincent Sheheen is sorry about it, too.

Ethics, schmethics — what on Earth is really going on?

First, the good news is that maybe, just maybe, ethics reform did NOT die in the SC Senate yesterday.

And, on the whole, that’s a good thing. Because while the bill is far from perfect, it’s better than no ethics reform at all.

Vincent Sheheen and Wes Hayes made the bipartisan case for ethics reform in an op-ed today. It was more in the vein of why we need reform, period, than why we need this particular bill. For more of a breakdown on the good and bad qualities of both the House and Senate bills, see this piece by Cindi Scoppe from Sunday before last. After discussing inadequacies in the Senate bill, it concluded:

The good news is that there’s still a chance to add the missing provisions to the bill and shore up the shortcomings, and at least give us a fighting chance of a strong bill coming out of the final conference committee. But there’s a lot of work to be done. And the clock is ticking.

Oh, if only senators were as conscientious as Cindi, and I, and most sensible people, would like them to be.

Rather than worrying about whether the ethics bill had everything in it that it should have, half of the Senate (which is all it took) engaged yesterday in a bipartisan effort to kill such legislation altogether.

I had a terrible time figuring out why they were doing this, from the story in the paper this morning. This was not the reporter’s fault. The problem was that the senators had no reasons that made sense.

The Republicans of the Tea Party wing who voted against putting the bill on special order had a stated reason. But it was just “reason” as motive, not “reason” as logic. It was, in fact, completely batty. They said they didn’t want to spend the time on ethics reform because they wanted to spend it on their 1830s-style bill to nullify Obamacare. Really.

A big reason the bill WAS put on special order today, reversing yesterday’s vote, was because the more sensible Republicans agreed to go along with the demand that the nullification bill be considered, too. Again, really.

But at least there was a certain clarity to the Republicans’ lunacy. Here are the stated Democratic “reasons”:

State Sen. Gerald Malloy, D-Darlington, said there is no urgency in passing the bill, adding its passage by the GOP-controlled House, only four weeks ago, left the Senate with too little time to consider ethics reform.

State Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, said Democrats still have concerns about the proposal that need to be worked out, including the composition of the committee that would oversee ethics complaints against lawmakers. Hutto held up getting to the ethics bill Wednesday by debating a bill that would direct money left over from the state’s budget year that ends June 30 to different projects.

Hutto criticized Haley and other lawmakers for saying that protecting taxpayers against the theft of their personal information — such as the hacking incident that happened last year at the state Department of Revenue — was a top priority when little, he said, has been done to address the problem…

Also, they don’t like the way Nikki Haley spells her name. And they don’t like to put bills on special order on days of the week that start with “W.” OK, I made those last two up, but they make about as much sense, in terms of relevance.

This caused me to dream up reasons. I thought that maybe this was some of the Democrats’ way of hurting Nikki Haley and helping Vincent Sheheen, whether he wants such help or not. (Sheheen was one of the four Democrats voting for special order yesterday.) The idea being to block Nikki Haley’s bid to get credit for ethics reform (in spite of, or perhaps because of, being a poster child for why we need ethics reform), while Vincent’s out there voting for it and writing op-eds in favor of it.

But that theory is a little over-elaborate. It requires voters to blame Nikki for something Democrats did. And even if that worked, they’d have to kill the bill next year, too.

I’m afraid the more likely explanation is simply that these guys are opposed to ethics reform. That’s the Occam’s razor version, and probably the right one.

Anyway, today’s action offers reform a chance this year. We’ll see.

Sheheen releases tax returns, urges Haley to do likewise

Again, Vincent Sheheen is challenging Ms. Transparency to live up to the reputation that she seems to want to have:

Sheheen releases tax returns, calls for transparency from all SC leaders

Senator calls for leaders to “walk the walk” on transparency and ethics reform

Camden, SC – Today, Sen. Vincent Sheheen released his 2011 and 2012 tax returns. These returns join the ten years of tax returns that Sen. Sheheen released during the 2010 gubernatorial campaign, and statements of income disclosure from his time in the Senate that have all been disclosed previously. Sen. Sheheen has led bipartisan efforts to include full income disclosure in ethics reform in the state legislature as part of his career-long fight to restructure and reform the inefficient and corrupt government in South Carolina.

“Without ethical leaders, we won’t have ethical government. I have chosen to release 12 years of tax returns because it’s not enough to say one thing and do another on ethics and leadership. We have to walk the walk,” said Sen. Sheheen. “I call on other leaders in our state to release their returns as well. Governor Haley especially should release her most recent tax returns, as well as the ten years prior that she refused to disclose during the last campaign. South Carolinians deserve full disclosure and transparency, not just more political rhetoric absent results.”

Sheheen for South Carolina will make copies of Sen. Sheheen’s 2011 and 2012 tax returns available to the media for review at 915 Lady Street in Columbia from Tuesday, May 28th at 1:00pm through Friday, May 31st at 6:00pm. Please contact press@sheheenforsouthcarolina.com to set up a time.

###

I just had one question for the Sheheen campaign, though — why not just put it all online, or otherwise make the returns available electronically? As a PDF, or whatever. Seems like that would make the point more… pointedly.

Anyway, The State has gone ahead and looked at them, and reported:

COLUMBIA — S.C. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Vincent Sheheen made $535,000 in 2011 and 2012, according to federal and state income tax filings released Tuesday.

Sheheen, a state senator from Kershaw County, earned almost all of his income from his Camden law practice.

He paid $131,360 in taxes and donated $21,580 to charity over the past two tax years.

The 42-year-old father of three made $310,273 in 2011 with an taxable income of $282,258. He earned $224,920 last year with a taxable income of $198,218…

The State‘s Andy Shain also reports:

Gov. Nikki Haley will release her returns for 2012 next week, her office said…

Sheheen decries decriminalization of ethics violations

Got this release a few minutes ago from Vincent Sheheen:

Sheheen on Ethics Reform: GOP efforts & Governor’s back-seat approach the “good-old-boys-and-girls network at its worst”

Columbia – Today, state Representatives Beth Bernstein and James Smith stood up to call for real ethics reform and urged Governor Haley for leadership instead of hiding behind yet another bureaucratic commission while her followers do the dirty work of decriminalizing some of the most common ethics violations – many of which she was accused of herself. State Senator Vincent Sheheen released this statement:

“I thank Representatives Bernstein and Smith for joining me in the revolt against the status quo and the efforts to move South Carolina forward by returning common sense and ethics to our leadership. The Republican effort at ‘ethics reform’ is the good-old-boys–and-girls network in politics at its worst. We need real leadership to clean up the government, not just a study or report while members of the Governor’s own party decrease the punishment on ethics violations that she has been charged with.

“For too long, South Carolina has struggled to meet its potential under the guidance of leaders who get detoured by putting their self-interest before the interests of the people. We need to change the way we do business and leave the politics of ideology and personal ambition behind to get the state back on track.”

###

I just wish he wouldn’t use that overworked “good ol’ boys” construction. That got tired back when Carroll Campbell was using it. I don’t think anybody really knows what it means, aside from having a rough impression that it’s bad.

Here’s a column I wrote musing about the phrase years ago…

And here’s a column Cindi Scoppe wrote on this “ethics” legislation. An excerpt:

After failing for more than half the session even to introduce their proposal on legislators’ top to-do item, House leaders rolled out a place-holder bill on April 11 that contained nothing but the bill title. They scheduled a subcommittee meeting for the next legislative day, last Tuesday, where House Republican Leader Bruce Bannister, who chairs the Constitutional Law Subcommittee, handed members of his panel a summary and a 100-page amendment that would become the bill.

Panel members discussed the items on the summary — decriminalization was not on the list — made some changes and approved the bill before they had a chance to read it. (It took me nearly three hours to do what I consider a cursory reading.) The process repeated the next day in the full Judiciary Committee, whose members also made changes without having time to read the bill. The text of the bill wasn’t posted online until Thursday evening, seven hours after the committee formally reported it to the House.

Although it’s common for the amended version of a bill not to be available until the next step in the process, I can’t recall a bill ever making it to full committee, much less the full House, before some version was available.

The process was so confusing that Rep. James Smith, a Democrat who serves on the subcommittee, told me Thursday morning that the bill increased penalties for the worst ethics violations. The next day, he called to say he was outraged to discover he was wrong — and to promise to lead a fight to restore them. GOP Rep. Rick Quinn, who also serves on the subcommittee, emailed me an amendment he planned to offer that would do what both men had thought the bill did — increase the current criminal penalties…

Yeah, I had spoken with James, last Tuesday night I think it was, when he was fresh from the meeting alluded to above, and he thought it was a good bill. It’s a good thing that he recognized his mistake…

I particularly liked this Sheheen quote about Haley, Sanford

I thought this was good in The State‘s story about Vincent Sheheen running against Nikki Haley again. It quotes him as saying:

“The current administration and previous distraction have presented the same ideas and done the same things. It’s not just (about) Republican control, it’s this ideology of self-promotion and extremism that both Sanford and Haley have brought to the table that has occupied South Carolina’s government for 12 years.”

How very true. What he’s doing there is tapping into what so many Republicans (that is to say, the ones who’ve dealt with them) don’t much like about Nikki or Mark Sanford, either. They didn’t like that everything Mark Sanford did (from “look at me” stunts like bringing the pigs into the State House to his appearing on national FoxNews 46 times while fighting against stimulus funding) was about Mark Sanford, not about South Carolina or its Republican Party. If anything, Nikki Haley has taken that me-me-me approach to new depths.

So that was a highly relevant thing to take note of. I also like the reference to the Sanford administration as the “previous distraction.” It has the same tone of genteel disdain that I hear when South Carolinians speak of the 1860-65 conflict as “the recent unpleasantness.”

I hope to see more such perspicacity from young Mr. Sheheen this time around…

Sheheen makes it official: He’s running for governor again

I’ve been in meetings all day and haven’t been able even to stop and think about this, but I thought I’d put up a post so y’all can start commenting on it if you choose. Here’s a news story, and below is the release in its entirety:

Sheheen Takes Steps to Form Gubernatorial Campaign

State Senator & 2010 gubernatorial nominee says South Carolinians deserve better than status quo of failed and dysfunctional government

Camden – Today, state Sen. Vincent Sheheen announced that he is taking the steps necessary to establish a campaign for governor and asked his fellow South Carolinians for their support.

Sen. Sheheen, an attorney and businessman, pledged to be a governor focused on putting the people of South Carolina ahead of personal and partisan agendas. He laid out his vision for moving South Carolina forward by promoting existing businesses within the state, focusing on public education, and restoring honesty in leadership to deliver results. He stressed the need for a change given the state’s high unemployment rate, challenged public-education system, sky-high tuition and the continued failures of the current leadership that have allowed corruption and incompetence in the administration and state government.

The full text of Sen. Sheheen’s email is below:

South Carolina is the greatest state in the union, with unlimited potential. But let’s face it, the status quo is not working.

I want what you want – a South Carolina that our families, and the families of our children and grandchildren, can be successful in. For South Carolina to succeed, we have to change. And we need change now!

That’s why today I’m taking steps to launch a campaign for governor.

Our state deserves better than the failed and dysfunctional government it has received from our current politicians. Now, we need leaders.

South Carolina has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, and has for the last 10 years. Under Governor Haley, more South Carolinians are having trouble finding work than people in other states, and our small businesses have been ignored.

South Carolina families pay the highest college tuition rates in the southeast and our families have a harder time achieving the American Dream than in almost any other state. Yet our current governor almost never talks about public education.

This administration’s dysfunction allowed hackers to steal the most personal and private information that more than three million of us have and the Governor has refused to apologize or take responsibility for it.

There’s a better way.

In the coming months, we’ll build our organization and officially launch the campaign this summer. Three years ago, we came so very close to changing South Carolina for the better. Now we can finish the job together. I hope you will join us.

Together we can create stronger schools for all of our children, help small businesses grow and create jobs, and restore honesty to our state’s government. We need a governor whose top priority is the people of South Carolina and not the politics of ideology and ambition. I pledge to you that I will be the kind of governor we so desperately need.

We will get there together. You can help us start today by contributing $500, $250, $100, $50, or whatever you can afford.

Today we start our journey to change South Carolina’s tomorrow.

I couldn’t be more excited, and I hope you are too!

Let’s believe again,

Vincent

Vincent Sheheen was the democratic nominee for governor in 2010 and came within 4 points of winning South Carolina in a Tea Party wave election. He was born and raised in rural Camden, South Carolina, where he still lives with his wife Amy and their sons Austin, Joseph and Anthony.

###

I’ll only add this for now: I appreciate Vincent stepping up to offer the voters of South Carolina a choice. Here’s hope that our people actually make a wise decision this time — something they haven’t done in quite a few years.

Vincent Sheheen kicks off 2014 campaign, apparently…

This came in about an hour ago:

Sheheen Kicks Off “Back on Track” Tour

State Senator will discuss ideas for moving South Carolina forward and his new book “The Right Way” in three-week statewide tour

Rock Hill, SC. – Today, state Sen. Vincent Sheheen kicks off the Palmetto State “Back on Track” tour at Sun City in Rock Hill to rollout his new book “The Right Way” and discuss his ideas for how to move South Carolina forward with local residents and leaders around the state.

“This short book is not meant to propose solutions to all of our state’s problems. It’s a revolt against the status quo. This book proposes ideas for us to consider and debate to try to get our state back on the right footing and shed the inanities of the past few years,” said Sen. Vincent Sheheen. “More than anything, this book of ideas is an attempt to promote more rational political discussion and policy making. Ultimately, we will still need committed citizens and leadership on many fronts to make it so. I look forward to meeting these leaders in the coming weeks and discussing how we will all move forward together.”

The Back on Track Tour will run from March 11^th through March 30^th holding lectures at universities, listening sessions with local families and leaders, and press conferences and discussions with media about the vision laid out in his book for creating jobs, improving education, restructuring the government, and creating a more prosperous future for the people and businesses of the Palmetto state. The tour kicks off today at noon in Rock Hill, before making stops in Conway, Myrtle Beach, Florence, Columbia, Aiken, Charleston, Fairfield, Beaufort, Greenville, and Spartanburg throughout the next three weeks.

Sen. Sheheen’s book is free and available online here, or as a hard copy at each of the event stops on the Back on Track tour.

Below is a selection of key quotes from Sen. Sheheen’s book, “The Right Way: Getting the Palmetto State Back on Track.”

We must do better for South Carolina… the right way

“This book is not about me. It’s about our South Carolina—a South Carolina we know can exist if we join together in a common vision with leaders who actually care about our state. We are better than what our government has looked like in recent history. We have been better before. We deserve better now. It’s up to us to engage and change. We must do it again…the right way.” — p. 110

“Somehow, however, we have let the naysayers gain the upper hand over the last couple of decades in South Carolina. You know who I am talking about—the people who tell us what we can’t do instead of what we can do. These are folks who believe nothing will ever get better and that things just are what they are. I am not one of these people. I do not believe that the South Carolina I know is made up of people like that either. From Camden to Charleston, Aiken to Horry and Due West to Denmark, the people I know and meet in South Carolina believe we can do better than what we have experienced in South Carolina’s recent government. In fact, we must.” — p. 108

“But we also need more than just ideas. We need ACTION—action that turns the status quo of the negativists on their heads. It is almost too late. But together, we still have time. If we don’t quickly get South Carolina moving again, our children and grandchildren will pay the price for decades to come.” — p. 109

Total change needed

“We have suffered embarrassment after embarrassment caused by our leaders’ unethical behavior and boneheaded statements and we have become the butt of late night television jokes all too frequently. This downward spiral in our government should surprise no one. Why? Because we have elected leaders who proclaim a belief that government is always part of the problem. Once elected, they prove their theory correct by making our state’s government a dysfunctional embarrassment that is incapable of efficiently meeting the demands of core government functions.” — pp. 1-2

“Future success for South Carolina’s workers—as well as the entire state—requires more education, not less. Unfortunately, South Carolina’s recent leaders don’t have a good record in making smart investments in education to ensure that our children will have the training they need to get the better-paying jobs of the future. I believe it’s time we turn that abysmal record on its head. Simply put: How can the students of today expect to hold the jobs of tomorrow if they don’t have enough knowledge? — p. 8

“Accountability in South Carolina’s government has been missing for more than a decade. In the end, a government can be successful and accountable regardless of deficiencies in its structure if it has strong, responsible and effective leaders. However in South Carolina, a combination of ineffective leaders and confusing structure has led to our government being ranked one of the most dysfunctional and unaccountable in the nation.” — p. 27

“I am not opposed to healing our government incrementally. I am, however, skeptical that our current leaders will finish the job with that approach. I believe that when a government has reached such a level of dysfunction and disintegration as South Carolina’s, it is time to return the power to the people.” — p. 48

“Through weak leadership in recent times and a governmental system confusing to virtually everyone, South Carolina’s government has arrived at a low point. We have a choice: To continue with the same poor leadership and same poor system, or break with the past and make dramatic change. We can’t afford to wait on current crop of political leaders to make the changes our state needs and deserves. We must take things into our own hands and force change. Either through incremental or dramatic change, we must alter the trajectory of South Carolina’s future. My children and yours deserve our best efforts.” — p. 50

Forward, to a path to prosperity

“One of the greatest obstacles to robust economic growth in South Carolina is our state’s broken and dysfunctional tax system. Furthermore, a special-interest-controlled tax code means that general taxpayers will end up with fewer core services that they say they want. Sure, in good times of budget surpluses, politicians will spread the wealth to make all appear rosy. But all they’ll be doing is bandaging a broken system, which will unravel once again when they cut what they recently added during downturns. It’s a seesaw system of government that leaves us all up in the air.” — p. 54

“The goal of tax reform should not be to raise taxes. To achieve true economic success, our state must reform how it taxes goods so that it can reduce the rate for everyone. That’s something we should all be for.” — p. 67

“Like most South Carolinians, I believe in hard work. I believe we should expect everyone who is physically able to have a job. I don’t believe in handouts. But I also expect that our state government will do all it can to ensure that opportunities exist for our citizens to find a job. It’s in all of our interests for the state to provide a hand-up in the form of job training, economic development, good education and support for small businesses.” — p. 85

“What is excluded from most local economic development offices’ services is support to startup companies and entrepreneurs. This reflects, in part, a lack of expertise in the area but also recognition that the failure rate of these types of companies is high. A handful of groups around the state provide services to startups and entrepreneurs, but they are the exception rather than the rule. The S.C. Department of Commerce has a department that provides access to resources for small businesses, but there is little affirmative effort by the state to assist small business.” — p. 98

“Our state needs a multipronged approach to saving our rural areas and small towns. Failure to meet this challenge will doom many communities to a low standard of living and even non-existence. North Carolina has met this challenge head-on and invested heavily in the strategies and infrastructure for its rural areas. We should do the same.” — p. 102

“Our leaders are pricing the middle class out of a college education. The alternative has become hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt incurred by our future workforce. This is a dumb policy. We should dedicate a decent portion of future budget growth to stabilizing college tuition. And when the state funds higher education in a reasonable manner, colleges and universities should be required to keep tuition increases low.” — p. 106

###

MedicAID, Larry, not MedicARE. There’s a difference…

Note: After this post was published, the Grooms campaign sent out two corrections. The first did not correct the “Medicare” mistake. The second, at 4:52 p.m., did. The original release moved at 4:18 p.m.

Just got this, about 14 minutes ago, from Larry Grooms’ campaign for the GOP nomination in the 1st Congressional District:

LARRY GROOMS ISSUED A STATEMENT ABOUT DEMOCRAT VINCE SHEHEEN’S FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE DEMAND TO EXPAND MEDICARE

Charleston, SC – Republican State Senator and Candidate for Congress Larry Grooms issued the following statement today about State Senator Vincent Sheheen’s desire to expand Medicare in South Carolina:

State Senator and Candidate for Congress Larry Grooms issued the following statement:

“There is no question the federal governments desire to expand Medicare is a horrible idea for South Carolina and this nation. I stand firm with Governor Nikki Haley on this issue and will continue to fight against this massive federal government overreach.

I was deeply concerned to see Senator Sheheen’s comments today about his desire to expand Medicare – but I wasn’t surprised. What he and President Obama can’t seem to grasp is that we are on a path to bankrupting this state and nation. In fact, if Sen. Sheheen and Barack Obama have their way, in three years South Carolinians will owe almost 2 Billion dollars to the federal government. This is a deplorable and quite frankly, immoral thing to do to the people of this state.

I, for one, will stand firm with Gov. Haley and will continue to push my colleagues in the South Carolina Senate to do the same. If elected to Congress, you better believe I’ll take the fight for fiscal sanity to Washington so that Governors like Nikki Haley will never be faced with such a ridiculously harmful proposition.”

-30-

I added the boldface on the “Medicares.”

Um, Larry — I just checked. Sheheen hasn’t said anything about expanding Medicare. Perhaps you’re thinking of Medicaid. I’m not aware that the governor has taken any particular stand on Medicare lately, either. But she is standing against expanding Medicaid…

To help you out, Larry, here’s a story from Adam Beam about what Sheheen did say today, headlined “Sheheen endorses expanding Medicaid.”

I’ll take piecemeal reform over none at all, Vincent

I see that the bill to have the governor appoint the state superintendent of education — or rather, to have a referendum so voters can make that constitutional change — is coming along in the Senate, but Vincent Sheheen isn’t satisfied:

Sen. Vincent Sheheen, D-Kershaw, wants to abolish two constitutional officers, the Secretary of State and the Comptroller General, while allowing the governor to appoint two others: the Adjutant General and the Commissioner of Agriculture.

“It doesn’t make sense to do piecemeal reform,” Sheheen said Thursday, after the Senate gave the bill second reading by voice vote only, agreeing to take up the proposed amendments at the next reading…

Well, I’m not satisfied with just doing the superintendent reform, either. Every one of those other changes should have been made long, long ago, starting with the adjutant general. Of all the strange cases of separately electing officials in SC, that one is the most bizarre.

But… since I’ve waited so many years already, I would not demand that we hold up the superintendent bill, if we can pass that, to wait on the others. That’s because several years ago, opponents of reform used the fact that all the constitutional officers were under consideration to pull a fast one. Each defender of the status quo voted for some of the changes and not others, with the precise offices being voted against varying from senator to senator. That way all of them could say they voted for reform, but each office came up short of the two-thirds majority needed. So we got no reform.

Yes, we should approved all of this changes, and do it not just today, but 20, 30, 60 years ago. But if we can get one of them done, let’s do it. Let’s do even if we know that there is so much support for the governor appointing the superintendent mainly because Republicans believe they will usually win the governor’s office, but might lose the superintendent’s.

Let’s just take a step in the right direction. Because this fragmentation of government has never served us well.

Fortunately, the DOA bill wasn’t (DOA, that is)

One morning last month, I ran into Nikki Setzler at the Cap City Club, and asked him what was happening over in the Senate that day.

One of the things he mentioned in answering me was that they’d be working on “DOA.” I asked what that was, since to me that meant “Dead on Arrival.” He said it was the Department of Administration bill, which would replace the Budget and Control Board with an actual executive agency answering to the governor.

As acronyms go, that one was appropriate, since the proposal has indeed been DOA in the Senate, year after year.

But now, only five years after Vincent Sheheen introduced the proposal in the Senate, and a full 21 years after we started pushing hard to get rid of the B&CB at The State, senators have sent a bill to the House. This is from a release from the Senate GOP caucus:

On Thursday, the Department of Administration bill was passed. The bill will eliminate the powerful state Budget and Control Board and create a Department of Administration answering directly to the governor. The bill will also create a State Fiscal Accountability Authority made up of the Governor, Comptroller General, Treasurer, Ways and Means Chairman, and Senate Finance Chairman. Deficit Recognition will now be handled by the General Assembly, when in session, and a new Legislative Services Agency will now be responsible for all fiscal and revenue impact statements. In addition, the bill will create a Rural Infrastructure Authority, which will assist rural counties and local governments to improve their infrastructure to help attract economic development. Senate Republican Majority Whip Shane Massey, who led GOP efforts on the Senate version of the bill, is urging the House to take it up and pass it as soon as possible…

I’m not sure I like the sound of all of that, but it sounds to me like a step in the right direction. And such steps are rare in the SC Senate.

Sheheen to attend fellowship for thoughtful emerging leaders

Had lunch with Vincent Sheheen yesterday, and he mentioned this. When I got back, there was a release from Phil Bailey:

Sheheen Named Rodel Fellow by Aspen Institute

Camden, SC – State Senator Vincent Sheheen has been nominated to be part of the Rodel Fellowship in Public Leadership Program at the Aspen Institute. The Camden senator will join 24 other elected officials from around the country who have been recognized as “America’s emerging political leaders with reputations for intellect, thoughtfulness, and a commitment to civil dialogue.” Fellows include mayors, state representatives and senators and state-wide elected officials.

“I’m honored to be joining this distinguished group of public servants. The Rodel Fellowship is a unique group that brings together leaders to exchange ideas and discuss how to make government work better for the people on a bipartisan basis,” said Sheheen.

The Aspen Institute-Rodel Fellowships in Public Leadership program seeks to enhance our democracy by identifying and bringing together the nation’s most promising young political leaders to explore,

through study and conversation, the underlying values and principles of western democracy, the relationship between individuals and their community, and the responsibilities of public leadership; to support and inspire political leaders committed to sustaining the vision of a political system based on thoughtful and civil bipartisan dialogue; and to help America’s brightest young leaders achieve their fullest potential in public service.

Past Rodel Fellows include: Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, and Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives Jase Bolger.

For more information on the Aspen Institute’s Rodel

Fellowship Program: http://www.aspeninstitute.org/leadership-programs/aspen-institute-rodel-fellowships-public-le-/about-rodel-fellowship-program

Just to draw the distinction here: National media have celebrated Nikki Haley as an “emerging leader” in the GOP. Or at least they used to, before her endorsement of Mitt Romney went over like such a dud with SC primary voters. You don’t hear as much about it now.

Anyway, by contrast, this group is recognizing Vincent Sheheen as one of the nation’s emerging leaders “with reputations for intellect, thoughtfulness, and a commitment to civil dialogue.”

See the difference?

Actually, they didn’t believe in factions, period

I have to take issue with this Independence Day message put out by Vincent Sheheen:

Independence day is a time to remember what our forebears fought for and believed in. They believed in an independent country where citizens could join together in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. They did not believe in a government dominated and controlled by one faction.

Unfortunately, that’s what we have here in South Carolina. And all I can say is – a government controlled by one party dominance in the Governor’s office, House, and Senate does not work.

Sheheen

Instead of working on improving public schools, these people are fighting to take away public money and send it to private schools.

Instead of fighting to protect the environment, these people are working to undermine it.

Instead of trying to bring the citizens of South Carolina together, black and white, rich and poor; they are continuing to divide us.

While regular people have been struggling to make ends meet, our state government has been using public taxpayer dollars and time to fly all around the country and world.

Instead of seeing honest leadership, South Carolina has continued to see scandal at the highest levels of government.

Nothing will change unless we change it. Let’s all work together, Democrats and Republicans, for common sense solutions.

I am still a believer in America and South Carolina. Happy July 4!

Actually, Vincent, they didn’t believe in ANY factions. In other words, the “healthy” two-party system you seem to be invoking here was not their aim.

Of course, they turned right around and, practically in the same breath, created two parties that ripped into each other with a viciousness that we would recognize today.

But, in terms of what the Framers thought right for the country (before Madison and Hamilton became the driving forces behind our first bout of hyperpartisanship), they wanted as much as possible to limit the influence of parties:

Madison

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular Governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular Governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American Constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our Governments are too unstable; that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true…

Thus spake “PUBLIUS.”

Sadly, it didn’t work out that way. In fact, it SO didn’t work out that way that it’s a bit hard to believe that James Madison, who would so soon be the chief hatchetman of the Democratic Republicans, wrote those words.

Oh, as for wishing us all a happy Fourth: One of the Founders I regard as most consistently sincere in despising faction, John Adams, thought we’d celebrate on the 2nd, which after all is when the Congress voted for independence. Which makes sense. But I suppose I’m picking nits here.

Sheheen proposes joint gov/gov lite ticket

This just came in from Vincent Sheheen, the most consistent and insistent advocate for government restructuring in the Senate (a body not exactly overrun with such) in recent years:

Sheheen Calls For Joint Governor-Lt. Governor Ticket

Columbia, SC – State Senator Vincent Sheheen (D-Camden) today called for change in the way SC elects its Lieutenant Governor. Under legislation that is pending in the state Senate, Governors and Lieutenant Governors would run on a ticket.

Senator Sheheen made the following comments:

“Recent events have demonstrated the critical need to modernize our government. The instability of government during the Sanford and Haley eras has highlighted the chaos that can be caused by bad leaders under our current system. Let’s put this legislation on the fast track and get it passed this year. The people deserve it.”

H. 3152 – http://scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=3152&session=&summary=B

###

It’s certainly been proposed many times before. Maybe, given recent events, the idea’s time has arrived.

Will the Budget & Control Board really go away?

It would be nice to think so. Senate Republicans are rightly touting that possibility:

Columbia, SC – February 16, 2012 – The South Carolina Senate today passed the most significant piece of restructuring legislation in the past two decades, passing a bill that completely eliminates the state Budget and Control Board.

The new bill puts most of the functions of the Board under a new, Cabinet-level Department of Administration, and devolves the rest of the Board’s functions elsewhere. The end result is a more efficient, accountable structure for the state’s administrative functions, rather than the current system of having a five-member board control those functions. The bill had been a top priority for Gov. Nikki Haley, and now goes back to the House for approval.

“There’s an old saying that when everybody is in charge, no one is in charge, and that’s been true for too long with too much of state government,” said Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler. “This bill will let the people of South Carolina hold their leaders accountable for the results of state government.”

The bill’s two primary Republican sponsors, Senators Tom Davis and Shane Massey, issued the following statements:

“This bill has been a long time coming, and it’s gratifying to now see it so close to the finish line,” Davis said. “Our government has been plagued by an unaccountable structure that breeds inefficiencies. Today, we took a significant step toward correcting that.”

“This bill strikes a good balance between giving the executive branch control and accountability over administrative functions, while requiring the legislature to perform critical oversight,” Massey said. “This bill is all about a better, more efficient government that allows voters to hold elected officials accountable.”

Of course, since it’s a party document, it conveniently ignores that the most insistent advocate of replacing the Board with a department of administration in recent years has been Democrat Vincent Sheheen.

Oh, well. It’s not like the idea was anyone’s personal property. The release says, “The bill had been a top priority for Gov. Nikki Haley.” Well, yeah. And Mark Sanford. And The State newspaper, since at least the point when I started writing about it in 1991. And Carroll Campbell. And anyone who respects the American concept of separation of powers, which the Board’s existence blatantly violates.

Sheheen named as one of 12 to watch nationally

Vincent Sheheen in 2010 with his dad, Fred, and the last Democratic candidate for governor to do better than he did.

I was shocked, shocked, to see that Governing magazine named Sen. Vincent Sheheen one of its 12 legislators to watch in 2012:

Sen. Vincent Sheheen exceeded all expectations in his 2010 race for governor. Running in a strongly Republican state in a strongly Republican year, he lost to Nikki Haley — who attracted considerable national media attention — by just four percentage points. An effective legislator, he had sponsored 18 bills that became state law prior to his gubernatorial campaign.

Sheheen, whose father was a state education commissioner, served as a city prosecutor and a state representative before winning election to the Senate in 2004. “Sheheen represents the pragmatic tradition of South Carolina found in dynamic leaders such as former U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings and former U.S. Secretary of Education Dick Riley,” says Andy Brack, publisher and columnist of StatehouseReport.com.

He is widely expected to run again for higher office. “Sheheen remains a public critic of Gov. Haley, which may help explain her rather extensive out-of-state fundraising during her first year in office,” says Jack Bass, a College of Charleston political scientist.

Why was I shocked? Because I thought it was some sort of physical law of the universe that national media were incapable of acknowledging Vincent’s existence.

Over and over, we heard (and still hear) about the terribly exciting miracle of the Indian-American woman who won the GOP nomination in our state, and then went on to be elected by the skin of her teeth, garnering a small percentage of the vote than any other statewide Republican in a huge year for Republicans.

Not once did I see even a hint of that sort of interest in the first Lebanese-American Catholic nominee in state history — who did better than any Democrat since Jim Hodges won, by hitching his star to a state lottery, in 1998.

Until now.

The alternative reality governor

On an alternative Earth, with an alternative history, this is what we would be hearing from our governor as school started back. I got this from Vincent Sheheen earlier today:

This month Joseph, Austin, and Anthony went back to Camden High and Camden Elementary for the 2011-12 school year. We can’t believe we have two 15 year olds with their driving permits!

We are so blessed for our sons to attend the same schools as their father, grandfather and great-grandfather. South Carolina’s public schools have helped give our family the opportunity to succeed!

We are proud of our schools and thankful for the great teachers who care so much about our children. And we are proud to stand up to the extremist agenda that wants to take public dollars out of our schools and send them to private schools. Like Thomas Jefferson, we believe that a democratic nation cannot exist without a public commitment to education.

Thank you to all the teachers who have blessed our lives and the lives of our children- especially Rose Sheheen (Now better known as Mommia!)

So, join us in thanking a teacher- your child’s or grandchild’s or a teacher you know. Let them know how thankful you are for what they give.

All the best, Amy and Vincent Sheheen

Alternative reality — that’s the ticket! Where’s Harry Turtledove when we need him? Outside of his kind of world, there’s little hope for South Carolina in the foreseeable future. No, he couldn’t actually change reality, but we could pretend for a while…

Vincent Sheheen turns 40

Actually, he turned 40 on Friday. But tonight was when the day was celebrated, with a post-election fund-raiser at Rep. James Smith’s office.

There’s not a whole lot of content in this video; I’m posting it more as an experiment than anything else. I shot it with my iPhone instead of my Canon. You can see I had a bit of trouble with focus, etc. Also, I was unable to edit it with my PC editing software; I had to upload it raw to YouTube in order to get it here.

Oh, by the way, in case you wonder why Rep. Smith is so dressed up for the occasion: He was, as he explained to his guests, about to go “play some rock ‘n’ roll.” He’s got a new band, called The Project, which played at the Crawfish Festival over the weekend. I don’t know where they were playing tonight.

I left right after shooting this. The SC Radio Network was having an open house at their new digs. Busy night.

SC Dems are whistling ‘Dixie’ past own graveyard

The headline in the paper over the weekend said, “S.C. Democrats: ‘We’re coming back'”:

S.C. Democrats still are smarting from a brutal November that stripped them of one of their two congressional seats, their only statewide office and a handful of General Assembly seats.

But, after some serious post-election number crunching, the state party contends Palmetto State Democrats fared better than Democrats in other states — whose candidates were clobbered by wide margins, too — and actually grew their ranks, laying the groundwork for a comeback.

“We’ve grown our base. These new numbers show we’re not dead and done like some people say,” said Jay Parmley, director of the S.C. Democratic Party. “Yes, we lost everything, but we’re coming back.”…

And what that headline tells us is, SC Democrats are delusional.

Oh, I’m not saying that it’s impossible that some new megatrend that has not yet been spotted by anyone could begin a reversal of the process that started in 1964, when Strom Thurmond joined the Republican Party, and white folks across the state started following him — first in a trickle, then in an accelerating flood.

What I’m saying is that there is no evidence extant at this time to believe that the Democrats are reversing nearly five decades of history trending against them in this state.

Certainly not the main “evidence” the optimists, whistling past their own partisan political graveyard, cite.

Vincent Sheheen’s strong showing is by no means a good sign for Democrats. Vincent Sheheen didn’t do that well because he was a Democrat. He did that well in spite of being a Democrat.

Vincent Sheheen was obviously a stronger candidate, who would clearly have been a better governor, than Nikki Haley. This could not be hidden from SC voters. They liked him better. But he lost, barely, because there are so many white folks in this state who would rather poke themselves in the eye with a sharp stick than pull the lever for a Democrat. His being a Democrat was therefore a huge liability.

If he had NOT been a Democrat — if he and Nikki had both run as Republicans, or if voters had somehow been kept ignorant of the party identification of the two candidates or, if you’ll allow me to dream (and Lord, hasten the day!), no candidate had had ANY party label — then he would have won.

This was obvious. Other statewide Republican candidates, in this huge year for Republicans nationally (and if you will recall, Nikki did everything she could to make the campaign national, running against Barack Obama instead of Vincent Sheheen, who was more likable than she) won in landslides. We’re talking double-digit margins. As I wrote right after the election:

It was so evident that Nikki was the voters’ least favorite statewide Republican (yes, Mick Zais got a smaller percentage, but there were several “third party” candidates; Frank Holleman still got fewer votes than Vincent). I look at it this way: Mark Hammond sort of stands as the generic Republican. Nobody knows who he is or what he does, so he serves as a sort of laboratory specimen of what a Republican should have expected to get on Nov. 2, 2010, given the prevailing political winds. He got 62 percent of the vote.

Even Rich Eckstrom — and this is truly remarkable given his baggage, and the witheringly negative campaign that Robert Barber ran against him — got 58 percent…

Oh, for those of you who don’t know, Mark Hammond is the secretary of state. Voters, by and large, don’t know that. All they knew was that he was labeled “Republican.”

That Nikki Haley, with her 51 percent, didn’t come anywhere close to their margins testified to voter discomfort with her (as opposed to a generic Republican like Hammond), and to the strength of her opponent (because SOME of those voters who went for the GOP in every other race voted for Vincent).

If she hadn’t had an R after her name, and he hadn’t had a D, he would be governor now.

And Democrats who say otherwise are fooling themselves.

Nikki Haley dumps Darla Moore: A plain case of old-fashioned naked patronage

It’s really hard to keep up with all the petty outrages (both “petty” and “outrageous” — yes, that seems about right) that our new young governor keeps pumping out.

I’m a busy guy — working, blogging, trying to grab a little sleep at night — and sometimes find myself momentarily out of the loop. Particularly when there are so many far more important things going on in the world. Let’s see, the Japan earthquake, Qaddafi (I’ve gotten to where I just spell his name with the first combination of letters that my fingers hit, so I hope that suits) moving to crush the rebellion while the world is distracted with Japan, Saudis intervening in Bahrain and people getting killed… And sometimes you have to put even that aside, and do other stuff…

So when I finish my Virtual Front Page and close the laptop, I sometimes don’t see any new developments until 7ish the next morning. Which is why I was taken aback at the very first Tweet I saw this morning:

@nettie_bNettie Britts

Explain Darla Moore to me.

I replied, “Well, she’s this rich lady from South Carolina who tries to give back to her home state. That’s the Twitter version, I guess…” And I went on to breakfast. There, the grill room at the Capital City Club was buzzing with what I didn’t know about, since I hadn’t sat down to read the paper yet (don’t ask me why it wasn’t on thestate.com when I was doing the Virtual Front Page yesterday; maybe it was and I just missed it). The state and community leaders weren’t going, “Did you hear about Darla?” It was more like, “What do you think of the news?” Period.

Yep, this stuff happens to me, too. Not often, but sometimes.

So I sat down, and I read the paper. And I Tweeted this out:

@BradWarthen Brad Warthen

Nikki Haley dumping Darla Moore is classic case of naked, arbitrary exercise of patronage power….http://tinyurl.com/4nu4of8

You can congratulate me later for having gotten a link, an editorial point, “Nikki Haley,” “Darla Moore,” and “naked” into the Twitter format (with 14 characters of room left!). Let’s move on to the substance.

And the substance is… well, what I just said. It just doesn’t get any more blatant, plain, slap-in-the-face, I-don’t-care-what-you’ve-done-for-our-state-or-this-institution-I’ve-got-my-own-guy than this. Just bald, plain, take-it-for-what-it-is. Although I do have to hand it to Haley staffer Rob Godfrey for managing to twist the knife a bit with this bit of sarcastic insouciance:

Asked why the appointment was not announced, he said: “Given that there are over 1,000 appointments to boards and commissions the governor can make, we never intended to have a press conference for each one.”

Because, you know, Darla Moore isn’t any more important than that.

At the Cap City Club this morning, one of the regular movers and shakers made a rather naive and innocent remark (sometimes movers and shakers can surprise you that way), honestly asking, “How do you just brush aside someone who’s given $100 million to South Carolina?” (Yeah, I know she’s only pledged $70 million to USC and $10 million to Clemson, according to the story, but I guess he was rounding.)

I replied, patiently, here’s what Nikki Haley would say to that (were she brutally honest, of course): “She didn’t give ME a hundred million dollars. Tommy over here gave me $3,500. I don’t understand the question.” That’s Tommy Cofield, by the way, a Lexington attorney.

People who are not movers and shakers (and who in fact have a sort of visceral aversion to movers and shakers) can say some naive things, too. Over in a previous comment, our own Doug said “Are we assuming that Sheheen wouldn’t have replaced anyone he didn’t like?”

To that, I responded once again with the painfully obvious: “No, Vincent would not have replaced Darla Moore with an unknown, minor campaign contributor in such a prestigious post. If that’s what you’re asking.” Of course, I should have added, “without a reason.” By that, I would mean a valid reason, one that takes South Carolina’s and USC’s legitimate interests into account, one that is not just arbitrary.

Oh she GAVE what I suppose some folks (probably including Doug, believing as he does that there is nothing so deleterious to society as experience and commitment to the public weal) will regard as a reason: “As is the case with many of our appointees, the governor looked for a fresh set of eyes to put in a critical leadership position…”

That’s it.

And if you are one of the people who takes Nikki Haley at face value, as her supporters tend to do, and you don’t know or care about Darla Moore or the University of South Carolina — you just like to cheer on your Nikki — that will suffice. In with the new, out with the old. She will feel in no way obligated to explain what was wrong with Darla Moore’s service on the board, or to cite any of the exciting new ideas that her appointee brings to the table that were previously missing. No one will expect that of her; it probably wouldn’t even occur to her to think about it. The governor will skate on this with these people — this is something that is core to her whole approach to politics ever since she transformed herself into the darling of the Tea Party in preparation for her run for this office for which she was so unprepared.

This WORKS for her. She skates on this, just as — with the voters she cares about — she will skate on apparently having told a prospective employer in 2007 that she was making $125,000 a year when she was telling the IRS that she made $22,000. This will matter not. People are just picking at her. The nasty, powerful, status quo people — those people who hang out at the Capital City Club! — are picking at Nikki because they’re mean, you see. (By the way, on the “petty” vs. “outrageous” spectrum, the thing on the job application is more the typical “petty” violation of her alleged principles that we have come to expect; the Darla Moore thing, dealing as it does with the leadership of such an important state institution, is more of an “outrage.” If you’re keeping score.)

She will not only skate, but her supporters — or at least, this is what the governor banks on — will continue, in spite of all evidence, to see her as a champion of transparency, a reformer, a nemesis of “politics as usual” and patron saint of Good Government. Which just, you know, boggles the mind if you’re the sensible sort who thinks about things.

That’s the plan, anyway. And that’s why she did this, and really doesn’t care if you, or the university, or the business community, or Darla Moore don’t like it.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits