Category Archives: Women

Surging sea of rage (not): The ‘Reinstate Darla Moore’ rally

Well, that was a bust. As I Tweeted when I arrived at the “Reinstate Darla Moore” rally at the State House on this sunny day:

@BradWarthen
Brad Warthen

The big protest over Darla Moore being unceremoniously dumped by Nikki Haley looks like a bit of a bust so far. They DID say noon, right?

As I said again at 12:43, it was still a bust. Which is a shame. Because Nikki Haley insulted all of the 30,000 or so students on the Columbia campus alone with her petty patronage move — not to mention the way she dissed the other 4 million of us who have a right to expect a governor to exercise some modicum of responsible stewardship at our most important state institutions. Instead of, you know, what she did.

Old New Left Activist Tom Turnipseed grumbled about these kids today who don’t know how to stage a protest: They think they do something with social media, and it’s done, he says. Well, yes — the “We Support Darla Moore” Facebook page has attracted 4,703 people who probably think they’ve made a statement by “liking” it.

But that doesn’t mean that Martha Susan Morris, the 22-year-old economic and poli sci senior who started the “Students for the Reinstatement of Miss Darla Moore” FB page, lacks seriousness in her convictions.

After all, she showed up, and spoke at the rally — once it finally got around to getting started. And she understood why she should be there, and why thousands of others should have been there with her:

Gov. Haley cited that her main reason for replacing Mrs. Moore with Mr. Cofield was the fact that Mr. Cofield’s vision was more clearly aligned with her own.

Martha Susan Morris

And we the students ask ‘What vision?’ What vision is not aligning with Gov. Haley…?… Mrs. Moore’s vision for years has been one of high expectations, increased educational funding, and increased standards for universities, research and development in our state…. and we could not be more grateful to her…

Our university is on the upswing, and we want her to be a part of it. She’s been an amazing benefactor… since she was appointed to the board in 1999…

Amen to that, Martha Susan. She said afterward that she started the FB page at 4 a.m. after having hearing about Ms. Moore being dumped. When she next looked at the page later that morning, there were 400 fans. There are now 2,495.

Too bad more of them didn’t show up. Because although we know Nikki Haley loves her some Facebook, she’d have been a tad more impressed to look out her window and see some folks show up to protest her action. Not that she’d have changed her mind, but it would have made an impression.

One of the people I chatted with before leaving was Candace Romero, communications director of the South Carolina House Democratic Caucus, who observed how much of the crowd were media types, and she complained that that there was no media turnout like that for the “Rally for a Moral Budget” back on March 12. (I asked her, and her Senate counterpart Phil Bailey, whether they were in any way involved in this rally. No, and no. They had just dropped by. That’s the answer I got from all the usual suspect-types I found.)

Well. As one who didn’t even thinking about going downtown on a Saturday for that particular quixotic gesture, I must accept service. But I will add that good-government-type rallies tend not to draw multitudes. Have it about something people get passionate about, such as the Confederate flag, and you can get a crowd (5,000 or so if it’s pro, as many as 60,000 if it’s anti).

Which is a shame. Today’s rally was for good government — or at least, against grossly irresponsible government. (I enjoyed hearing a speaker who followed Martha Susan say he and his fellow protesters were there to “change the usual business of government.” You know, what Nikki Haley is always saying she wants to do — right before she does something as old-line political Business-As-Usual as dumping a highly respected board member in favor of someone whose only known qualification is having contributed to her campaign.)

But it was a bust.

Oh, one more thing — it was announced, late in the rally, that Darla Moore herself will address students “in a town-hall meeting at 12:15 p.m. Thursday, March 24, in the Russell House.”

I wonder whether that will be better-attended.

: Martha Susan Morris

Graham grateful for Obama’s “strong women”

1 Reply

Check out Political Wire’s Quote of the Day:

“I don’t know how many people have died as we wait to do something. Thank God for strong women in the Obama administration.”

— Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), quoted by NBC News, on how it was President Obama’s female advisers that prevailed in arguments to take military action in Libya.

Here’s more from the item that came from:

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported Saturday night on the internal debate about the decision to go into Libya. “In the end, it became the women foreign policy advisers against the men. Although Hillary Clinton initially resisted the idea of a no-fly zone, she was persuaded at the beginning of this week by the Arab League’s endorsement of military action, and she had intense meetings with the Arab League leaders and a Libyan opposition leader this week. She actually joined U.N. ambassador Susan Rice and two other women in the National Security Council, who had been arguing for some time for more aggressive action in persuading the president on Tuesday. This is a rare instance, by the way, of Clinton going up against Defense Secretary Bob Gates and the National Security Adviser Tom Donilon among other men in the White House who were much more cautious about this.”

To that point, here was more Lindsey Graham on FOX: “I don’t know how many people have died as we wait to do something. Thank God for strong women in the Obama administration.”

Presumably, since he’s for strong women, Lindsey won’t get any overwrought letters from Eleanor Kitzman…

Interesting letter from Eleanor Kitzman today

14 Replies

I don’t read the letters to the editor as closely as I used to. OK, to be perfectly honest, I hardly read them at ALL now that I’m not paid to do so, unless someone brings one to my attention.

Today was an exception, though. As my eye ran over the page, something in the last letter jumped out at me. I saw the words, “As a former Democratic candidate for state superintendent of education,” and scanned to the bottom to see the writer’s name was “Carlos W. Gibbons.” Hmmm. I do not know a Carlos W. Gibbons, which made me curious, and I sent out an e-mail to someone who knows stuff I don’t know, and learned that apparently he is a veteran educator who ran for the office in the early 1970s — and the father of Leeza Gibbons of TV fame.

In any case, he was right to advocate that the state superintendent post be appointed by the governor.

But it turns out that, until a few minutes ago, I had missed today’s really interesting letter — the one at the top of the stack. Alert reader “Tim” brought it to my attention moments ago. I’m just going to go ahead and put the whole thing here, and hope I don’t run afoul of Fair Use. Because this was an unusual letter:

Keep ignoring reality, governor

I have known Gov. Haley for many years, and she is one of my five bosses on the Budget and Control Board. If the governor is ignoring reality as Roger Hawkins contends (“Haley can’t continue to ignore realities,” March 3), my advice to her is to keep it up; it has served her well.

Moreover, I’d suggest that others follow her excellent example. Rather than ignoring reality, however, I believe Gov. Haley has wisely rejected the so-called reality that others saw for her as a disadvantaged minority.

There’s never any shortage of people telling you that you can’t do something.

Perhaps more insidious are those who maintain that we need their “help” to overcome adversity because not everyone has the governor’s abilities to plow through the impediments of life or navigate around diversity issues. I couldn’t disagree more and would ask why not.

We may not all become governors, but we can achieve our goals if we stop seeing ourselves as victims.

We must be fearless and willing to work hard, make good choices and, most importantly, never give up in pursuit of a dream. (Don’t even get me started on yet another middle-aged white man explaining how the real world works to an ethnic woman.)

Eleanor Kitzman

Columbia

Now, the thing that was unusual about this may not be immediately apparent to you. But if you had known any of Ms. Kitzman’s predecessors as chief of the Budget and Control Board, you’d know. It’s sort of hard to imagine — actually, impossible to imagine — Frank Fusco, or Fred Carter, writing (or even thinking) words that would be anything like those that Ms. Kitzman put in that letter. Whether you think of them as faceless bureaucrats, or as the very models of professional discretion that they were, it’s difficult to imagine them expressing their views in such a manner.

If you don’t know those guys, and don’t have that background, my reaction to Ms. Kitzman’s letter probably won’t make much sense to you.

Under those guys, the B&C Board (which should not exist at all, but you know that once I get started on that subject I can be all day) was a lot of things, but one thing it was not was a forum for expressing personal sentiments about particular politicians — the governor, or anyone else. There was a reason for that — the director worked for five bosses with five different egos and agendas. What was the point of being too closely identified with any of them?

I mean, forgive me for sounding like “yet another middle-aged white man explaining how the real world works,” but gee whiz, folks… (I thought, as exclamations do, that “gee whiz” sounded appropriately whitebread and old fashioned, didn’t you? I’m trying to play my assigned part as well as I can, and these small touches mean so much.)

The letter was so… emotional. So indignant. So partisan, in the sense of taking one person’s side against another. There are other terms I could use, but you know what? I just keep coming back to emotional — which I suppose will just expose me to, um, passionate condemnation for gender stereotyping, but hey, leave gender out of it (isn’t that what the brutes always say — “leave gender out of it?” the cads…). Think that I’m saying it the way Lee Marvin said it to Robert Ryan, “I owe you an apology, Colonel. I always thought that you were a cold, unimaginative, tight lipped officer. But you’re really … quite emotional. Aren’t you?” (The way I look at it, you can’t get any further away from gender politics than by quoting “The Dirty Dozen.” Am I right or am I right?)

I read something like that, and I think, what possessed her to write that? Yes, she owes her $174,000-a-year position to the governor as a matter of political fact, but why call attention to that in such a dramatic way? Did the governor know she was writing that letter? Does the governor approve of her having written that letter? She certainly didn’t need such a defense; she would have been fine without it.

For my part, I hadn’t even read the piece she was referring to (remember, I’m no longer paid to), but I can bet you I went and read it after seeing that letter. It was… unremarkable, really. Kind of unfocused. Seemed like the writer was trying to make some strong points, but trying to be kind and gentle with it, and swinging back and forth between commending the governor for being a determined “don’t let anything stand in your way” type and admonishing her for engaging in “magical thinking.”

Was the op-ed from this Hawkins fella somehow an example of White Male Oppressor insensitivity? Did he show a lack of appreciation for the governor’s inspiring story of ethnic pluck that we’ve heard so… much… about…? Was he trying to brutally impose on her “the so-called reality that others saw for her as a disadvantaged minority?” Hardly. He had, on his own initiative, shown due deference to the obligatory talking points in that regard. In fact, he went on about it as much as Ms. Kitzman did:

Haley’s success to this point in her life has been built around navigating diversity, not letting it get in her way or positioning herself as just a diversity hire. She was born into Sikhism, an Indian religion that adopts elements from both Hinduism and Islam, and later converted to the Methodist faith.

Haley earned a degree in accounting — a profession dominated by men — and began her career at a waste-management and recycling company. Throughout her formative years, she never interacted with large numbers of people who looked like her. Her political career is also based on being an outsider. She recently told an audience that Sanford told her the state wasn’t ready for a female governor.

OK, wait a minute; here’s the trouble. Seems Mr. Hawkins was, rather than being too indifferent, a bit too CONCERNED about matters of Identity Politics, for he had just said:

What Haley has done that is troubling is appoint nine white men, three white women and one African-American woman to her Cabinet. None of her 16 executive staff members is African-American.

Hey, you know what I think about all that I.D. stuff — if you wanted a “diverse” Cabinet and staff in the superficial demographic sense, you should have elected the White Guy. (And if you ARE someone who cares deeply about such things, you probably DID vote for the White Guy, and Nikki Haley knows that, so quit your bellyaching. Whoops, I’m being insensitive again…) But this guy apparently DID care about it, and said so. And for this, he’s condemned as… what was it again… “yet another middle-aged white man explaining how the real world works….” Yeah, that was it — no wait, I forgot the part about “to an ethnic woman.” Mustn’t leave that off.

Anyway, it just wasn’t the kind of letter I’m used to reading from B&C Board chiefs. This is going to be interesting going forward, folks.

Callista? Wasn’t she that disturbingly skinny chick on TV?

13 Replies

Well, I’m behind the curve again — when Politico posted this:

Callista Gingrich moves to spotlight

The first word from Newt Gingrich at his announcement last week that he would explore a presidential campaign was “Callista.”

Callista Gingrich is, literally, in the foreground of her husband’s new campaign website, over which her beaming blonde visage looms as large as his. The former speaker’s wife co-signs his organization’s e-mails, produces his movies, appears beside him on Fox News, and even reads his work for audio-book adaptations – but she has maintained such a low profile over a decade in their marriage that she remains an enigma even to some of his closest supporters.

She is, ironically, simultaneously the most public and the least known of the political partners bracing for the scrutiny of a presidential campaign. In eleven years of marriage, Callista Gingrich has never been the subject of a profile. Gingrich’s aides declined to make her available to POLITICO for an interview, to talk about her or the marriage on the record or on background, or even to suggest friends who might offer a glimpse of the would-be First Lady….

… I’m like, Callista? Wasn’t she that chick on that TV show I never watched, the one that everyone talked about being so disturbingly thin?

Apparently not.

But who she IS is a matter of some concern, especially since it looks like Newt’s going to be the latest candidate offering us a “twofer” (which, whether it’s Bill and Hillary or Mark and Jenny or whatever, generally tends to make me uncomfortable, seeing as how one of them isn’t actually elected) and so little is known about her.

For instance, is she Wife 3? Or Wife 4? With Newt, you need a scorecard.

Since she is … let me check … as much younger than Newt as my oldest child is than I (was that last bit grammatically correct? hey, don’t ask me to diagram it), she will no doubt invite comparisons to Jeri Thompson (not to be confused with Mick Jagger’s Jeri, for whom he foolishly overthrew Bianca), who as it happens was born the same year. Although I think she actually looks more like Cindy McCain.

OK, that’s more musing than I usually do on candidates’ wives. But I wanted to get something up for running to some meetings, so there…

Harriet Keyserling has died at 88

3 Replies

This sad news suddenly took me by surprise. I just got this from Bud Ferillo a few minutes ago:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Former State Representative Harriet Hirschfeld Keyserling of Beaufort has died at the age of 88.

Harriet Keyserling grew up in New York City, graduated with honors from Barnard College, the women’s college ofColumbia University, majoring in Economics and Mathematics.

During World War II, she married Dr. Herbert Keyserling of Beaufort, SC and spent the next thirty years raising four children and  engaging in community activities, primarily in the field of the arts and social services, in Beaufort.

She  helped organize a Beaufort branch of the League of Women Voters, which led to her running for Beaufort County Council, to which she was elected in 1974, the first woman to serve there.  Two years later she was elected to the SC House of Representatives from House District 124, serving for 16 years.

In the legislature she was involved in many issues, including public education, nuclear waste, energy and the environment, the arts and women’s issues. She waged a successful five year campaign to eliminate filibusters from the House of Representatives. Keyserling served on the House Education Committee, Ways and Means Committee, Rules Committee, and chaired the Joint Committee on Cultural Affairs, the Joint Committee on Energy and the Women’s Caucus.

On the national level she served on the  National Conference of State Legislatures’ Executive Committee, its Task Force on the Arts, and co-chaired the Women Legislators Network.  She also served on an advisory committee on nuclear waste to the  U. S Congress Office of Technology, and on a panel of the National Endowment for the Arts .

After her retirement from public office in 1992, Keyserling served on the Southeast Compact for Low-level Nuclear Waste,  South Carolina Humanities Council, Spoleto Festival USA, S. C. Nature Conservancy and Penn Center.   She was recipient of the SC Arts Commission’s Elizabeth Verner O’Neill Award,  Order of the Palmetto,  Greenville News Legislator of the Year, and honored by the American Civil Liberties Union, the SC Nature Conservancy, SC libraries, SC Women’s Commission and  others.

She wrote a memoir about her experiences in politics,  “Against the Tide: One Woman’s Political Struggle,”  published by the  USC Press.

Keyserling is survived by her four children: Judy, Billy, Beth and Paul Keyserling.

A graveside service will be held on Monday, December 13 at 3:30 p.m. at Beth Israel Synagogue Cemetery in Beaufort. The family will receive friends at the Firehouse, at the corner of Craven and Scott Streets, following the service. Copeland Funeral Home is in charge.

Ms. Keyserling was a great lady who served her state with dedication and distinction. If you’ll recall, I was corresponding with her very recently, as she energetically recruited members for her “Women for Sheheen” movement. I had no idea she wasn’t in the best of health.

South Carolina will miss her.

By the way, sisters: “Women” didn’t go for Haley

13 Replies

Y’all know how fed up I was during the campaign with all the breathless Identity Politics hoopla, especially in the national media, over Nikki Haley being an Indian-American (gasp!) woman (oh, joy! oh, rapture!). I don’t like all that IP stuff in the best of times, but to watch the way it boosted Nikki over the first Lebanese-American Catholic (to use language they would understand) ever to receive a major-party nomination for governor in this state was pretty maddening.

But if I thought that was bad, that was nothing compared to what we’ve been subjected to since last Tuesday. The next “journalist” who says “historic” in reference to what happened last week is going to get slapped upside the head, if I’m within arm’s reach.

I got my fill of it in the WIS studio on election night, as everyone but me went on and on about it. Of course, on live TV, one reaches for whatever one has at hand to have something to say, I suppose. But ever since then, Tom Wolfe’s Victorian Gent has been in full rant, loudly expressing the Appropriate Sentiment — or as Wolfe termed it, “the proper emotion, the seemly sentiment, the fitting moral tone” –over the allegedly monumental event.

OK, so basically, this was a big victory for women, huh? Well, before the sisters get too overjoyed about this, it would be good to note that “women” didn’t elect Nikki Haley. So much for the solidarity of sisterhood.

Mind you, I put “women” in quotation marks for ironic purpose. I’m using it the way Republicans say “America voted Republican,” or “South Carolina preferred Nikki Haley.” The thing is, a SLIGHT majority of women preferred Vincent Sheheen, according to exit polls. And when I say slight, I mean slight: 50 percent to 49 percent. But hey, it would have been enough for him to win if all the men had stayed home. (But I will say that, even though the exit poll didn’t measure this, I’m thinking Nikki won the SC Indian-American vote. I’m just going by the number that was there dancing at her victory party, so my assumption is unscientific.)

To analyze the exit polls further… If I were the sort who cared about Identity Politics — if I thought being of a certain gender or race or whatever mattered — I would start to wonder about myself. Vincent lost in pretty much every demographic group to which I belong. Except two: Ideology (Vincent won among “moderates,” with 63 percent of us) and non-evangelicals.

Which, I suppose, is why I hate talk of Identity Politics. It doesn’t affect the way I vote, and I don’t think it should affect anybody’s.

Restraining myself while voting

12 Replies

The Quail Hollow precinct at 12:09 p.m. Most of these folks had arrived well before noon, so this is not the lunch rush..

Quail Hollow precinct at 12:09 p.m. All of these people had arrived BEFORE noon (newcomers were still outside), so this is not the lunch-hour rush. In fact, weirdly, it sort of slowed down during lunch hour...

First, several quick Tweets I wrote while standing in the queue:

Standing in a moderately long line at Quail Hollow precinct (I’ve seen longer). 400 voters so far. Man who just left said it took an hour…

Close to 500 voters have shown up so far at Quail Hollow at noon. Veteran poll worker says 700 to 800 is the normal total for all day.

Man behind me tells companions, “This right here might be the most important vote we ever cast.” I agree, but don’t dare ask what HE means.

Not good for Sheheen: My precinct is heavily Republican, my daughter’s is strongly Democratic. Big turnout at mine, a trickle at hers.

A suggestion: If you favor Vincent Sheheen, or merely distrust Nikki Haley, now would be a good time to get your lazy behind out and VOTE.

Of course, on those last couple, I could have been making an incorrect assumption: I’ve heard so many Republicans say they can’t bring themselves to vote for Nikki that maybe, just maybe, enough of them will vote for Vincent. Yeah, that’s a big maybe, and perhaps I’ve just been talking to the brighter sort of Republican, the kind who pay attention and think before they vote. You can’t count on everyone, or even a majority, doing that in an election.

For instance, a friend who usually votes Democratic told me the story of her husband — who ALWAYS votes Republican — a few minutes ago. He has planned all year to vote for Nikki. She asked him this morning before he went to the polls and he said yes, he was still going to vote for. My friend, and her mother, both remonstrated with him about it. Later, he texted his wife to say that he had voted for Vincent. Once he got into the booth, he just couldn’t bring himself to help put Nikki in office.

But now that it’s too late to ask, I find myself really wondering what that man meant when he said, “This right here might be the most important vote we ever cast.” I told my friend in the above anecdote that, and she said she couldn’t imagine a Nikki supporter being that eager to vote. Surely, anyone voting for her, ignoring all her startling negatives, is simply grimly doing what he perceives to be his duty to a party. I told her she was mistaken: Tea Party types think they are part of a great, exciting reform movement. And they seem convinced, despite all the contradictions, that she is part of it, too. They really do, near as I can tell. A Tea Partisan planning to vote for Haley would say something like that.

The same gentleman, discussing the constitutional questions on the ballot with the ladies accompanying him, said it was simple — vote “yes” to all. I restrained myself again. One of the ladies said she wasn’t so sure about that hunting and fishing one, and the man said she probably wouldn’t understand, since she doesn’t hunt and fish. I REALLY held myself back at this point, stopping myself from delivering a soliloquy on how we shouldn’t clutter the state constitution with superfluous language, particularly to indulge our personal whims, and how the issue isn’t whether you’re for hunting or fishing, but whether you think it belongs in the constitution… Such a lecture from me at that time would have been most unseemly, since I was about to violate that principle by voting for constitutional language indulging one of my own political attitudes, which I would normally be dead set against doing. So it’s doubly good that I said nothing.

But the greatest test of my discretion came when I finally got to the booth itself. (Or whatever you call those things, more like a TV table with blinders. A “half-booth,” perhaps.)

It was awkward to step up to the booth at all, because the lady at the one next to me was for some reason standing backed up away and toward me rather than squaring up to her own booth. I could hardly get to mine without brushing against her back. The reason for this became apparent as a poll worker came up to help her with some sort of trouble she was having.

From that point on, I had to struggle to concentrate on my own voting because of the intense scene being played out right at my elbow. At first, I didn’t notice what was said, until the lady bristled, “I don’t appreciate you speaking to me that way! You have no business doing that…”

YOU try not listening to something after hearing that, especially coming from someone you’re practically touching. I mean, I’m a gentleman and all that, but…

BEING a gentleman, I scrupulously didn’t look that way, but I recognized the voice of the poll worker as that of a woman I’ve known for decades. She was using a perfectly professional, calm tone, but she made the mistake of urging the voter to be calm, which really set her off. She was apparently embarrassed at needing help, and extremely sensitive as a result.

At least once more, she demanded that the worker stop “speaking to me that way.” But eventually, she did calm down somewhat, and said that she only cared about voting for two people, and they were both Republicans, so it was probably fine. The worker insisted that it was NOT fine for her to vote a straight Republican ticket if she had not intended to. (God Bless that poll worker! If only it were illegal to surrender your thinking to a party! If only it were not the first choice offered!) They went back and forth on this, with the embarrassed voter wanting it to be over with, and the worker insisting that it was important that her preferences, and only her preferences, be accurately tallied, and that they could fix this…

I don’t know how it came out. But it was hard not to intervene and say “Listen to the poll worker, lady!” But a gentleman doesn’t intervene in, or take any notice at all of, an unseemly disagreement between ladies. Unless it comes of course to fisticuffs, in which case he turns to the other gentlemen present and places wagers…

Imagine a smiley face at the end there…

How Nikki Haley charmed me

24 Replies

That was my compromise headline, by the way. My first thought was “How Nikki Haley seduced me,” and boy, that would have driven my traffic up and helped me sell some ads. It would have been a perfectly fine use of figurative language. But I decided against it. I’m not THAT anxious to sell ads (if I were, I’d spend some time on the phone selling, and you’d see more of them). Then I thought of, “How Nikki Haley fooled me,” but that would have been TOO prosaic. So I went with the compromise.

And what it means is this: Folks, I know how attractive (as a candidate, I mean) Nikki Haley can be. I mean, she had me at “I’m running against Larry Koon” way back in 2002, and she totally pulled me into her orbit when she told me of how his redneck supporters were attacking her ethnicity, causing me to write an impassioned defense of her and condemnation of them. (I have this atavistic impulse toward knight errantry. It’s what causes me to have a notion that the United States should ride about the world slaying ogres in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Bosnia and the like. And if I can actually, literally defend a lady in distress — well, all the better.)

Being on Nikki’s side made us feel good about ourselves. She came across as an absolute paragon of political virtue taking on the entrenched interests, and she did it well. At the time, we didn’t know that as she was advocating “running government like a business,” she was failing to pay taxes on time for the business for which she was the accountant. We didn’t know she was parlaying her support of Lexington Medical Center getting an open-heart center into a $110,000-a-year job that didn’t require her to show up.

And most of all, we did not know that she — who chaired a subcommittee charged with coming up with regulations for the payday lending industry — would tap that industry for contributions to her employer’s cause.

Now that I do know those things, I’ve thought back a number of times to the portion of my last extended interview with her when she spoke of how she was stymied by her leadership and prevented from passing meaningful reform of payday lending. You will hear her speak knowledgeably and energetically about how her committee carefully researched the issue and came up with a bill she was proud of (one that would regulate, not eliminate, such lenders), only to see it cavalierly deep-sixed by her leadership.

It was, in retrospect, quite a performance, and I believed in it entirely. I believe in it now as I watch it. You probably will, too. Look at her face as I ask her to clarify — was it Harry Cato who killed your bill. Yes, she nods, with wide eyes, evincing reluctance at seeming to tell tales, then smiling winningly.

The thing is, it’s so convincing that I still believe that she was sincere. I mean, look at her. But that sincere young woman who spoke of how much she was learning as a novice legislator has been very little in evidence since she found “the power of her voice” as a Sarah-Palin-style demagogue who despises experience and nuance, and speaks almost entirely in bumper stickers.

The Nikki Haley on the video was … smarter than the one we hear today. And more believable. She was almost… wonkish. Definitely our kind of gal, the sort we’d be sure to have an editorial crush on.

And I still marvel over how she’s changed.

Bottom line… I have a lot of experience observing Nikki Haley. So when I tell people who just recently discovered her that she isn’t all that she seems, and that it would be a bad idea to elect her to higher office, my assessment has very deep roots. It took me a LONG time to realize just how problematic Nikki Haley was. And voters just haven’t had enough time with her. It’s like being a pilot — I’ve got a couple of thousand hours with this particular aircraft, and it’s hard to explain all that I’ve learned about her idiosyncracies to anyone who’s had less than a hundred.

Which is why I wish Election Day were a little farther off. Eventually, I believe everybody will see all the sides of Nikki Haley. But after Tuesday, it will be too late to help our state.

The moment when Nikki Haley peaked

12 Replies

A number of times recently when I’m being interviewed — informally at a cocktail reception, or formally on radio or the tube — I make reference to the fact that Nikki Haley peaked on May 14, 2010. I was there; I saw it.

It was the Friday evening when Sarah Palin came to call.

It was also the moment, three-plus weeks out, when it first became evident to me that she was going to win the primary.

I don’t think I wrote about that particular epiphany at the time. Instead, I wrote about how disturbingly alienated I felt at that Tea Party event. There was something really unpleasant going on, something different from the usual obnoxious nonsense one hears at political gatherings — that is to say, something that was obnoxious in a different way — and I felt compelled to analyze it. Nikki’s political fortunes weren’t so much on my mind at the moment, although I did remark on the startling change in her:

A little over a year ago, Nikki Haley was just an idealistic sophomore legislator who was touchingly frustrated that her seniors in her party didn’t roll over and do what she wanted them to do when she wanted them to do it. It didn’t really worry me when I would try to explain to her how inadequate such bumper sticker nostrums as “run government like a business” were (based in a lack of understanding of the essential natures not only of government, but of business, the thing she professes to know so well), and she would shake her head and smile and be unmoved. That was OK. Time and experience would take care of that, I thought. She was very young, and had experienced little. Understanding would come, and I felt that on the whole she was still a young lawmaker with potential.

I reckoned without this — this impatient, populist, drive for power BASED in the appeal of simplistic, demagogic opposition to experience itself. It’s an ugly thing, this sort of anti-intellectualism of which Sarah Palin has become a national symbol. This attitude that causes her to smile a condescending, confident smile (after all, the crowd there is on HER side) at protesters — protesters I didn’t even notice until she called attention to them — and tell them that they should stick around and maybe they would learn something. If a 65-year-old male intellectual with a distinguished public career said that to a crowd, everyone would understand it was ugly and contemptuous. But Sarah is so charming about it, so disarming! How could it be ugly?

Whenever I had met with her in the past, she had been so … demure. She was the idealistic young lady who was just deeply shocked that those mean old men at the State House didn’t understand that she was trying to do the right thing and that they should just be gentlemen and help her do it…

Which perhaps was her reading of what I wanted her to be, so she played that part. But I had thought it was real. And we endorsed her — twice.

Anyway, I didn’t write “Nikki’s going to win this thing” at the time, but it was on my mind. One reason I didn’t come out and SAY it, I guess, was that, well, that was Brad the INTP at his most intuitive. It would have driven the engineer types like Doug nuts, and when they demanded the geometric proof, I would come up a little short on evidence.

But personally, I had sort of learned over the years to trust that impression. I first experienced it covering my first statewide race, in 1978 in Tennessee. All the experienced reporters at the big papers were saying the race between Lamar Alexander and Jake Butcher was too close to call. But I had been closely covering both of them — I had spent a full week with each, sometimes 20 hours a day, riding in the cars and campaign planes with them, eating with them, standing right next to them when they interacted with voters, being right there in their good moments and their bad… (We used to do that sort of thing in the old days. It was called “covering an election.” News organizations don’t spend that kind of money any more, and campaigns don’t allow that kind of access to candidates. Now, most people follow the “Nixon in ’68” approach. That’s why the media loved John McCain — he let the walls down.) Anyway, I had seen in Alexander a candidate who was winning, and in Butcher a furtive, uncomfortable guy who couldn’t possibly be winning.

It was a look in the eye, a note in the voice, a certain energy.

And it turned out I was right.

Anyway, Nikki had that on May 14. Just watch and see if you see it. Sure, there were rough spots — such as the Freudian-sounding slip when she says “You know, I’ve spent the last six years trying to get people to understand the power of my voice,” then hastily corrects, “the power of their voice” — but on the whole, you’re looking at a candidate who is in the zone.

When you watch this, you will hear most of the things you’ve now grown tired of hearing her repeat. Only back then it had a freshness, magnified both by her confidence and the uncritical cheers of the crowd — a crowd that did not and never would challenge her self-shaped myth of the great businesswoman who had much to teach government as she chastised it.

Nikki defenders will say, “She’s still GOT that energy, and you’ll see next Tuesday.” But no, not really. That was her peak, back then. The only question since then has been the rate at which the air would run out of that balloon. She was flying so high then, the issue ever since has been how much altitude she could afford to lose by Election Day. She’s been losing air all along; her bumper-sticker sound clips have seemed a bit staler, a bit more brittle, with each repetition. (You’ll note some really sharp ironies, such as when she calls for income disclosure for legislators, or talks about what a great accountant she is…)

Right now, it looks as though she has enough altitude left to make it through Tuesday — although for all the many reasons cited on this blog the eventual crash is inevitable. (What worries me, as I wrote back here, is that the crash will come in early 2011 instead of before Election Day, leaving us with 3-plus years of a lame-duck governor, when SC needs so much more.)

But whatever happens Tuesday, this was the day on which she was flying the highest.

Burn, Baby, Burn

16 Replies

The things you miss when you leave town a couple of days:

She also drew a comparison between working with lawmakers and raising children.

“That’s what it’s all about — letting them know what would happen,” she said, adding most lawmakers, like kids, will do the right thing if the consequences are clear. “If they mess up, I will burn them.” [Emphasis mine.]

Remember what I said about how Nikki, being female and petite and couching things as a “Mom,” gets away with saying things that coming from a man would sound incredibly presumptuous, megalomaniacal and bullying? This is another of those things…

She’s trying to sound fair and reasonable, but the rabble-rousing, storm-the-Bastille rhetoric that won the hearts of the Tea Party keeps coming out…

Mrs. William Michael Haley, and all the ladies of the House

18 Replies

Just noticed something on the S.C. legislative website. On the page with links to House members’ bios, there is an interesting difference in the way distaff members are listed:

Jeff D. Duncan

Tracy R. Edge

Shannon S. Erickson (Mrs. Kendall F.)

P. Michael “Mike” Forrester

Marion B. Frye

Laurie Slade Funderburk (Mrs. Harold Williams)

Michael W. “Mike” Gambrell

Wendell G. Gilliard

Jerry N. Govan, Jr.

Anton J. Gunn

Nikki Randhawa Haley (Mrs. William Michael)

Daniel P. “Dan” Hamilton

Nelson L. Hardwick

I never noticed that before, and I wonder why. Is it because they didn’t DO it that way before, or because I just never looked up any female members, or I just wasn’t being observant?

Anyway, it jumped out at me just now, when I went to try to answer the question raised by a reader back here (but I did not find the answer).

I wonder what y’all think of it.

Me, I like it. I think it’s genteel. But then, I would have been at home in the England that Patrick O’Brian and Jane Austen wrote about, when ladies were ladies and gentlemen were gentlemen. As long as I got to be a gentleman. (I think if I took an aptitude test that tested for all occupations throughout history, I would test as perfectly suited to being an English gentleman who did nothing but ride to the hounds and collect his rents — that is, let his man of business collect them for him, of course. I feel it in my bones. And you know what? In that whole year I was looking, I never saw a job like that.)

At lunch today, when I said something about how Vincent Sheheen has to be careful not to seem to be TOO aggressive with Nikki Haley, my ADCO colleague Lora Prill gently suggested that my sensibility with regard to matters of chivalry is a relic of a bygone era, which means of course that I’m way old. Which I’m not; I’m just quixotic.

At any rate, say what else you may say about it, it’s very South Carolina.

That’s not MY Christina…

3 Replies

Kathryn probably thought she was doing me a favor sending me this link to a piece about a Christina Hendricks photo shoot. But I was disappointed. She’s way more attractive on “Mad Men,” and most attractive of all back on “Firefly” (see below). In this shoot, they made her look way artificial, almost like there’s a plastic coating covering her from head to toe. Nevertheless, Christina herself seems proud of it, because they got it from her site.

Whereas I want to see the real Joan. I mean, Saffron. I mean, Brigid. I mean, Yolanda. I mean, of course, Christina.

No wonder The Washington Post dumped Newsweek

27 Replies

When Newsweek first put Sarah Palin (I mean, Nikki Haley — I know the difference, but the superficial, pandering twits editing Newsweek apparently don’t) on its cover, I wrote about how Vincent Sheheen faces a problem that no other candidate for governor of South Carolina had ever faced — an opponent who gets vast amounts of free national media coverage. It’s a disadvantage that no candidate can raise enough money for paid media to overcome. It distorts everything. (See “The Newsweek endorsement of Nikki Haley,” July 6.) I wrote:

Oh, you say it’s not an endorsement? Don’t bore me with semantics. As I said, the national media — not giving a damn one way or the other about South Carolina, or about who Nikki Haley really is or what she would do in office — is enraptured at the idea that South Carolina will elect a female Indian-American (Bobby Jindal in a skirt, they think, fairly hugging themselves with enthusiasm), which just may be the most extreme example of Identity Politics Gone Mad that I’ve seen.

I told you we would have to expect this. And this is just the beginning…

Hey, am I a prophet or what? Now, in their slavish devotion to all things Sarah (and Sarah surrogates are almost as good, especially if you can create a collage of them WITH Sarah), Newsweek has done it again.

And do they have any serious, substantive reason to do this? Of course not. The putative reason for putting Nikki’s smiling mug on the cover again is to discuss the burning issue of “mama grizzlies.” I am not making this up.

Of course, if you turn inside to one of the few remaining pages in this pamplet — right in there next to the scholarly treatise on “Men Look at Women’s Bodies: Is Evolution at Work?” — you can find some home truths about Nikki. Such as:

Haley, who has two children but has never referred to herself as a grizzly [so why the freak did you put her on this stupid cover? never mind; I realize there’s no rational answer, beyond maybe that you had a picture of her in red], is just the sort of pro–business, low-tax, limited–government conservative Palin loves. Her platform is focused mostly on economic issues: creating jobs and unleashing entrepreneurial energy by slashing taxes. She holds herself out as a paragon of fiscal responsibility (never mind that she and her husband have failed to pay their taxes on time in each of the past five years).

But I must ask you: How many of the undecided voters who might be gullible enough to be razzle-dazzled into voting for Nikki do you think will read that far into the piece? Just being on this cover is all Nikki could possibly ever want or need from Newsweek.

Folks, I gotta tell ya — I never thought a whole lot of Newsweek. Back in the day when I was even in the market for such a publication, I always read TIME — and I haven’t done that in 30 years. Whatever value that format had ceased to be anything you could take seriously so, so long ago. Those publications became pretty much everything I disdain about TV “news.”

Recently, The Washington Post apparently decided the same, selling the mag to a guy who made his fortune selling stereos. And as The Wall Street Journal observed:

Since he agreed to purchase the magazine from Washington Post Co. earlier this month, pundits have called Mr. Harman’s motives—and sanity—into question. He took on more than $50 million in liabilities and agreed to keep most of Newsweek‘s employees—all for a magazine on track to lose at least $20 million this year, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Good luck with that, pal.

My advice to you readers? You want to read news in a magazine format? Go with The Economist. That is still a serious source of news and commentary. Interestingly, it calls itself a “newspaper,” in spite of its format. It’s certainly better than all but a handful of newspapers on this side of the pond. Yet another reason to love The Economist — so far, no Nikki Haley covers (that I’ve seen, anyway).

500 or so Women for Sheheen

18 Replies

A month or so ago, Phil Bailey brought my attention to the fact that former Rep. Harriet Keyserling was trying to counter all the “first woman” buzz that Nikki Haley had by putting together a bipartisan “Women for Sheheen” committee.

As y’all know, it’s hard for me to identify with people who actively want to see someone of a particular gender, or race, or whatever, elected. To me, every candidate should be evaluated on the basis of his or her suitability without reference to such considerations. But I know lots of women across the political spectrum — women of good will — who do care about such things. They actually deeply identify with other women, something that is unimaginable for me (personally, I get no charge one way or the other from the successes or failures of other white guys qua white guys), but I have to acknowledge that they seem to be sincere about it.

So when Harriet sent me a letter on behalf of 100 women, I was interested — but I wanted to see the list of women. She said wait a bit, and she’d be able to give me a list — a much longer one.

So I waited. And now I have this:

Dear Friends:

Well, here it is. Not the 100 signers I hoped for, but over 500 from all across the state. And what a wonderful mix these women are: stay-at-home-moms, doctors, lawyers, ministers, artists, realtors, executives ,teachers, college professors, democrats, independents and Republicans.

I hope you will look over the list, find some friends from your town, then together find a way to spread the word. Talk to your newspaper editors, have a press conference, write letters, sign up others. Soon. Time is fleeting. To refresh your memory, I ‘ve attached my original letter. We have also created a website “Women for Sheheen” and solicit your input.

For further information, go to “Women for Sheheen” on Facebook to which 600 people have signed on. It was startedby Madeleine McGee who organized, in Charleston, a 90 women paying $90 to sponsor a Sheheen fundraiser in appreciation of his support of women, and in honor of the 90th anniversary of the women’s vote. 296 people attended and they raised $20,000. I hear women in other cities are planning similar events. Click here for the original letter.

Madeleine McGee* Kit Smith* Sally Huguley* Mary (Rab)Fleming Finlay* Page Miller*Susan Hilfer*Catherine Ceips* Patty Robinson*Leah Greenberg*Juliana W Weeks*Terri Hartley*Dr Catherine Anne Walsh*Ann Pincelli*Abbot Land Carnes*H Murchison*Catherine Rogers*Robin Copp*Jenny Rizo-Patron*Linda Ott*Jean Lindsey*Mary Ann McDow*Regina Carmel*Kate Bullard Adams*Eleanor Welling*Saundra Carr*Nancy Sargent*Virginia Nelson*Wilhemina Rhoe*Elizabeth Harris*Alice DuPre Jones*Judy Lineback* Lynn Teaque*Fay Brown*Katrina Sprott Riley*Shayna Hollander*JoAngela Edwins* Sara Castillo*Teri Hutson Salane*Suzanne Rhodes*Caroline Vreede*Anne Harmon*Jane Riley*Sandy Linning*Pat Symons*Barbara Lewis*Lolita Watson*Dr.Sissy Kinghorn*Julie Lonon*Gail Richardson*Sidney Thompson*Liz Wheeler*Lucy Waddell*Anne Beazley*Sally Powell*Claudia McCollough*Eleanor Hare*Lynn Robertson*Lenora K White*Cherie Mabrey*Dr Anne Osborne Kilpatrick*Barb Barham* Cary Lafaye*Carol Fishman*Lynn Baskin*Stacie Vulpen* Karen Hardy*Anne Wynn Johnson*Eleanor K Whitehead*Frances Mabry* Judy Kalb*Margit Resch*Katherine Nevin*Greta Little*Carol Ward*Jerue Richard*Laura Von Harten*Laura Williams*Cathy Tillman* Mariellen Schwentker*Caroline S Voight*Linda Hollandsworth*Beth Moon*Cathy Wilson*Elaine Nocks*Ann Timberlake*Sally Howard*Patricia Battey* Nancy Vinson*Carol Lucas*Kay Hanks*Dr. Paula Orr* Cathy Battle*Patti Knight Hilton*Johnnie Fulton*Doris Wilson*Priscilla Hagins*Joan Fensterstock*Barbara Burgess*Holley H Ulbrich*Dot Tunstall*Marion MacNeish*Amaryllis Duvall*Mary Noonan*Kelly Wilson*Beebe James*Caroline Rice*Joan Tumpson*Margaret Bell Hane*Lowndes Macdonald*Rev Elizabeth Wooldridge*Paula Jane Goldman* Karen Jamrose*Pam McAlpine* Geraldine Ingersoll*Judy Beazley*Katherine Hopkins*Loretta Warden*Caroline Jenkins*Barbara W Elow*Sandra O’Neal*Betts Bailey*Judith Waring*Virginia Koontz*Gail Touger*Mimi Wyche*Abbot L Carnes*Angela Viney*Marjorie Trifon*JeanneLove Ferguson*Billie Houghton*Pat Manix*Ellen Kochansky*Jan Collins*Kate L Landishaw*Heather Jarvis*Beatrice Bailey*Lesesne Hudson*Anne Knight Watson*Bert Bob*Evelyn Byatt*BettyJo Carson*Sue Olson*Barb Smith*Cary LaFaye*Julia Forster*Rev Joyce Cantrell*Carol Ervin*Barbara Young*Beverly J Hiller*Jo Ann Walker*Sally Knowles*Cynthia Bolter*Jane Smith Davis*Joy Pinson*Nancy Lewis Tuten*Hillary J McDonald*Lenora Price*NJ Nettles*Nancy Stockton*Martha D Greenway*Eileen Barrett*Anne B Macaluso*Grace Gifford*Katya Cohen*Kathy Belknap*Mary Bernsdorff*Libby Elbe*Catherine Malloy*Claudette Humphrey*Marjorie Spruill*Francie Markham*Krista Collins*Linda Gallicchio*Jane Freeman*Maittese Jasper*Betty Humphreys*Keller H Baron*Linda Combs*Carol Pappas*Ann Funderburk*Kay McCoy*Jill Halevi*Stephanie Hunt*Marguerite Archie-Hudson*Mimi Kinard*Edith T Chou*Heather McCalman*Dr Penny Travis*Barbara Scott*Courtney McDowell*Cathy Bennington Jenrette*Cassie Premo Steele*Lilla Folsom*Susan Gregory*Andrea Stoney*Patricia Maners*Amy Kinard*Judy Speights*Barbara Jackson*Judy Ingle*Carole Parrish-Loy*Tidal Trails*Kelly Draganov*Kay McCoy*Susan Shaffer*Elizabeth Sinkler*Gail Siegel Messerman*Liz J Patterson*Ellen S Steinberg*Gail Morrison*Karen Volquardsen*Maittese Lecque*Diane Fox*Linda York*Phyllis Miller Mayes*Fran Marscher*Holly Hook*Kristen Marshall Mattson*Polly Player*Linda K Combs*Giselle Wrenn*Ellen Reed*Linda Kapsil*Marie Meglen*Vida Miller*Pam Taub*Frances D Finney*Janet Marsh*Rubye Johnson*Jo White*Patrice Brown*Virginia Lacy*Sally Mitchell*Catherine Hammond*Diane Smock*Dallas Shealy*Patricia Berne Mizell*Harriet D Hancock*JanetDow Bailey*Josephyne Spruill*Elizabeth Hills*Holly Massey*Frances Heyward Gibbes*Kathy Folsom*Flo Rosse*Elizabeth Drewry*Katherine K Hines*Regina Moody*Marisa Sherard*Krista Ryba*Page Rogers*Elena Martinez-Vidal*Linda Gallicio*Catherine McCullough*Mary Louise Mims*Jill John*Kathy Belknap*Colleen Condon*Mary Jane Hassell*Natalie Kaufman*Dale Rosengarten*Amanda Payne*Della Jo Marshall*Marquerite Willis*Barbara Banus*Mateja Johnson*Clay Swaggart*Barbara Connelly*Sally Boyd*Margaret Feagin*Cappi Wilborn*Gayle Douglas*Mindy Johnson Saintsing*Ann Cotton*Audrey Shifflett*Gayle Douglas*Sylvia Echols*Helen Hicks*Allianne Duvall*Sally Boyd*Ann Stirling*Sheila Bickford*Rebecca Dobrasko*Becky Carr*Julie Tait*Diane Jerve*Alice Craighead*Norma Thompson*Betsey Grund*Eve Stacey*Pattie Robinson*Susan Pearlstine*Sandy Brooks Carr*Tina Forsthoefel*Linda Tarr-Whelan*Annie M Terry*Carol Dotterer*Kay K Chitty*Heather Ford*Terry Hussey*Cheryl Lopanik Paschal*Martha Boynton*Rebecca Thompson*Natalie Dupree*Marsha Millar*Lucie Eggleston*Sue Inman*Dana Gencarelli*Libby Law*Diane Salane*Diane DeAngelis*Keller Cushing Freeman*Louise Bevan*Lucy Griffith*Mollie Fair*Dorothy Mungo* Dr J Kay Keels*Ellen Jean Capalbo*Ellen Graber Sinderman*Helen B Hicks*Lynn Nordenberg* Susan Biteyward*Helen H Farmer* Mary Sue McDaniel*Grace Dennis*Ellen Read*Sarah Smith Graham*Lauren Michalski*Cheri Crowley*Bailey Symington*Elaine Camp*Suzanne Galloway*Paula Gibbs*Jamee Haley*Gloria Douglass*Joanne Harper*Sheila Wertimer*Nancy Gilley*Kathryn Symington*Nan Johnson*Sandie Merriam*Rev Karin Bascom Culp*Evin Evans*Phyllis Martin*June Lee*Jenny Rone*Joyce Kaufman*Cynthia Gilliam*Stephanie Edwards*Libby Bernandin*Elise Evans*Alicia Mendicino*Sallie Duell*Susan Breslin*Lori Christopher Glenn*Susan Mathis*Mary Rose Randall *Betty Commanday*Diane Smith*Bonnie Gruetzmacher*Lucy Gordon*Karen Jones*Lucy Rollin*Susie Glenn*Karen Durand*Eleanor Evans*Toni White*Joyce Trogden*Drucilla Brookshire*Cynthia Smith*Brooke Caldwell*Sue Graber*Jean Denman*Polly Dunford*Diane Salane*Rheta Geddings DiNovo*Julie Dingle Swanson*Dot Gnann*Martha Hatfield*Melissa Herring*Laura Keenan*Mitzi Ganelin*Bonnie Smith*Sally Hare*Mary Rogers*Anna Griswold*Carolyn Means*Mary Hipp*Elaine Epstein*Beverly Guerre*Judi Murphy*Mimi Greenberger*Kathy Handel*Mary Ann Burgeson*Carlanna Hendrick*Barbara Kelley*Roxanne Cheney*Helena Fox*Janneke Vreede-Schaay*Gloria Bell*Valerie Bunch Hollinger*Toni White*Virginia Rone*Lynn Hanson*Nancy Jarema*Ann B Smith*Kate Heald*Jennifer Philips*Harriet Smartt*Diane S. Hirsch*Francee Levin*Susan Mathis*Cary Caines*Cam Patterson*Maria Kendall*Carol Plexico*Catherine Hammond*Lynne Ravenel*Stephanie Billioux*Jeanne Garane*Patricia Battey*Susan Hester*Carolyn Bishop-McLeod*Dr. Anne Osborne Kilpatrick*Michelle Shain*Olga Caballero*Cindi Boiter*Vickie Eslinger*Mary Elizabeth Blanchard*Chris Kenney*Helen LaFitte*Susan Shirley*Susan Hogue*Margaret Willis*Nancy Bloodgood*Glenda Owens*Jane Morlan*Nancy Tuten* Barbara Pinkerton*Lisa Rentz*Cassandra Fralix*Cecelia Byers*Patricia Barnes*Valerie Hollinger*Beverly McClanahan*Monica Boucher-Romano*Barbara Bettini*Anne Arrington*Sej Harman*Barbara James*Barbara Kelly*Barbara Burgess*Aleksandra Cahuhan*Liz Key*Coleen H Yates*Beth W Moore*Bee K Brown* Mary Burkett*Barbara Young*Beverly Hiller*Charlene Gardner* Renate Moore*Pamela Meadows*Mary Bundrick*Bootsie Terry*Gwendolyn Brown*Wanda Meade*Mary Bryan*Marian Brilliant*Brooke A McMurray*Katherine Brown*Susu Ravenel*Patricia Agner*Catherine McCullough*Amanda McNulty*Nancy Cave*Ashley Brown*Wendy Brown*Cary LaFaye*Laura Gates*Joan Rubenstein*Janet Swigler*Evadna Kronquist*Kathy McLeod*Louise A Allen*Joan McGee*Marsha Beazley*Margaret Glover Bruce*Virginia S Moe*Meg McLean*Lucinda Shirley*Grace Rice*Lil Mood*Andrena Ray*Teresa Bruce*Terry Murray*Elaine Fredendall*Cornelia McGhee*Betsey Carter*Edna Anderson*Jane Frederick*Sidney Heyward*Ann Dibble*Dottie Ashley*Carol Ervin*Jane McGee-Davis*Liz Carroll*JoAnne Liles*Martha Bryan*Carole Moore*Kathryn Rhyne*Audrey Shifflett*Marilyn Summers*Mimi McNeish*Kay F. Bodenheimer*Susan T. Julavits, Shirley Henderson* Helen H. Farmer*Dr. Alice McGill*Ethel Sims*Dr. Joann B. Morton*Cynthia Rosengren*Cynthia Setnicka*Linda G Sosbee*Betty Huntley*Bernadette Scott*Bonnie Dumas*Beth-Keyserling Kramer*Marilyn Shaw*Dr. Julia Lipovsky*Eva Dior*Cynthia B Carpenter*Sharon Smith-Matthews*Russell Holliday*Rachel Hodges*Eleanor Spicer*Barbara Warley*Catherine Campbell*Ellie Setser*Jennifer Parker*Connie McKeown*Marianne Currie*Francis Allison Close*Anne Springs Close*Caren Ross*Anne Frances Bleecker*Marianne Currie

Yep, there are a lot of Democrats on that list. But there are some Republicans, too. And some who might be nonpartisan like me, and those are the ones I care most about. After all, we independents are the ones who decide general elections. And independent women would seem to be more susceptible to the “let’s elect a woman!” mania that would lead the Identity Politics-oriented to disregard qualifications and vote for Nikki.

But I have to say that while it’s great that Harriet has gone to the considerable trouble of recruiting this list, I’m not sure how indicative it is of Sheheen’s strength.

Harriet is like me in this respect: Her list of acquaintances, and the acquaintances of her acquaintances, are likely to be highly engaged voters, whatever their political orientation. If only people who are highly knowledgeable about these two candidates voted, of course Sheheen would win in a walk. The more anyone knows about Nikki and Vincent, the less inclined one is to take a chance on Nikki.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of voters are not that engaged. They are more likely to vote according to party (and this is Republicans’ year), or on some fleeting glimpse of mass media (and Nikki was on the cover of Newsweek).

So it’s great that these 500 or 600 women are backing Vincent. But he needs many, many times that. And most of the ones he needs are hard to reach, by any means. The latest Rasmussen poll showed us that they just aren’t paying attention.

By the way, here is Harriet’s original letter:

Subject: Letter from former State Rep. Harriet Keyserling

Women Supporting Vincent Sheheen for Governor

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

I’m writing on behalf of a bi-partisan group of women who have long
hoped to see a qualified woman governor of South Carolina. Alas,
Nikki Haley is not that woman.

We support Vincent Sheheen for governor. He will lead us responsibly
to improved educational achievement, protection of our natural
resources and more and better jobs.

1. PRIORITIES:

How legislators vote best demonstrates their priorities. We are
alarmed that Haley voted to sustain Governor Mark Sanford’s budget
vetoes, which, if passed, wouldhave irreparably harmed the very
agencies South Carolina needs to attract new industries and provide a
future for our children.

Haley was one of the few legislators who voted for Sanford’s budget vetoes
on:

• K-12 Education – Extensive funding cuts to textbooks, buses, and
the prestigious Schools for Math and Science, and Arts and Humanities.
• Higher Education – Across-the-board cuts for all universities, which
already had less state support and higher tuitions than any other
Southern state; ending Clemson’s extension programs for farmers and
gardeners.
• Cultural Agencies – Crippling cuts to the State Museum; the State
Library, which services local libraries; the State Arts Commission,
which supplies grants for arts in our schools and local programs; ETV;
and the Department of Archives and History, which preserves our
historical records.
• Health Services – Severe cuts to state services for diabetes,
hypertension, infectious diseases, rural hospitals and community
health programs.

Haley abstained from voting on other vetoes her colleagues overrode
almost unanimously: Technical Education (106-0), Ethics Commission
(102-2)), Airports, (105-1) and Aid to County Governments, (97-9).

In contrast, Vincent Sheheen voted against these vetoes; the budget
sent to the Governor by the legislature was balanced, the money was in
hand, no taxes were raised. If Sanford and Haley had prevailed,
unemployment would have increased by thousands, and the infrastructure
for education, the economy and the humanities would have been weakened
for years to come.

2. INEFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

• In Haley’s six years in the House, she sponsored only one bill that
passed (relating to cosmetology).
• Haley chose confrontation to pursue her primary campaign issue of
transparency in government. Rather than reaching for compromise, Haley
traveled statewidewith Governor Sanford, campaigning against leaders
in her own party, garnering publicity for her own campaign. This kind
of leadership style would continue the present gridlock and stagnation
for years to come.

Haley was removed by the Republican leadership from the powerful
Labor, Commerce and Industry Committees, which she had hoped to chair,
because of these issues and more.

In contrast, Sheheen has led bi-partisan reforms, including tax reform
and restructuring state government for more efficiency. Sheheen also
led the successful floor fight for the Conservation Bank. The South
Carolina Chamber of Commerce endorsed him, noting his ability to work
with others, as did the Conservation Voters of South Carolina for his
outstanding environmental record.

3. STAND ON PUBLIC EDUCATION

• Haley did not attend one meeting or subcommittee meeting in 2010 as
a member of the Education Committee, where policy is molded,
indicating her disinterest in our public schools and colleges.
• Haley vigorously supports vouchers and tax credits for private schools.

In contrast, Sheheen strongly supports public education following the
tradition of his mother, a teacher in the public schools for 30 years.
He strongly opposes diverting public funds to vouchers for private
schools.

4. HYPOCRISY

• Haley calls for transparency with mandatory roll call votes, but
personally avoids it. According to Sen. Larry Martin (R.), Chairman
of the Senate Rules Committee (The State, June 24), Haley could easily
have asked for roll call votes on any sections of the budget, but she
did not.
• Haley would not release her e-mails, although every other government
official, including the governor, must legally do so if requested.
Although the Legislature exempted itself from the law, there is no
reason Haleycould not do so if she wished.
• Haley did not declare on her legislative ethics statement the
$40,500 consulting fee that was paid to her by a private company to
“make contacts” for them.

In contrast, Sheheen has released ten years of tax records and his
e-mails.

For all these reasons, we support Sheheen. We hope to have 100 women
sign on to this message, which we will spread across the state before
Election Day by Internet and in the media. We hope you will be one of
them.

Please forward this to five or more friends.

Thank you,

Harriet Keyserling

The real Don Draper (Draper Daniels, who called himself “Dan”)

4 Replies

Draper "Dan" Daniels and Myra Janco in 1965.

As the fourth season of “Mad Men” unfolds, fans wonder:

Will Don Draper get it together, or continue to unravel?
Will Peggy or Joan just get fed up to the point that she slaps every man on the show upside the head in a vain attempt to inject some sense into them?
Will Betty and her new husband just be written out of the show? Please?
Now that it’s 1964, will the show work with a post-Beatles sound track, or will the whole martinis-and-skinny ties mystique evaporate? (Hearing “Satisfaction” in the background the other night really made ol’ Don seem more anachronistic than usual, which I suppose was the point. Although I suppose the “can’t be a man cause he doesn’t smoke/the same cigarettes as me” part was apropos.)
Is Don Draper actually modeled on real-life Mad Man Brad Warthen?

On that last one, to end your suspense, the answer is no: The uncanny physical resemblance is merely coincidental.

In fact, we have learned who the real-life model was: Draper Daniels, who called himself Dan (… were in the next room at the hoedown… Sorry; I can’t resist a good song cue). His widow wrote a fascinating piece about him, and about their relationship, in Chicago magazine. You should read the whole thing, headlined “I Married a Mad Man” — as my wife said, it’s an “awesome” story — but here’s an excerpt:

In the 1960s, Draper Daniels was something of a legendary character in American advertising. As the creative head of Leo Burnett in Chicago in the 1950s, he had fathered the Marlboro Man campaign, among others, and become known as one of the top idea men in the business. He was also a bit of a maverick.

Matthew Weiner, the producer of the television show Mad Men (and previously producer and writer for The Sopranos), acknowledged that he based his protagonist Don Draper in part on Draper Daniels, whom he called “one of the great copy guys.” Weiner’s show, which takes place at the fictional Sterling Cooper ad agency on Madison Avenue, draws from the golden age of American advertising. Some of its depictions are quite accurate—yes, there was a lot of drinking and smoking back then, and a lot of chauvinism; some aren’t so accurate. I know this, because I worked with Draper Daniels in the ad biz for many years. We did several mergers together, the longest of which lasted from 1967 until his death in 1983. That merger is my favorite Draper Daniels story.

Reading that article, I wondered: If Don is Dan, who on the show is Myra?

As I read, I got a sense that it could be… Peggy. A woman who was a professional colleague of the main characters, a woman who had risen to an unprecedented role for her gender at the agency? Sounds kinda like Peggy to me — aside from the age difference. After all, Peggy and Don got awfully cozy that night of the Clay-Liston fight…

We’ll see…

Peggy and Don on the night of the Clay-Liston fight (Feb. 24, 1964).

An “alternative” Nikki Haley? Nope. Her sister…

25 Replies

Twisted Sister — whose music both Nikki Haley and Sarah Palin employ as a theme, in spite of their Family Values messages — represents one kind of irony. Here’s another kind, and it also involves a sister — specifically, Nikki’s. (At least, it’s her sister unless there’s another person with the same name who looks this much like Nikki.)

When I first saw the picture above, I thought it WAS Nikki — maybe Nikki in an alternative universe — but then I saw it was her sibling, Simran Singh. Her Web site describes her this way, in part:

Simran Singh, Visionary, Life Coach, Talk Show Host, Publisher of 11:11 Magazine, Founder of C.H.O.I.C.E. (Collaborating Holistic Organizations Inspiring Conscious Empowerment) and Creator of BELIEVE…Choices for Conscious Living, utilizes the mind, body, and heart to support individuals in realizing authentic personal expression by tapping inherent power and potential via self-inquiry and conscious choice. Through honoring and illustrating value for each step in the journey, her products and services bring to awareness one’s inherent value.

So many choices! N.O.W. has “reproductive choice.” Nikki has private school “choice.” And her sister has “Collaborating Holistic Organizations Inspiring Conscious Empowerment.” What a country we live in! Something for everybody.

Be sure to check out the video on the site. Way, WAY New Age:

Tune in and turn on… feed the mind… embrace positively… release the tension… step out of fear. Host Simran Singh will help you broaden your mind and open your heart toward a greater understanding… on Seventh Wave radio… because shift happens.

You might want to check out the recordings of some of her shows. Like this one about Jesus’ “30 Lost Years” and his connections to Eastern religions. The coming Age of Aquarius and the quest for the philosophers’ stone are mentioned in connection with her guest, “a renowned American clairvoyant.”

Yup. It’s a very interesting world we live in.

… but no pledges, please, Vincent

9 Replies

Having praised Vincent Sheheen for challenging Nikki Haley to actually be transparent for a change (since that’s, you know, her platform), I’ve gotta say I’m with Nikki on this:

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Vincent Sheheen has signed a pledge, promising to make an effort to appoint qualified women to senior level positions on state boards and commissions if he is elected.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley declined to sign the pledge.

Like Nikki, I wouldn’t sign the pledge, either.

Now settle down, ladies. (If you’re OK with me calling you ladies.) Nothing against hiring women.

The problem is the pledge.

My objection may seem a bit wonkish and technical, but please attend:

I believe candidates should not sign pledges about what they will do or not do in office. The cause doesn’t matter; the problem is the pledge itself. It undermines the integrity of the political process. Candidates may speak of general intentions, but specific promises — particularly when taken to the extreme of putting them in writing — are a bad idea.

It is essential to self-government, and particularly to our system of representative democracy, that once in office a public servant should study the actual situation that he faces in office (which can never be accurately, fully anticipated before the election), and engage as an honest, unencumbered agent in deliberation with others to reach a decision about what to do.

You think this is just a fine point, a mere ephemeral abstraction? Well, you liberals applauding Vincent for this stand should take a moment and contemplate the severe damage done to South Carolina by the fact that Grover Norquist got so many GOP lawmakers to sign his anti-tax pledge. It has made comprehensive tax reform impossible, and led to a downward ratcheting of tax revenues that had nothing to do with the state’s actual spending needs, and everything to do with Norquist’s aim of shrinking government to the point that he can drown it in a bathtub.

But whether you like the aim of the pledge or not, they are a bad idea — that includes the pledge that Democrats were passing around awhile back to promise to spend more on education — because they shackle an officeholder from dealing in the future with the actual, practical situation that lies before him.

So Vincent — please do express your desire to see more qualified women serve in your administration. That’s great. But no pledges, please.

Maybe Nikki will teach Democrats a lesson

40 Replies

Thought I’d start a separate discussion based on a subthread back on the post about Nikki Haley on the cover of Newsweek.

Phillip, reaching for the bright side of the national MSM’s superficial coronation of Nikki because she’s an Indian-American woman, wrote:

Maybe this is all for a larger good. Even if I disagree with almost everything Haley or Tim Scott stand for, if this means the GOP is now abandoning the “Southern Strategy” of the Helms-Thurmond-Atwater variety, that can only be a healthy thing, for the party and for the country (and region).

Another way of putting it is that soon, racists and bigots in the South will have no one to vote for. That can only mean there’s fewer and fewer of them, and that, electorally speaking, they matter less and less.

And Kathryn chimed in, “Nice thought, Phillip–from your mouth to our ears!”

This little burst of liberal feelgoodism set me off in a way that again illustrates how impatient I am with both liberals and conservatives, even when they are respected friends such as Phillip and Kathryn:

Nice thought, but it hardly makes up for the hard reality. I’m moved to quote the last line of The Sun Also Rises: “Isn’t it pretty to think so?”

You want to hear a dark spin on Phillip’s rosy scenario? It’s all well and good for racism to have nowhere to go, and it’s fine for you to moralize about those awful racist Republicans becoming better. But here’s the other side of that: Maybe after she’s elected and we have another four, if not eight, years of Mark Sanford largely because the national media couldn’t see past being thrilled over an Indian-American woman, liberals in South Carolina (liberals elsewhere won’t notice because they don’t give a damn about SC, except as a source of their occasional amusement) will think, “Maybe this identity politics thing isn’t such a wonderful thing after all.”

Now that would be tremendous. But you know what? I’ve waited through too many 4-year chunks of wasted time in South Carolina to go through another such period just so that Republicans can be more ideologically correct and Democrats can wise up a little. It’s not worth it. Change these things about the parties, and other objectionable idiosyncrasies will simply expand to take their places, because parties are schools for foolishness.

This positive name recognition in Newsweek and elsewhere, which doesn’t go more than a micrometer deep (an Indian-American woman! in the South! Swoon. End of story) is going to make her unstoppable — until the narrative changes in some way.

If the South Carolina MSM will do its job and ask the hard questions (OK, Ms. Transparency, where are those PUBLIC e-mails, which you are hiding behind a special exemption from FOI laws that lawmakers carved out for themselves? Any more $40,000 deals to buy your “good contacts” that you haven’t seen fit to disclose?), maybe the national media, the media that people in SC are much more pervasively exposed to, will notice. Maybe. Maybe. Isn’t it pretty to think so?

The Newsweek endorsement of Nikki Haley

31 Replies

Oh, you say it’s not an endorsement? Don’t bore me with semantics. As I said, the national media — not giving a damn one way or the other about South Carolina, or about who Nikki Haley really is or what she would do in office — is enraptured at the idea that South Carolina will elect a female Indian-American (Bobby Jindal in a skirt, they think, fairly hugging themselves with enthusiasm), which just may be the most extreme example of Identity Politics Gone Mad that I’ve seen.

I told you we would have to expect this. And this is just the beginning.

This actually goes beyond an endorsement. This is a declaration that this woman IS our future. She IS the Face of the New South, and no one dare say her nay, least of all that — what’s his name? — the Democratic nominee. You know, the Catholic Lebanese-American — but who cares about that, right?

And if you think their excitement about her goes any deeper than that, you are not very familiar with the MSM.

But we are the ones who will have to live with what the national MSM is trying to ordain, the narrative that they have adopted and are extremely unlikely to deviate from. She may have come to their attention as the result of alleged scandal, but the narrative has adapted that as merely an example of how far the Dark Atavistic Forces of Reaction will go to stop their new darling.

The only good thing about this is that the national media is so ubiquitous that someone out there will raise questions. They will say, OK, if those allegations were lies, why doesn’t she — the supposed champion of transparency — want to release her public e-mail records, but instead hides behind an exemption to DUI law specifically carved out to protect lawmakers (you know, those awful Bubbas who fight so hard to resist transparency!). Or maybe they will take a look at those videos in which she obsequiously courts the neo-Confederate vote. Or maybe they’ll ask what other little consulting deals she might have had aside from that $40,000 from a company wanting access to her “good contacts.”

But those won’t make the headlines. They won’t supplant or derail the master narrative.

Newsweek has staged its coronation. Watch for other media to follow.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits