Amen to that.
Above is the latest from the Sheheen campaign…
Sheheen ad: “This time, we need a governor we can trust”
2 Replies
Category Archives: Vincent Sheheen
Poll shows Sheheen starting to gain on Haley
As I said earlier about the Crantford survey — I don’t know whether this is right, but I certainly hope it is. This just in from the Sheheen campaign:
A new poll released today proves what we already knew – Vincent Sheheen has captured the momentum in the race to be South Carolina’s next governor.
News reports stated just a few weeks ago that Nikki Haley had a 17-point lead. Yet a national pollster just released two polls conducted a week apart that show a dramatic shift towards Vincent Sheheen. Hamilton Campaigns conducted a survey last week that gave Haley a 51%-41% lead with 8% undecided. The second poll, conducted this week, shows Vincent cutting the lead in half to 49%-44%.
Read the pollster’s analysis:
“Bottomline – As voters have begun to tune in to this race, the margin between the two candidates has been cut in half in a short period of time. Given the rapid movement and voter discontent with Mark Sanford, this race has certainly become one to watch over the closing weeks of the campaign.” (View entire poll results)
This race is a dead heat and Vincent Sheheen is the candidate on the move. It’s not surprising that Vincent has the momentum in this race because voters are learning troubling new things about Nikki Haley on a daily basis. Trust has become the dominant issue in the last few weeks and South Carolinians are beginning to realize that they cannot trust Nikki Haley. Help keep the momentum going. Donate today and spread the word by forwarding this email to friends and family. We need your help to close the deal.
For some time, I’ve been having some pretty dark thoughts about the state of democracy in South Carolina. First Alvin Greene, then a fall electorate perversely bent on ignoring all the negatives about a candidate who would be very bad news as governor of our state.
Each bit of news like this makes me feel less cynical, and gives me greater hope in the wisdom of the voters as they finally begin to pay attention…
What worries me is that this may not be enough movement, fast enough. It does South Carolina no good if the majority completes its shift to Sheheen in mid-November….
Pro-life snub of Sheheen misses huge opportunity
Pat pointed out back here the fact that my old friend Holly Gatling (formerly of The State‘s Pee Dee bureau) and her compatriots at South Carolina Citizens for Life endorsed Nikki Haley for the thinnest, most procedural of reasons. That is indeed true:
Citizens for Life director Holly Gatling says Haley scored a 100 on its 19-question election survey. She says Democrat Vincent Sheheen has voted with the anti-abortion group and has “never been hostile to our issues.” But he did not return the survey, so the group backed the candidate who put it in writing.
The fact is that in Vincent Sheheen, the pro-life movement has that most rare and precious of commodities, a creature that those who care should want to warmly embrace, cosset and nurture — a pro-life Democrat. Not since Bob Casey won his Senate seat from Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, despite the nasty blowback from the likes of NARAL, has there been such a chance to support a pro-life Democratic nominee for high office.
And SCCofL has blown that opportunity for the sake of a piece of paper not obediently filled out.
Thereby the pro-life movement misses the opportunity to demonstrate it is more than a lapdog of the Right, to be taken for granted, to be bought for a piece of paper filled out with the answers that everyone knows they want to hear. The state Chamber of Commerce has had the guts to demonstrate in this race that it is not slavishly Republican. Even Republicans, from Cyndi Mosteller to Bobby Harrell, have to varying degrees expressed their differences with the nominee of their party. Why pass up this opportunity to demonstrate some real, conscience-based, independence for the sake of a piece of paper?
As The State noted a month ago, the pro-life movement has TWO strong candidates in the major-party nominees for governor (the subhed was, “Voters who support procedures left in cold by major candidates for governor” — those of you who want to pause and hold a moment of silence for the folks Holly calls the “pro-aborts” because for once they don’t have a champion, go right ahead; I will move on), and one of them is someone who, being a Democrat, actually takes some political risk, who actually gets out of the comfort zone of a member of his party, for his support for life. Me, I’d want to give a guy like that some props. But that’s me.
Haley 45%, Sheheen 41%: Are the voters starting to pay attention?
I don’t know whether to be greatly encouraged or suspicious at the numbers. I’m going to choose to be cautiously encouraged by the poll numbers I learned about this morning from Tim Kelly’s blog:
A new poll completed just last evening shows some significant positive movement for Vincent Sheheen, with the race a virtual dead heat. Nikki Haley leads Sheheen 45%-41%, within the poll’s margin of error of 3.9%. Thirteen percent remain undecided.
The poll was conducted by South Carolina pollster Crantford & Associates. The survey involved 634 active registered South Carolina voters. Data collection occurred Thursday September the 30th between 6:00 PM and 9:00 PM.
While Rasmussen surveys have shown Haley maintaining a strong lead, the new results might signal that the accumulation of negative stories about Haley’s financial dealings is finally taking a toll. On Sunday, John O’Connor of The State explored the $110,000 fundraising job created specifically for Haley by Lexington Medical Center.
The Crantford poll also included the U.S. Senate race between incumbent Jim Demint and surprise challenger Alvin Green. Not surprisingly, Demint holds a 56%-23% lead in that race.
A copy of last night’s survey is available here (PDF).
I don’t know anything about this Crantford outfit. When I asked Tim what he knew, he said:
Carey does solid work. The knock on him would be that he’s a Democrat, but I’ve never known that to sway his numbers or sampling.
Could the voters finally be starting to pay attention to what we’re all learning? That would be wonderful news for South Carolina.
Don’t miss Cindi’s package comparing Nikki’s & Vincent’s records
This afternoon, a friend who is an experienced observer of South Carolina politics asked me whether I’d read Cindi Scoppe’s package on today’s editorial page comparing the records of Nikki Haley and Vincent Sheheen.
I said no, but I had glanced at it, which pretty much told me everything I needed to know. Or rather, what I had already known without tallying it all up. But Cindi did that for us, and the result is both superficially telling — because Vincent’s accomplishments take up so much more room on the page — and also substantively so. It tells the tale rather powerfully of who is better qualified to move South Carolina forward — or in any direction you choose. It shows that Vincent Sheheen is far more qualified, and inclined, to take governing seriously.
Of course, as I told my friend, the fact that Nikki has accomplished virtually nothing will be embraced as a positive by her nihilistic followers. They will vote for her for the same reason they voted for Strom Thurmond, and Floyd Spence — because they did very little in office — with the added Sanfordesque twist of blaming the Legislature, rather than herself, for her lack of accomplishments. But the truth is, Nikki simply hasn’t even tried to accomplish much at all.
Basically, what Nikki has done is get elected, introduce very few bills of any kind, gotten almost none of them passed because she doesn’t care about accomplishing anything, then run for governor. That’s Nikki in a nutshell.
Vincent, by contrast, has taken the business of governing as a serious responsibility, one bigger than himself and his personal ambitions.
And there’s much more to it than sheer volume. As Cindi wrote:
The easiest, though not necessarily most useful, way to compare the lists: Ms. Haley has introduced 15 substantive bills, of which one has become law and one has been adopted as a House rule. Mr. Sheheen has introduced 119 substantive bills (98 when you weed out the ones that he has re-introduced in multiple sessions), of which 18 have become statewide law and four have become local law….
What’s most striking about Mr. Sheheen’s list is its sweep, and the extent to which it reflects initiatives that either know no partisan boundaries or that easily cross them. Although his focus has been on giving governors more power to run the executive branch of government and overhauling our tax system, his bills touch on far more — from exempting small churches from some state architectural requirements and prohibiting kids from taking pagers to school to giving tuition breaks to the children of veterans and eliminating loopholes in the state campaign finance law.
This is the body of work of someone who understands what the government does and is interested in working on not just the broad structural and philosophical issues that politicians like to make speeches about but also the real-world problems that arise, from figuring out how to move police from paper to electronic traffic tickets without causing problems to writing a legal definition for “joint custody” so parents will know what to expect when they go to court.
One thing that’s notable in relation to this campaign: Ms. Haley attacks Mr. Sheheen as being anti-business because he does some workers compensation work (although his firm represents both businesses and employees), but he has written only one bill regarding workers compensation — and that was a “pro-business” bill that said employees of horse trainers didn’t have to be covered.
Cindi published this list of Nikki’s legislative record, such as it is, and this list of Vincent’s, in the paper. Vincent’s was obviously far more weighty. But in truth, she couldn’t fit all of the Sheheen record in the paper. Here’s the fuller record, including the ones that Cindi found too boring to put in the paper.
I doubt this will win over anyone, because the kind of people who would vote for Nikki view lack of experience, and the lack of the ability to accomplish anything in government, as virtues. They care about ideology, not pragmatic governance. I just publish this for the sensible, serious folk who see things differently.
Which is sort of the point of my whole blog, come to think of it…
Nikki and the “slush fund:” Belly up to the trough
Have you seen the latest Nikki Haley ad? As I said in a comment yesterday:
Wow. Did you see that incredibly weak, intelligence-insulting ad that Nikki released attacking Vincent?
It’s all about attacking him as a “liberal,” a “Columbia Insider” and a “trial lawyer.
So there you have it: Vincent criticizes Nikki for things that she — an actual, living, breathing woman actually living in South Carolina — has actually done. (You may have noted that the keyword here is “actual.”)
And her response is to throw some of the less imaginative canned, off-the-shelf, standard-issue GOP epithets at him — because, you know, since he’s a Democrat it must all be true, right?
How utterly pathetic. What total contempt she obviously has for the South Carolina electorate.
The only thing Nikki had to offer as a specific, relevant charge in her weak effort to paint Vincent as a tax-and-spend “liberal” was that he had voted to override the governor on the Orwellian-named “Competitive Grants Program” and Nikki had voted to sustain.
Of course, I take a back seat to no one in my disdain for the grants program. Sure, it’s not much money in the grand scheme, but it’s a textbook example of the wrong way to spend, with no regard for state priorities. The local projects the money tends to go to are sometimes worthwhile, but that money should be raised locally.
So bad on Vincent for going along with the majority on that. But Vincent’s voting with the Republican majority while Nikki voted with the minority says more about the fact that Nikki is one of Mark Sanford’s few reliable allies than it does about who is tighter with a buck.
Especially when you consider the following, which the Sheheen campaign was so thoughtful as to share today:
Nikki Haley’s Slush Fund Hypocrisy
Camden, SC – Nikki Haley’s credibility has taken another hit after she released a misleading advertisement yesterday criticizing Vincent Sheheen for supporting a “legislative slush fund,” a fund that she vigorously supported. Haley requested over $1.5 million in legislative earmarks for her home district from the South Carolina Competitive Grants program but has campaigned boasting of her opposition to the program.Nikki Haley has been a full-fledged participant in the program, requesting at least $1.5 million in earmarks for special projects in her district and county. She has sponsored at least twenty-four applications for competitive grants including $90,000 for the Lexington Fun Fest.
After she ran for governor, Haley decided that she could score political points by opposing the program, claiming that she objected to state money funding her local Gilbert Peach festival. Yet that same year, 2008, she requested at least $160,000 in other projects.
Kristin Cobb, Communications Director for Sheheen for Governor, had this to say: “Once again Nikki Haley has created an even greater level of hypocrisy with her recent attack ad against Vincent Sheheen. Haley claims she voted against this program but apparently that was because her $1.5 million earmark requests were not approved. She wasn’t against the program, she was just upset she didn’t get her share.”
“The more South Carolinians are learning about Nikki Haley the less they like. If we can’t trust what she says on the campaign trail, how can we trust her to be governor,” Cobb concluded.
Here is a sample of Haley’s Earmark Requests:
West Columbia – Sewer Project $370,600 SC Parents Involved in Education $100,000 SC Office of Rural Health $100,000 West Columbia – Riverwalk Expansion $100,000 Newberry College – Nursing Program $99,000 Lexington County – Web-based Tourism $91,099 Lexington Fun Fest $90,000 Lexington County – Industrial Park $80,000 Lexington County – Clean Water Act $77,700 SC Philharmonic $69,274 Alliance for Women at Columbia College $60,000 Healthy Learners $50,000 Brookland Foundation $50,000 Outdoor Journalist Education Foundation $34,450 Killingsworth $30,000 Lexington Downtown Renovation $26,000 SC Office of Rural Health $25,000 Lexington Fun Fest $25,000 YMCA Adventure Guides Program $24,445 Girl Scout Council of the Congaree $21,520 Lexington County Museum $20,000 Lexington – Video Conferencing System $15,000 Lexington County Museum $10,000 Lexington Community Fun Day $3,500 TOTAL: $1,572,588
They also attached this PDF of supporting documents for your perusal.
That assertion about “She wasn’t against the program, she was just upset she didn’t get her share” reminds me of something. Nikki has a habit of being selectively principled — as in, principled when it serves her ambition. For instance, remember the Tweets Wesley Donehue put out a while back about Nikki’s effort to stop the Senate from passing a roll-call vote bill?
Wesley, who works for the Senate Republicans, was pretty insistent about making sure we knew how hypocritical she was on the subject:
Nikki Haley called me last year angry that the Senate filed a roll call voting bill. about 1 hour ago via TweetDeckNikki Haley told me that she didn’t want the Senate “stealing my issue.” about 1 hour ago via TweetDeckLet me repeat – Nikk Haley asked me to get the Senators to pull the companion bill from the Senate. about 1 hour ago via TweetDeck
I haven’t heard Wesley mention this since the primary — since, that is, she has become his party’s nominee. I’m going to be with him on Pub Politics this evening, and will ask him about it…
Uh-oh — Sheheen has conceded Texas!
Over the weekend, I missed this ominous development (it went out on Saturday):
SHEHEEN CONCEDES TEXAS
Camden, SC–Today, Vincent Sheheen directed his campaign to withdraw all staff and resources from the state of Texas, effectively conceding the state to opponent Nikki Haley. Haley continued her nationwide tour of ignoring South Carolina today by campaigning in Austin, Texas, where she is a featured speaker at a national Republican convention.
Sheheen for Governor Communications Director Kristin Cobb said, “Campaigning in Texas shows Nikki Haley’s primary concern is promoting herself and not solving South Carolina’s problems. Her mentor Mark Sanford’s flirtation with the national spotlight proved disastrous and South Carolina needs a change.”
“While Vincent Sheheen campaigns in the Pee Dee and the Midlands today, Nikki Haley is again ignoring South Carolina by campaigning in Texas as she runs for governor of the United States.”
For more information, visit:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/09/16/redstate-gathering-2010-3/
On the one hand, I worry about Vincent conceding these major battlegrounds. What’s next? Ohio? Pretty soon, only SC would still be in play, and then where would we be?
On the other, I have to applaud him for his masterful application of the “Hit ’em where they ain’t” strategy. And in Nikki Haley’s case, the place that she ain’t is here. Even when she’s here physically, her mind, her focus, and every word she says is all about other places. Her aim is not on being governor of SC. In her mind, she’s won that, left office and moved on…
Debates are more necessary than ever
In the print version, the headline on this story in The State was, “Have debates become unnecessary?” (Why it’s different in the online version I don’t know; it happens sometimes.)
The story is about the fact that, as things stand, there will only be two debates between Nikki Haley and Vincent Sheheen before the Nov. 2 vote.
I take keyboard in hand to answer the question:
No, they have not become “unnecessary.” In fact, in this election, it is more necessary than ever to have as many debates as possible. Having only two is unconscionable, tantamount to flipping a huge bird at the electorate.
One of two relatively little-known candidates will become our governor for four years. After having twice made the awful mistake of electing Mark Sanford — who as a congressman was much more widely known than either Haley or Sheheen before he ran — it is critically important that voters get as many unscripted opportunities as possible to hear them questioned, and compare them side by side.
This would not be for my benefit. I’m not the typical voter. I’ve known them both for years, well enough that there is not the slightest question in my mind: Vincent Sheheen would be a far better governor than Nikki Haley.
I believe firmly that if voters had the opportunity to observe and/or interact with them as much as I have, the majority of them would reach the same conclusion. Multiple, in-depth, face-to-face sessions with each voter is impractical. The best we can do would be to have multiple debates — 10 (the number that Sanford and Jim Hodges had) would not be too many. Far from it — 10 would merely be a good start. While Nikki, who is a very charming and presentable person on first acquaintance, will likely come through a couple of debates all right, each additional debate makes it more likely that voters will know her, and her opponent, a little better. And that would be a very good thing.
Nikki knows this. Hence the two debates.
Yes, I understand the conventional wisdom, and it’s correct as far as it goes. But the fact that she leads in the polls as her motivation for resisting more debates distracts us from a deeper, more strategic motive. You may have noticed that the more information that dribbles out about Nikki Haley, the more she is shown to be something other than what she lets on to be. That’s a far better reason for avoiding debates than her poll numbers.
But as I say, let’s not have more debates for me — or for Vincent, or for Nikki. Let’s have them because the people deserve more information about these young people than they currently have. And the more information they have, the more likely they are to make a decision that they will not regret later.
OK, that’s ONE I’ve seen. Any others out there?
Today I saw my first actual “Republicans for Sheheen” bumper sticker on an actual vehicle.
And this was on an SUV, so it was definitely a real Republican, right? (Just kidding, GOPpers — can’t you take a joke?)
I’ve heard, privately, from a lot of folks whom you might otherwise expect to vote Republican who are backing Sheheen — both because they like Vincent, and because Nikki worries them a great deal.
And anyone who pays close attention will note that Henry McMaster sort of stands out these days, because there aren’t many other leading Republicans going out of their way to be seen with Nikki. (What we have is lots of people who don’t really know Nikki backing her in polls, while state business and political leaders who’ve actually dealt with her and know a thing or two about the issues generally aren’t too thrilled with her.)
But aside from the Chamber of Commerce endorsement, you don’t see a lot of visible, public demonstrations of intent to vote for Sheheen from traditionally Republican quarters.
At least, I haven’t.
Alas, I didn’t get to talk to this person, to get an elaboration on why he or she is taking this stand. This was in the drive-through queue at McDonald’s today. A couple of times I almost jumped out of my truck to run up and hand the driver my card and urging him or her to call me, but each time I put my hand on the door handle the line moved forward again.
So then I decided I’d follow the vehicle when it left Mickey D’s, and if it stopped anywhere nearby, try to cop an interview there.
But then, it happened again. I ordered a double quarter-pounder, without cheese (you know, because of my allergies). When I paid for it, I checked with the lady taking the money: “Without cheese, right?” “No cheese,” she said. Then when my food was handed to me in the bag at the next window, I said, “No cheese, right?” She said that was right. So I pulled up a few feet, and opened it up to check, and sure enough, each patty had welded to it one of those things that looks like a square of orange, molten plastic.
So I got out, walked back, squeezing between the car behind me and the window, knocked on the window and said, “THIS is with cheese.”
And then I was asked to pull over to the side and wait for what I had ordered, and had been assured twice I would get.
This happens to me roughly a third of the times that I go to McDonald’s. But McDonald’s isn’t special; I have similar problems at sit-down restaurants. That’s why I always check. It beats finding out five miles away (which has happened). What really gets me, of course, is when this happens after I’ve been assured, repeatedly, that it won’t.
Anyway, that’s why I didn’t get an interview with the Republican for Sheheen.
Do you have one of these stickers on YOUR bumper, or know someone who does? If so, send me your contact info at [email protected]. I’d like to chat with you.
Candidates owe it to us to debate, early and often
But which one would Nikki be?
This release from the Sheheen campaign…
Why won’t Nikki Haley agree to debate Vincent Sheheen?
CAMDEN, SC — Seventeen days ago, Vincent Sheheen challenged Nikki Haley to five substantive debates on five important issues in five different South Carolina locations. She did not respond. Six days ago, the Sheheen campaign called Representative Haley’s campaign and left a message, requesting a return call. No response. Four days ago, the Sheheen campaign called Haley headquarters again but were told that the appropriate staff could not be reached.
In a letter sent to Representative Haley on August 30th, Sheheen stated, “I challenge you to debates on jobs and the economy in Greenville, education in Columbia, governmental reform and transparency in Charleston, comprehensive tax reform in Rock Hill and infrastructure and tourism in Myrtle Beach. I propose the debates follow the Lincoln Douglas format as prescribed by the National Forensic League, the oldest and largest interscholastic forensic organization in the United States.”
“Voters, with such an important choice at such a crucial time, want the chance to fully know the candidates for governor,” he concluded in the letter.
Sheheen Communications Director Kristin Cobb had this to say: “Why is Nikki Haley afraid to debate Vincent Sheheen? She is hiding her record from a public debate like she hid her tax problems and her income. Maybe she would return our calls if we offered to debate her in Iowa or Arizona.”
###
… raises a question that is extremely easy to answer:
If she doesn’t debate, we’ll know its because she believes she’s more likely to win without doing so.
But you know what? There’s no way South Carolinians should allow anyone to become our next governor without hearing the competitors in multiple debates. Debates would allow us to hear:
- Who would be the more credible and effective leader in building our state’s economy.
- Who can more persuasively make the case for genuine governmental reform, beyond the soundbites.
- How Nikki, as the “Transparency” candidate, justifies her repeated failures to transparent in even the most elementary ways.
- Whether Vincent is really committed to being governor, or is just a nice guy with good qualifications who will agree to be governor if we really want him to.
And other burning questions.
We deserve this. While it was kinda geeky and wonky, we would be well-served if Nikki would go along with the Lincoln-Douglas idea. Or if she’s got a better idea for multiple debates, let’s hear it NOW, so that we can make sure these things happen.
We’ve bought enough pigs in pokes lately. Let us get a really good look at these two.
Nikki vs. Vincent, by the ounce
As I occasionally have to clarify here, I’m about commentary, not reporting. You want reporting, go someplace else. I haven’t been a reporter in 30 years. You want an opinion writer who’s primarily a reporter, see Cindi Scoppe. She’s one of the best. (Her column today is a good example of that quality; I may post separately about that later.) Sure, I “cover” events from time to time, just so I can get my own first-hand impressions. But mainly what I do is make observations based upon the existing body of available information.
Now Corey Hutchins with The Free Times is a reporter. You’ll recall that he was the only media type to go out and track down Alvin Greene before the primary. Too bad more people didn’t read his report at the time.
Now, he has a facts-and-figures report comparing the legislative records of Nikki Haley and Vincent Sheheen. One way to characterize what he found is in this observation he posted on Facebook:
If one were to print out the list of legislative bills in the past five years primarily sponsored by the two lawmakers running for governor in S.C., Dem Sen. Sheheen’s would weigh 9.5 ounces and GOP Rep. Haley’s would clock in at 2.4 give or take a botched staple.
Of course, that doesn’t tell you much. Maybe Vincent is just wordy. You’ll get more to chew on reading his full report headlined, “Legislative Records: Sheheen More Active, Successful Than Haley,” with the subhed, “Since 2004, Sheheen Has Sponsored 96 Bills, Haley 13.”
An excerpt:
There are several ways to detail the disparity, but the easiest might be to look at the number of bills for which each candidate was listed as a primary sponsor and how far along each piece of legislation made it through the sausage maker.
Sheheen was elected to the state senate in 2004, the same year Haley was elected to the House. (Sheheen served in the House for four years before being elected to the Senate.) The difference in their legislative accomplishments since then is staggering.
According to state House and Senate records, during the 2005-2006 session, Sheheen sponsored 35 bills and was able to get eight of them passed. That same session, her first in office, Haley went zero for one.
The following session Sheheen went six for 30. Haley scored one out of seven.
During the latest legislative session that took place from 2009 to 2010, Gov. Mark Sanford signed two out of the 31 bills that Sheheen primarily sponsored. That year, the governor didn’t put pen to paper on any of the five bills backed by Haley.
Given these numbers, it would be hard to overstate the extent to which Sheheen — a Democrat in a Republican-dominated chamber —was able to navigate the legislative process in a more effective fashion than Haley. But from a philosophical standpoint — Haley being a candidate who wants government to do less — her rhetoric is at least somewhat consistent with her legislative record…
That’s a bit simplistic, a measure of Corey’s reportorial wish to be as fair to her as he can. What her record really underlines is the problem that I keep pointing to. In terms of accomplishing ANYTHING in dealing with the people who write the laws of the state (and in a Legislative State like ours, that thought could almost be framed as “accomplish anything, period”), Nikki Haley’s record indicates that, if anything, she’s been less successful even than Mark Sanford. Which is a very low standard indeed.
And remember, Sanford started out with a honeymoon, with a legislative leadership eager to work at long last with a governor of their own party. Those same leaders already know they don’t like Nikki.
Doug, of course, will turn that around into an attack on the legislative leaders themselves, which is satisfying to him but gets us nowhere. When you and I walk into the booth on Nov. 2, for the overwhelming majority of us, those leaders won’t be on the ballot (and the few of us who do live in their districts will find they don’t have viable opposition). What we get to pick is the governor. That’s how we get to affect the future course of our state.
Yeah, OK, I’ll help spread the truth
Just got this from the Sheheen campaign under the headline, “Help Vincent Fight Back with the Truth:”
Dear Brad –
This week, the race for governor changed. Vincent Sheheen’s second week of television ads have introduced him to a statewide audience and voters are impressed. We learned that Nikki Haley, who claims her skills as an accountant qualify her to be governor, had even more problems paying her taxes, this time for her business. The onslaught of bad news has the Haley campaign on the defensive.
Having already misled the public on her record, her positions and her business acumen, Nikki Haley has now resorted to false attacks on Vincent Sheheen rather than answering tough questions about her positions and her business problems.
In the last week, she falsely accused Vincent of wanting to raise taxes to solve the budget crisis but she is the only candidate who wants higher taxes; Haley wants to raise our grocery tax.
She claimed: “Vince Sheheen will kill our state’s competitiveness” but the Sanford-Haley philosophy of the last eight years has already left our job recruitment efforts in dismal shape and more of the same won’t improve them.
She even blamed Vincent for the fiscal problems of Washington DC and border security in Arizona. Vincent responded that maybe Nikki Haley was running for governor of the United States that the last thing we needed was another governor focused on national office and not our state.
Then she called him “slippery.” Her tactics are desperate and an embarrassment. We need your help to fight back with the truth. Donate today so South Carolina can elect a governor we can trust.
Thanks,
Trav
Trav Robertson
Campaign Manager
Sheheen for Governor
OK, all that is true.
But here’s some more truth: Nikki’s not on the ropes. She’s not on the defensive, even thought she should be, since every supposed strength she’s touted (transparency, business acumen) has turned out to be a weakness. She’s on a roll.
Today, I heard two different accounts of the appearance of the two candidates before the Palmetto Business Forum yesterday. Both said Vincent was fine and said the right things, but was low key and seemed to lack the fire in the belly.
Nikki, they said, was ON. She was in the zone. She had obviously been superbly prepared by her handlers, and recited everything perfectly. My witnesses knew, as I know, that Nikki’s understanding of issues is at best skin deep, generally not going beyond a bumper-sticker message. But she delivers the bumper sticker well.
This is a continuation of what I saw at the Sarah Palin event a couple of months back. I saw something that is unmistakable to me after my decades of observing politics and politicians closely: A candidate who was peaking, who was confident, poised, energetic and on message. She was ladling out stuff that that Tea Party crowd was lapping up, and she’s still doing it. Knowing that the business community doesn’t trust her, she has worked hard at learning key things to say to win them over. And that, according to my witnesses, was what was on display last night.
It is extremely important to South Carolina that Vincent Sheheen win this election. He is THE reform candidate, and the governor our state needs. But unless something happens to change the game, he’s not going to. Win, that is. And the business community, and the rest of us, are going to suffer another four years of a governor who fundamentally does not understand or appreciate economic development, and can’t work with key players to help move our state forward.
And we can’t afford that. But right now, that’s where we’re headed.
Was original draft of cartoon ‘an ethnic slur’?
Robert Ariail, noticing that I had posted his recent cartoon on the blog, sent me the original version, which he said he withdrew from dissemination because someone thought “it would precipitate claims of an ethnic slur.”
Robert wanted to know what I thought. I responded:
I see nothing wrong with that, Sahib.Seriously, I know where they’re coming from — they’re worried that the evocation of India might make people think you’re saying something you’re not, and distract from the message — although I think they’re being oversensitive.I wish I could post this on the blog to see what my readers think — but that would probably put you in an uncomfortable spot, wouldn’t it? So I won’t.
But Robert said he didn’t care, so I’m asking y’all.
For comparison, here is the culturally sanitized version again, below…
Differences between Haley, Sheheen on education spending
Doug was talking about differences between Nikki Haley and Vincent Sheheen on education spending on a previous post, and it reminded me that I wanted to share with you this Mike Fitts piece on an important difference between the gubernatorial candidates in that area:
Sen. Vincent Sheheen sees an opportunity to change the balance of education in the state by having more funding flow to the poor rural districts that have lagged behind. Rep. Nikki Haley sees a new formula as the way to get more money out of the S.C. Education Department and into all school districts.
To Sheheen, a Camden Democrat, only a funding arrangement that gets more dollars to poor districts addresses what really ails state education. As funding rebounds from the bottom of the recession, Sheheen said, more growth should be directed to the schools that don’t have a strong tax base. Districts in prosperous areas should not be given less, but poor districts should be helped to make up ground, he said.
“Until we have equitable funding, we’re always going to be fighting about equitable funding,” Sheheen said.
Haley’s school funding rubric would emphasize dollars per student rather than the tax base of a district. The simpler funding formula Haley advocates would still take into account such factors as poverty and special needs.
Haley, R-Lexington, believes far too much money still is being spent at the state Education Department, despite several rounds of cutbacks as the state budget has shrunk….
Bottom line, Nikki wants to cater to the right-wing fantasy that the Department of Education is where all the money goes, and if you just redirect THAT, schools will have all they need. Meanwhile, Vincent wants to address the actual education problem in South Carolina — poverty. If you make the mistake of being born into a poor family in a poor district, your chances of getting a good education is much, much less than if you go to school in Nikki’s district, where as she boasts, the public schools are “like private ones.” That’s anti-public-educationspeak for “the public schools in my district are good.” And they are. But they’re not good because they are “like” private schools. They’re good because they are good public schools.
Bottom line, though, is that we won’t be at a point where poor, rural districts do as well as suburban districts until the economic inequities between rural and urban South Carolina close. Economic development and public education go hand in hand, and each affects the other dramatically.
In the meantime, there are smaller things we can do. Sending more resources to the poorer districts will help — some. Consolidating districts so that each has more resources and less total administration to fund will help — some. (If you want to see money wasted on excess administration, look there.) But it’s going to be a long, hard slog.
The place to start, of course, is with electing state leaders who actually believe in public education. Then you can begin the long journey.
It’s not Clapton, but Sheheen’s “Crossroads” is a good start on the fall campaign
Above is the TV ad just released by the Sheheen campaign, entitled “Crossroads.”
I like it. It hits the right notes for going after the people who decide elections — us independents, and the Republicans who are smart enough not to want another four years of Sanford. And there are a lot of such Republicans, no matter what some Democrats might think. It’s good to see that Vincent is starting out trying (honestly and candidly, without a single note of artifice) to appeal to them, as well as to the sensible folk in the middle.
This is a good start on the fall campaign. But we need to see a lot more good stuff if he’s to avoid another defeat for South Carolina.
Oh, and just for fun, here’s the Cream electrified version of the Robert Johnson classic below:
Time for good people to stand up and be counted
GEORGE BAILEY: We’re all excited around here. My brother just got the Congressional Medal of Honor. The president just decorated him.
MR. CARTER, BANK EXAMINER: Well, I guess they do those things… Well, I trust you had a good year.
— “It’s a Wonderful Life”
I’m guessing that like George Bailey, Vincent Sheheen expected a bigger reaction to the release he put out yesterday about his latest endorsement:
Today Vincent Sheheen, candidate for governor, will join the South Carolina Education Association for a press conference at 4:30 PM at the SCEA Headquarters, where they will be announcing their support of his campaign.
WHAT: SCEA Endorsement of Vincent Sheheen for Governor
WHEN: TODAY, TUESDAY, September 7, 2010 at 4:30 PM
WHERE: SCEA Headquarters, 421 Zimalcrest Drive, Columbia, SC
####
But like Mr. Carter, I’m underwhelmed. I didn’t even bother to show up. I suppose Sheheen did, but I haven’t checked.
The SCEA endorsed the Democrat for governor? Well, I guess they do those things… now let’s look at your books, so I can get back to my family in Elmira… (And if you know me, you know I’d just as soon drill a new hole in my head as look at anybody’s books.)
And I say this as a guy who really, really wants to see Vincent Sheheen elected governor.
For that reason, and knowing what it takes to win, I want to hear about more endorsements like the one from the S.C. Chamber of Commerce.
And I’m not just putting this on the Sheheen campaign. I’m saying that some of you business leaders and independents and community leaders who could actually exert influence in Republican and swing voter circles — including some who have shared with me off the record their fervent hopes that Vincent (and NOT Nikki) get elected — need to get out of your comfort zones, and stand up and be counted.
Yeah, standing up for something might cost you something. But not as much as it will cost South Carolina to waste another four years the way we have the past eight.
There are a lot of good, smart people in South Carolina who want the best for our state. But you know what I’ve noticed over the last couple of decades about good, smart people who want the best for South Carolina? They tend to be spineless. Whereas the demagogues and peddlers of negativity never rest, and aren’t a bit shy. (I’m not saying the SCEA aren’t good people. I’m just saying that they’re the usual suspects. Statewide elections in SC can be won by Democrats only when they can demonstrate support far beyond the usuals suspects.)
Vincent Sheheen is a good guy who’s standing up. So should you. And you know who you are.
Because, um, because he’s a DEMOCRAT, right?
First, let me apologize that I’ve been missing in action all day. Some kind of horrific stomach bug. I’m somewhat better now, but then I haven’t eaten since breakfast.
But just to say I’ve posted something, let me share this…
Back on this earlier post, a reader named Rose wrote:
I don’t know why Republicans think Democrats don’t own guns. Most of my family members are moderate Democrats (although we do unfortunately have a few loony Tea Party cousins) and we own guns. Shotguns, rifles and handguns. We hunt. We shoot targets. And I guarandamntee you that I’m a helluva better shot than Haley.
So I don’t understand why Southerners think only Republicans like guns.
Well, as it happens, Rose, Vincent Sheheen is a regular Southerner, as he noted in a story by Yvonne Wenger:
Sheheen said he also supports gun rights.
“As chairman of the South Carolina Sportsmen’s Caucus and gun owner, I have repeatedly worked with the NRA to protect the gun ownership rights of South Carolinians,” Sheheen said in a statement. “There is no candidate that is a stronger supporter of Second Amendment rights and as governor, I will make sure the rights of citizens to own guns are never infringed.”
So how come this “Gun Owners of America” (of which I had never heard before Nikki touted their endorsement; had you?) didn’t endorse Vincent? Yvonne wondered, too, and asked. Here’s what she didn’t learn:
The group’s director of communications Erich Pratt said Monday that the reason why Sheheen did not receive the endorsement wasn’t immediately available.
Don’t you love it? “Wasn’t immediately available!” Of course, the answer most likely is that the folks making this decision probably didn’t know squat about Vincent Sheheen or his positions on issues, and didn’t care. They just went with the Republican who mouths extremist slogans. So, if she’s one o’ US, he’s gotta be some gun-hatin’ hippie liberal weirdo, right? Stands to reason…
This kind of reminds of the national media’s ecstasy over the idea that South Carolina might elect an “Indian-American woman.” It never occurs to them that as a Lebanese-American Catholic, Vincent would also score two firsts as governor. As if that sort of thing mattered. And like the “Gun Owners of America,” they don’t care, either.
Maybe they’d care if Will Folks claimed to have had an affair with him.
Uh-oh. I shouldn’t have had that thought when my stomach was already queasy…
But who gets to be Lincoln?
This came in today from the Sheheen campaign:
SHEHEEN CHALLENGES HALEY TO LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATES
“ …issue oriented debate like Lincoln Douglas would explain the differences.”
CAMDEN, SC—Today, Vincent Sheheen challenged Representative Nikki Haley to five Lincoln Douglas debates on five different topics in five different regions of South Carolina.In a letter mailed to Representative Haley last week, Vincent Sheheen wrote, “I challenge you to debates on jobs and the economy in Greenville, education in Columbia, governmental reform and transparency in Charleston, comprehensive tax reform in Rock Hill and infrastructure and tourism in Myrtle Beach. I propose the debates follow the Lincoln Douglas format as prescribed by the National Forensic League, the oldest and largest interscholastic forensic organization in the United States.”The guidelines for Lincoln Douglas Debate are:(Speaker A) Constructive 6 Minutes(Speaker B) Cross Examination 3 Minutes(Speaker B) Constructive 7 Minutes(Speaker A) Cross Examination 3 Minutes(Speaker A) Rebuttal 4 Minutes(Speaker B) Rebuttal 6 Minutes(Speaker A) Rebuttal 3 MinutesPrep Time 4 Minutes per debater“These debates will provide South Carolinians with a comprehensive and thorough evaluation of both of us so that they won’t have to make such an important decision based on a thirty-second sound bite. I believe voters need a series of robust examinations of our positions to not only understand our governing philosophies but also begin to rebuild the trust that elected officials will act in ways consistent with their stated beliefs,” Sheheen concluded.“ Voters, with such an important choice at such a crucial time, want the chance to fully know the candidates for governor. They deserve to know who will chart a new course for this state starkly different from the last eight years and who will attempt to carry on the failed legacy of Mark Sanford.”###
The question is, who gets to be Lincoln? Nikki, who in spite of her contempt for many of her fellow Republicans managed to capture the nomination of what was once the Party of Lincoln, or Vincent, who if nothing else is taller?
Then again, you might not want to be Lincoln — who actually lost that election, if I recall.
THAT’s what she means by transparency (or is it?)
On a day when the state’s largest newspaper leads with a second-day story about Vincent Sheheen answering questions that he shouldn’t be asked, about GOP inside-the-Beltway shouting points (the headline, “Sheheen takes on the issues,” was baldly out of sync with the story, since those are NOT “the issues”), it was shockingly refreshing to see another medium report on the gubernatorial candidates talking about an ACTUAL gubernatorial issue — South Carolina’s economy.
Here’s an excerpt from the end of the Columbia Regional Business Report story:
[Nikki Haley] said South Carolina could build upon being a right-to-work state by being a “no corporate income tax” state.
[Vincent] Sheheen said South Carolina has one of the lowest corporate income tax rates in the nation.
“That proposal specifically will help very few businesses in South Carolina because the vast majority of businesses in South Carolina pay no corporate income tax,” he said. “If we are going to keep doing the same things we’ve been doing over the past eight years, we all as citizens of South Carolina better get used to very high unemployment rates.”
Sheheen spoke of a government that doesn’t divide, but unites. South Carolina needs to increase funding to its higher education system, invest in alternative energy initiatives and expand the port system, he said.
“If we are going to brag about our port, we have to be committed to improving our port,” Sheheen said. He supports a designated earmark in the federal budget for dredging at the ports. “That’s how we dredge ports in this country. I’m willing to go to bat for this state to get our port expanded.”
Haley spoke of reforming the property tax system, supporting school choice and enacting term limits for legislators. She also vowed to make government more transparent.
“You’ve got attorneys that turn around and serve on these committees that affect workers’ comp, work the system all the way, but when they get to the floor, they recuse themselves,” Haley said. “It’s not that they recuse themselves on the floor; they shouldn’t be able to serve on those committees. That’s a direct conflict of interest.”
Reading that, the scales fell from my eyes. I now understand — I think. I had been confused that Ms. Transparency was so reluctant to BE transparent when given the chance. But she never meant her. When she says, “Transparency,” she means, “Legislators who are lawyers should be transparent. In fact, they should shut up and not participate, because being a lawyer is a conflict, in ways that being paid $40,000 for nothing but one’s influence is not.”
At least, that’s what I gather from that passage. In Nikki’s defense, it’s highly likely that if I heard that quote in context I’d get a different impression. I’m sure Nikki has a more nuanced explanation of exactly what she means when she touts transparency. And I remain eager to hear it. Perhaps I will, and perhaps I’ll learn more about the candidates’ stances on economic development and education and the state budget and law and order and environmental protection and other relevant issues — if we can stop talking about abortion and immigration and … what was the other one? Oh, yeah , the federal health care bill that was a big national issue last year. (All of which is a long way of saying, “Talking about our feelings about Obama.”)
Maybe.
An “ad homo-nem attack” on Sheheen?
First, I’ll admit that I got the “ad homo-nem” joke from my elder son, who said that when he saw the same thing I’m reacting to here:
@TreyWalker: Effeminate sounding non-answers by @VincentSheheen on ObamaCare won’t cut it in this cycle. From the Post and Courier: postandcourier.com/news/2010/aug/…
Say what? Effeminate-sounding? And this from one of your more sensible Republicans, Trey Walker, a McMaster and McCain kind of guy…
Here, for the record, is what Yvonne Wenger wrote on that subject:
Sheheen said he has answered questions throughout his campaign about his national policy stances, such as abortion rights.“My answer is the same: I support life. I have always supported life and my voting reflects that,” he said.Likewise, Sheheen said he has laid out his position on the new federal health care law, including his concerns about the expense and the burden to small businesses. But the new law has components that will remedy long-standing issues in the country that only a “bitter partisan” would find fault with, such as denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.“I think it’s the next governor’s job to stand up against things that aren’t helpful to South Carolina within the health care law,” he said, adding that he would do just that if elected.It is unclear where Sheheen stands on the individual mandate that Americans have health insurance and whether he supports the court challenge on the new law by the state Attorney General Henry McMaster, a Republican. Sheheen’s campaign didn’t immediately respond to questions Tuesday on the matter.
On thing that astounds me is that MSM types will actually go along with the Haley strategy of distraction by asking questions about inside-the-Beltway GOP litmus tests of a candidate running for governor of South Carolina. Abortion? Immigration? Obamacare? (This kind of mindlessness — the phenomenon whereby reporters exercise no judgment whatsoever about what matters, slavishly going along with any idiotic topic that gets brought up by either of the two “sides” you’re falling all over yourself to be fair and impartial to, whether it’s relevant or not — is why I gave up news and switched to editorial in 1994. In editorial, you’re allowed to think, and call B.S. “nonsense.” Unfortunately, we still couldn’t call it “B.S.” Not in a family newspaper. Or on a family blog.)
There is no frickin’ way I would expect a governor of SC to have an overall opinion on Obamacare. Hey, I don’t have an opinion on Obamacare (if I did, you’d have read it here). But maybe that’s because I sort of quit paying attention to Obama on health care way back during the primary campaigns back in the Year Seven, when it became clear that he was too timid even to suggest doing what ought to be done. (Seriously, folks, have you seen any effects from this massive health care “reform” yet? Neither have I.) Since that’s my position, I tend to look at these Republicans who keep wetting their pants about their imagined “government takeover of health care” as though they were recent arrivals from Venus. (Which, in case you missed the implication, is an “effeminate” planet. Your more masculine delusionals come from Mars.)
Another thing that astounds me is that Vincent stays cool and doesn’t get totally ticked off about it. I certainly would.
Maybe that — the fact that Vincent stays cool — is what Trey thinks is “effeminate.” Maybe Vincent should take a swing at reporters when they ask stuff like that. Not at Yvonne; that wouldn’t be manly. How about Tim Smith of The Greenville News? He’s the one who always wears the cowboy hat. It’s always manly to hit a guy in a cowboy hat. In fact, I’m pretty sure there’s a codicil in the unwritten Guy Code that if a guy’s wearing a cowboy hat, you’re allowed (and perhaps required) to hit him, whether he’s done anything to provoke you or not. OK, that should be Vincent’s strategy from now on: Whenever anyone in the MSM asks a particularly stupid, irrelevant or irritating question, Vincent should just take a big swing at Tim Smith. After a few times of doing this, the TV cameras would be ready and watching for it, and reporters would be making up stupid questions just to see Vincent pop Tim a good one. The voters would all see this on their boob tubes, and that would lay this “effeminate answers” non-issue to rest for good.
Anyway, I was standing there during the exchange that Yvonne was writing about, which you can see pictured in this image from a previous post (that’s Tim in his cowboy hat, and Yvonne at the left). You can also see Yvonne with me back on Episode 2 of “Pub Politics,” the one entitled “Wesley Sounds Like Crap.” But that’s sort of a digression, isn’t it? Although not nearly as much of a digression as asking candidates for governor of SC about abortion, immigration and national health care policy.
Vincent can stay cool in such absurd moments, because his staff gets all ticked off for him — the way I would. Below, you can see Campaign Manager Trav Robertson intervening to tell the reporters in no uncertain terms to can the stupid, irrelevant questions — and to arrange a time for an extended interview if they want to talk about irrelevancies. Good for you, Trav. Go get ’em…
