EDITOR’S NOTE: I initially posted this on Opening Day. I turned to start doing other things, but then looked back and didn’t like what I saw. I decided to take it down. But I was too late. At least a couple of you have tried to comment on it, but been frustrated. Sorry about that. But I looked at that original headline — “First nominee for worst political ad of 2026 so far” — and the prospect of provoking multiple discussions of perfectly sickening stuff just made me decide I didn’t want to go there. In the past, I have relished such debates, but I have found that in this new Age of Unreason, you get nowhere trying to preach sense to nonsense. Everyone just gets all dyspeptic and goes away muttering. So, I’m not going to invite nominees to offer ads that sicken them, too. Then we’ll all be unhappy. Anyway, I didn’t mean to deprive you of anything. I just decided not to go there. I turned to something that might spark more pleasant interactions with my fellow humans.
Happy opening day! Baseball has begun! The Red Sox face the Reds in Cincinnati at 4:10 today!
If there’s a drawback to the return of baseball, I suppose it’s that I’ll start seeing a lot of TV ads again. I seldom watch live broadcast TV otherwise — I prefer streaming. But watching sports means ads. The good news is that I generally watch through the MLB TV app, and they block out a lot of them.
Unfortunately, that is not the case with TV news, or the game shows that come on at about the same time. I don’t usually watch those on my own, but I see them frequently when I go visit my mother in the evenings. And last night, I hit my limit of tolerance with the repeated airing of the latest from Ralph Norman.
I’m not going into details, except to say that this is a particularly offensive example of one of the most tiresome tropes in American politics. It tends to go something like, “Politishuns is a bunch a crooks, so y’all gotta elect me so I can go set ’em straight!”
Donald Trump’s “clean up the swamp” nonsense is perhaps the best-known recent example of the genre, but this was a standard approach long before he befouled our politics. The approach dates at least back to Andy Jackson’s day. His election was the first landmark in the development of our country’s more offensive forms of populism.
Don’t think I’m exaggerating in describing it. The title of the ad is “Crooks.” That’s it. Nothing like “I will make South Carolina better by doing X or Y.” Just “Crooks.” You know, subtle…
I’m not going to go into details on Norman’s proposals, because they’re all things I’ve addressed many times before. Or at least I won’t go beyond this: The core of his campaign seems to be the oldy in which he offers himself as someone who, as a “businessman,” is obviously better than “politicians.”
I don’t know anything about his business or how it has endowed him with superior character, but I do know that he:
Was a state legislator from 2005 to 2007, and apparently liked it so much that he came back in 2009 and stayed until 2017, at which time he went up to Congress — that monument to character and rectitude — and has stayed there ever since.
And yet, somehow, things didn’t get better.
But don’t worry! It’ll all get fixed when he’s governor!
That’s all I have to say about this ad that’s irritating me so much at the moment. There are probably worse ones out there, although it sickens me to think so. I’ve seen some awful ones recently from Henry McMaster’s lieutenant governor, whose name it always takes me a moment to recall because Henry elevated her from obscurity, and I can’t think of anything she’s done since. Pam. That’s it. I’d have to Google her other name.
But this is the one bugging me right now.
Maybe some of you who see more TV ads than I do have worse examples. Share your own nominees, although I don’t know whether I’ll have the stomach to go watch them.
I’m going to watch some baseball. I hope I get back from class today in time to catch the last innings…
Related Posts
Looking back over this depressing post, I realized it wasn’t clear why I chose this as the “worst” so far.
Part of it is the sheer banality of it. He’s not trying to whip up the masses of less thoughtful voters by tossing out Culture War outrageous that have little to do with politics, but have everything to do with driving wedges between people.
This is mild by comparison, beyond the single-word label, “Crooks.”
What gets me is that, in addition to giving no positive reasons why anyone should vote for him, he wasn’t specific about what made every politician in Columbia a “crook.” He did mention something completely irrelevant: Lawmakers had raised their own compensation.
This implies that he expects voters to think that constitutes “corruption” — the thing he promises to stop (which I suppose he would argue is a positive — and perhaps it would be, if he had demonstrated that said corruption existed).
That would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. There is no way that voting themselves an increase is a corrupt practice, or justifies the term “crooks.”
Setting their own compensation is part of the job of legislators, and they do it in the open, as those unexplanatory TV news clips demonstrate.
From time to time, it would be their duty to adjust that compensation. In my lifetime, there has probably never been a time when a reasonable person would expect the pay to DECREASE. We’ve had inflation — generally mild to moderate — all this time, and I have been quite grateful that that has been the case. I thank God I’m not living in a time of DEflation. None of us wants to experience such shrinkage of our economy.
Here’s another reason why: Paying lawmakers nothing (which some seem to think is advisable) or close to nothing has one very predictable result — Only people of independent means would be able to hold office. This job eats up montrous amounts of lawmakers’ time throughout the year — not just when they are in session. You can’t do this and hold a normal full-time job. I couldn’t, anyway.
You notice I keep paying “compensation” instead of “pay.” That’s because the only recent discussion of raising payments to lawmakers I can find in a few minutes’ Googling has been about their expense allotments. The General Assembly voted last year to raise that amount from $1,000 to $2,500. The action was struck down by the state Supreme Court for not having followed correct procedure. So some lawmakers are having another go at it.
The $1,000 has been in place since 1995. Adjusted for inflation, that would have been $2,174.22 this February. (This does not include — if I’m reading these reports right — the $240 daily per diems they get to cover the cost of dining and lodging in Columbia, as well as mileage for a weekly round-trip.)
As for base pay, lawmakers’ salary is $10,400. Minimum wage is more than $15,000 for a full-time job.
Here’s the thing: If you want to, make a case that the people who make our laws should make less, or even roughly the same as (with expenses) kids who flip burgers. You might convince some people. Me, I think if I’m dissatisfied with the quality of lawmakers we have, I’d pay them more. But that’s me. It’s a point worth debating.
But don’t simply call EVERY officeholder at the State House is a crook because they get paid for this critically important work, and then smirk through the whole ad because you KNOW there are probably enough voters out there who will swallow such nonsense without questioning it for a second.
That’s what makes the ad disgusting.
Now you see how many words that took? And I just barely scratched the surface of things we should take into account on the subject. I just don’t want to spend that much of my life trying to explain things to people upon whom my efforts will have no effect.
Ralph was a high school contemporary of mine in Rock Hill and he’s still pretty much the same as he was then. Unexceptional. And the ad in question is classic political misdirection quoting a statistic out of context and a promise that cannot possibly be fulfilled by the candidate if elected.
“a promise that cannot possibly be fulfilled by the candidate if elected.”
That is pretty much every candidate isn’t it? Politifact tracked Biden’s promised and he finished at 33% completed and most of them are COVID related.. and some that are considered complete are very nebulous. “Improve Obamacare” Did that really happen? “Put US on a course to net-zero emissions by 2050.” That’s so vague that there’s no way to measure it. “Create a bipartisan commission to consider reforms to the Supreme Court” Really? They don’t have to actually do any reforms to consider this a win?
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/?ruling=true
Remember – it’s a part time job, not a full time job – so the comparison to a minimum wage full time job is inaccurate.
Anyway, 46% of the state senators are lawyers. They don’t get elected to supplement their likely high six figure salaries. They do it to have control of the laws that they will get rich off of in litigation. Then we have Todd Rutherford who has made a whole lot of money defending his fellow lawmakers in DUI cases… he’s got an evergreen population of customers around him. The majority of the rest of the legislators are real estate brokers, insurance agency owners, and other business owners. They don’t need $10K per year.. I’m sure they’d do it for free just based on the access to networks of lobbyists who can always be counted on to pick up a check or supply tickets to events. And who is best served by having a say in how the laws in the state are written? Maybe people who work in insurance, real estate, and own businesses? Just a coincidence I suppose.
I won’t call them ALL crooks.. but they’re not Boy Scouts either. I’ll just label the majority of them what they are: Self serving hypocrites with massive egos. They are responsible for devising some of the most brain dead laws that suggest either mental incompetence or purposeful nanny statism. Blue laws, tax laws, silly grandstanding on unenforceable laws like the recent cellphone nonsense… there is so much on the books that could be erased immediately if any of them had the guts to call out the stupidity.
Doug, first… you need to follow a legislator around for a year to get any idea of the hours they are on the job. I’ve had jobs with extremely long hours myself, sometime around the clock. But I would never do what legislators do. It’s not that the hours are bad; its the unbearable (to me) demands that they are under constantly, day and night, all year. They don’t have time off normally, and if they try to take some, watch how their constituents react. (I refer you to the way people have griped about various presidents, from Ike to You Know Who, playing a round of golf.)
I compare it to minimum wage not to compare hours, but to emphasize the absurdity of the amount, given the weight of responsibility.
You refer to lawyers. That’s right; they don’t need the money. Which was part of my point (setting aside all your rant about what crooks you think they are): People who can’t afford to spend all that time and trouble without a decent rate of pay can’t run for office. They wouldn’t be able to support families.
There are exceptions — but contrary to your assessment, they are the minority, not the norm. Those guys who got caught up in Operation Lost Trust were generally people who couldn’t afford a decent suit on their salaries, so they thought nothing of accepting a free suit or two from Ron Cobb. That might not have happened if they’d been paid properly. It might still have, of course, because there are people who get a decent wage and want more, and lack scruples.
But you know what? If you’re one of those people, you don’t do into the public sector. You go private, where there’s more money and less scrutiny of what you do…
Now, before you try to turn this into one of those pointless arguments you and Bud used to have about public vs. private, where one is all good and the other all bad, let me point out that there are probably no more, or not a lot more, “crooks” in the public sector than the private. There are more than you hear about — news media don’t watch the private sector the way they do the private, partly because they don’t see it as their mission, and partly they can’t get to the information needed for exposés.
But normally most people are not crooks, in the public or private sectors. That is somewhat less so right now, since the people running the country right now are so clearly in it (and in everything else they do) for themselves. But for whatever reasons, half the country right now doesn’t care.
I don’t know, but I believe, that ONE reason they don’t care is that they actually believe that “they’re all crooks,” so why shouldn’t their guys grab all they can? And they believe that because ever since Watergate, they’ve heard people around them saying the kinds of things you say all the time. And they’re not critical thinkers. That’s why they vote for a guy who goes by whatever “a lot of people say”….
OK, that was a bunch of time I just wasted, so we’re done, unless you or I come up with something original to say. Which would be a tall order, as much time as we’ve wasted on this problem. We’ve firmly established he fact that you despise government with a passion like what some people devote to God-given religion.
There are a number of reasons I deleted that post, one of the biggest being that I’m tired of dwelling on things that are hopelessly depressing, given the fact that so many Americans today are uninterested in constructive conversations, so why waste the time.
A smaller motivation was that I didn’t want to have an exchange like this one… Here I go now to do more constructive things…
Doug’s not wrong here.
If a lawyer needs a raise to be a legislator, resign and go back to your job as a personal injury attorney. None of them need raises. Real estate brokers and insurance agency owners do not need raises to serve as a legislator. They are extremely well off already. Serving as a politician helps pad their business.
To point out the obvious here: If anyone thinks making $47,000 as compared to 10,000 will make more “regular people” want to run for office is kidding themselves- for a reason I will never understand.
1st- No one that is not independently wealthy or already retired, can work in Columbia 3-4 days a week for 6 months of the year. You don’t work at the local plant as an electrician and ask the boss if you can go down to Columbia Tuesday-Thursday ever week from January-May. So that’s ridiculous.
2nd- the only people that can do this are retired, independently wealthy, both, or they are willing to be extremely poor and don’t care (no one).
I will correct Brad on one more thing- there are SOME legislators that do spend a lot of time on policy matters- meeting with various boards even when the legislature is out of session to learn more from the groups that they have some oversight over.
HOWEVER, this is not anywhere near a majority of the legislature. It’s a small minority- because one of those legislators (a lawyer) that chooses to attend those types of meetings and learning sessions told me that personally. The great majority are not attending those types of meetings. The great majority are doing no more than showing up to regular sessions- and even then- some of them don’t show up even to those.
I must not be expressing myself well.
The point is not that “a lawyer needs a raise to be a legislator.” It’s the opposite. Right now, ONLY attorneys, well-off businessmen who have plenty of people back home to run the business, and independently wealthy folks can afford to be legislators.
I said that before, but you (and possibly Doug) missed it. I hope I said it better this time.
I don’t have a problem with lawyers in the Legislature. They tend to understand the issues better than most (and that’s far too rare a thing in politics).
But if you don’t want all these lawyers, make the job affordable for people of modest means…
Nothing to see here.. surely the trial lawyer lobbyists are working in the best interests of the people of SC.
Senator Tom Fernandez got taken to the woodshed by the good old boys/lawyers and was forced to retract his statement… No crooks there.,.. nope.
AI Summary:
In March 2025, freshman South Carolina Republican Senator Tom Fernandez alleged on the Senate floor that the trial lawyer lobby offered him $50,000–$100,000 in campaign funds to vote against a tort reform bill. Fernandez later walked back the claim of a quid pro quo, stating he did not believe the offers were directly tied to his vote, notes.Key Details of the Incident:The Claim: During a debate on a lawsuit abuse reform bill, Sen. Fernandez stated that the trial lawyer lobby offered him significant campaign contributions to oppose the bill.Initial Impact: The allegation caused a stir, causing the Senate to stand “at-ease” and prompting discussions about lobbying tactics in the South Carolina legislature.The Retraction: Within hours, according to and, Fernandez clarified his statement, stating he did not perceive the fundraising offers as a direct quid pro quo in exchange for his vote.Context: The incident highlighted intense lobbying pressures surrounding legal liability reform in South Carolina, with supporters and opponents of the legislation seeking to sway lawmakers.The incident highlighted intense lobbying pressures surrounding legal liability reform in South Carolina, with supporters and opponents of the legislation seeking to sway lawmakers.
I haven’t seen many political ads because both me and my wife agreed to turn the channel as soon as we see ANY ad come on.
Plus, given the way politicians act like fools (because they are fools), I can’t stomach the dishonest and unrelenting Republican adds trashing the super majority republican legislature and long-standing republican governor as “democrat controlled.”
Worse- is their political cheering squads- most of them political operatives- in other words- young attorneys in South Carolina who crowd into places like the Newberry Opera house after paying high prices for “debate tickets” to scream and holler for their favorite liar to try to make viewers dumb enough to watch an entire debate think a candidate has real support.
“If you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.” – Winston Smith, the protagonist of “1984”. George Orwell.
Dave Crockett; Thanks for that assessment of Norman. I don’t know Norman, but I laughed at your “unexceptional” assessment of Norman.
1994, I was in Cedar Rapids, Iowa from the Ides of April to the first first of November. The Democratic nominee, Bonnie Campbell, had a simple “PowerPoint” 4 slide presentation, three slides each listing an issue that that her opponent was wrong on; closing with “Wrong for Iowa”. The Republican candidate had the governor’s wife mentioning why Terry Branstad needs a third or fourth term to finish what he started in Iowa.
When I returned home to South Carolina in November, I had a severe shock of déjà vu. The Democratic ad had the same “PowerPoint” ad closing with “Wrong for South Carolina”. The Republican ad had David Beasley’s wife sitting on the front porch saying why her husband needed to be governor.
Over the weekend, I saw several ads from others seeking the same office Norman seeks.
It was depressing.
Worse, I was forced to watch some of them while trying to watch Easter Mass at the National Shrine in Washington, and the Vatican — both on YouTube. (My wife has a bad case of tonsilitis, so we didn’t go inflict germs on our own fellow parishioners.)
There was no “SKIP” button. It was awful.
All seemed to be TRYING to take the prize from Norman, but he still has the lead. Although maybe I’m saying that because I saw a minute or two of an SC GOP gubernatorial “debate,” and as bad as some were, he was worse. Anyway, that sort of warped my ability to say for sure whether his AD was the worst, or if it’s just that he’s a phenom all-around…
YouTube just gets more aggressive with its ads every day. That business of no “SKIP” button was appalling. I don’t think that happened on all the ads I saw, but it definitely did on one or two…