Not much to look at, is it?
Well, I put out that Annie Andrews sign this morning. Here’s the way it looks from my home office window (and here’s a better angle from before I took it down upon Lindsey’s death). Doesn’t look like much, does it? And I see it already needs straightening. I also need to get those pine needles off the bit of roof in the lower left corner of the image. It’s always something. No wonder I don’t blog much anymore.
Anyway, as you know, back before our senior senator’s sudden death, I allowed a friend and neighbor to put an Andrews sign in our yard. She had no chance of getting elected at that point, but some years ago we got to the point at which Sen. Graham, whom I had long respected and admired, was no longer a fit candidate. You know the details. So while she had no chance, the sign was there to say that someone other than him should replace him.
I wasn’t really prepared to say much more than that, because I didn’t know enough about Annie Andrews to know whether I wanted to actively support her, personally. That’s because, like her opponent, she has no experience holding public office. I’ve had no opportunity to observe her in that arena. And once the factor of our late senator was removed, I wanted to study the situation for awhile. So I took down the sign.
(At this point, I am moved to explain the difference between voting for someone — and I have intended to vote for “Annie” since the special GOP primary, barring some shocking news arising — and placing a sign in my yard. But I won’t. To me, as one who has spent so much of his life agonizing over public endorsements, the difference between that and a private vote is obvious. And in some ways, placing a sign represents a bigger step than endorsement. I’ll explain further if I must, but for now let’s get back to our story…)
Of course, since then, the Republican nominee has demonstrated that she is stupendously unsuited to public office — and particularly this public office. I mean, amazingly unsuited. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a Senate candidate so unsuited. As time has passed, Dr. Andrews has not done that, so she now has more than my vote.
One thing that has taken me some time on this is the lack of helpful input. I know a lot of people think editorial page editors (which is my formative role regarding such things) just fire from the hip with whatever happens to strike them. Well, it’s not like that. A great deal — a great, agonizing, obsessive deal — went into endorsement decisions. Ditto with this new task (which I have undertook only since 2018) of putting out signs.
Trouble is, one of the things that was critical to that process, back in the days of newspapers, was the input of other very thoughtful, informed people sharing their most careful thoughts about each candidate. I’ve written a lot about that process. The most immediate part of that was the editorial board — the team of smart folks I met with every morning. I might go in with one idea, and come out with another. Other people think of things you don’t think of, see things you miss. I was almost never sure what I wanted to do until I tested the issue in that forum. Even if I stubbornly held to my original position and disagreed with my colleagues — a rarer occasion than you might imagine — I was more sure in doing so after that process.
But there were other sources — reporters who reported more in depth on S.C. politics than you see now. People who wrote opinions elsewhere, or on our op-ed pages. That’s all gone. I found in 2018 that there was only one paper left in the state with an editorial board doing statewide endorsements. That’s still the case, and on this race I haven’t seen anything along those lines from that paper, either… yet.
Finally, there were the candidates themselves — people I sat and talked with at length. Not questionnaires, not checking boxes. Wide-ranging conversations that could go anywhere, so you could really see the way people thought — assuming they were capable of that sort of activity. Not the silly dramatics of televised debates, which are light years away from the promise that Kennedy-Nixon offered in 1960. Compared to that, what we have now is professional “wrestling,” the Three Stooges without the humor.
Now, I’m stuck with what you’re stuck with — the low idiocy of social media shots fired in an attempt to damage the opponent, or to enrage people on “your side” so they give you money, and more money. Button-pushing. Almost never the slightest attempt to show anyone that you, the candidate, are capable of thinking and operating effectively in a deliberative environment, and working with a wide variety of other people — not just your fan base — to pass laws that ALL of us can live with.
Which is what this country’s institutions were supposed to be, and used to be. We’ve always had lively politics, and then were able to deal with serious issues after the elections. Now we have brain-dead politics, people going about with caveman clubs trying to knock the other people on the head, and “win” to raise money and run again. Not to solve problems.
Anyway, I finally got some help the other day. Some input from someone I respect greatly. Not someone I always agree with, but I do always respect him. George Will. He’s still out there doing it. Of course, I recently cancelled my Washington Post subscription, but a friend provided me of a copy of what he wrote about this campaign. Some excerpts:
When Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham died in July, the governor appointed his sister, Darline Graham, to finish his term. When she decided to seek the Republican nomination for a full term, President Donald Trump endorsed her, so she won the primary despite a cringeworthy debate performance. Asked about Taiwan, she said: “I’m not that informed on national security.”
Andrews has graduated from medical school, so she knows what it is to know things, and how dangerous it can be to get things wrong. She is not a political rookie, having unsuccessfully run for Congress in 2022. She pleases her party’s base by being displeased with pharmaceutical companies, and what she considers insufficiently severe taxation of the wealthy. (The top 10 percent of earners pay 70 percent of federal income taxes.)
In this year of an inconclusive war, a soaring deficit and stubborn inflation, many Republican candidates seem most worried about transgender matters. Graham, emulating the rhetorical style of her presidential patron, wrote in a Fox News op-ed that Andrews is “the worst pediatrician in the country” because she “supports turning confused little boys into little girls and vice versa.” Andrews, who opposes gender surgery on minors, says such surgery has never occurred in South Carolina.
Graham also said, “I believe boys have no place in girls’ sports.” In the context of her Fox screed, this falsely suggested that Andrews disagrees…
I don’t completely agree with Will that running once and not getting elected makes for significant political experience. But I love his observation that, as a physician, Dr. Andrews “knows what it is to know things, and how dangerous it can be to get things wrong.” Meanwhile, her opponent has aggressively, embarrassingly demonstrated that she knows no such things, and if she did know them, she would set them aside in the service of her goal of being the mindslave of the stupidest, most venal and malevolent man ever to get close to the presidency.
As to that point, here’s another highlight of the column: “Graham promises she will not be senatorial, as the Framers understood that adjective.” Absolutely. If you have the slightest idea what the Senate is supposed to be, you agree with that entirely.
As I say, I respect Will greatly, and I appreciate his input. But you know who should really, really respect what he has to say?
- Republicans. I mean real Republicans, not Trump patsies. People who remember and care about the actual, respectable Grand Old Party. Will himself has been forced by Trumpism to walk away from that organization, but he continues to embody what it meant.
- Conservatives. Real ones, I mean. People who think conservative thoughts and offer them in the service of a great nation, not people who bow down to someone who shamelessly strokes their prejudices, with no constructive end in sight. I realize few people undertand the difference today, because today’s political rhetoric doesn’t provide them with the vocabulary. For more than half a century, Will has been THE conservative thinker of American journalism. He still is, with very few remaining challengers. (If you doubt that, I refer you to his comments on Dr. Andrews’ taxation ideas.)
- People who think. And those are rare, wherever they place themselves on the political spectrum. This is not just me sneering at the rest of you. I don’t think as well either, anymore. As I’ve been explaining, today’s political and journalistic environment doesn’t provide me, or you, with the kinds of generous tools and resources it used to lavish upon us.
Will Annie Andrews win this election because I put that sign out? Of course not. In fact, the odds are against her in this once independent-minded state. Her chances are better than they were against Darline’s brother, but the tendency of South Carolina’s white majority to vote only for Republicans (and lately, only for the kind of Republicans who kiss the feet of You Know Who, which is a vastly worse situation) shows signs of being set in stone.
I’m just trying to make people think, the way they used to do before they voted. It could happen. In any case, I decided to give it a try…
Yeah, I know that post is grossly bloated and overwritten, but I was determined to get it written today. Maybe I’ll go back and focus it better later….
I saw where you buddy, the guy you support who refused to vote for one of the most common sense minded people in the state, James Smith, to be a judge because he was supposedly a raging lunatic democrat is now House Majority Leader.
It pays to stab good people in the back and front. Always has.
That was a sad ordeal for James, but he doesn’t mind my support of Micah. I’ve discussed it with him. They worked together amicably on a number of issues when James was still in the House…
And stabbed him in the back and front when he left the House. It’s usually easy to work with someone if you need something from them.
As a reminder, what they did to James was very, very unusual. They voted for another Democrat to be a judge at the same time they stabbed James in the back.
I don’t respect Micah (not that he cares) for a number of reasons, that’s a big one. I wouldn’t take even 1 step to shake the guy’s hand.
If you did, though — and then spent some time talking with him — you’d change your mind, I think. Remember, I first met him at a time when I was thinking about running for the seat myself. Meeting him convinced me not to do so. We agreed on most things (and he articulated the reasons for those positions quite well), which is unusual for me. Aside from that, I knew I couldn’t beat him. A guy who agrees with me on most things, and is a Marine combat veteran? Fuggedaboudit. Also, he was a Republican, and I would be running as an independent, which is hopeless unless both party nominees are horrible.
By the way, I should explain what I mean when I say it’s “unusual for me” to find someone I agree with “on most things.” Sure, there are people with whom I agree on, say, 51 percent of things or even more. But when I said most, I meant MOST. Like more than 90 percent of things.
As I recall, in the hour or 90 minutes we spoke on that first occasion 10 years ago, we disagreed about exactly ONE thing. I mentioned that in a later post (for some reason, I can’t find the post about my first meeting with him, months earlier), and at that time I couldn’t remember what that one thing was. But I THINK the subject was Edward Snowden. I don’t know how the subject came up; it certainly had no bearing on the office he was seeking. But the difference was that I was the hard-ass who wanted Snowden to spend the rest of his life in prison. Micah was more tolerable.
Oh, sure, you can come up with other things SINCE then that we disagree about — the judgeship vote, and of course his moves to liberalize gun laws to make them even MORE available. But those weren’t on the table.
That’s the thing about issues and campaigns. You never know WHAT is going to come up after a person is elected. So in endorsement interviews, I never spent much time asking “How would you vote on issues a, b, and c?” I would ask about what the candidate had actually DONE in the past, and why. Beyond that, I mostly sought to learn about the candidate’s character, and how his or her mind worked. I wanted to get a feel for how the person might approach some completely unpredictable issue in the future.
I’ve meant for years to write about that process. But I haven’t been able to remember all of the specific questions we asked. At some time I’ll try harder and at least write about SOME of them…
“If you did, though — and then spent some time talking with him — you’d change your mind, I think.”
“I can’t believe that guy did that, he was so nice” – said the witness to the crime.
I wouldn’t. I don’t change my mind based on talking with someone when I know how they vote and what they say when they aren’t in front of me.
Some people are impressed by the in-person meeting. The “well I met him and he’s really nice in person” and let that influence them.
I was that way as a 21 year old Senate Page- a Senator would smile and laugh with you and pat you on the back and say something, then you’d see them go and do the same thing with someone else- and then you’d see them in person outside the Senate chamber and you learn quick that elected politicians are able to get elected because they can be whatever they need to be in any number of situations.
So no, I wouldn’t be impressed by the in-person meeting. I can see his record and what he has said.
You might NOT be impressed, since you’re determined not to be…
And there’s truth in what you say, if you’re talking to someone who shook hands with a politician and exchanged a couple of sentences and had his head turned by the experience — “Seemed like a nice fella to me.”
I’m talking about years of observation, hours of in-depth discussion. I’m saying I know him better than I know, say, you, despite your thousands of comments here. And I know you pretty well, even though we’ve never met in person.
I’m not someone who makes up his mind based on a meeting — or on ads, or taglines or bumper stickers. You might notice that — especially since leaving the newspaper — I often say I don’t know a candidate well enough to state an opinion. That’s because, with anyone who’s emerged onto the scene since the days when I had all those meetings with candidates, and spent a good bit of time at the State House, year after year… I just don’t know them.
That’s the case with Jermaine Johnson. I saw him once at a reception, but we didn’t speak. So I’m left with the same things the average voter is left with — ads, website, and the like. And he obviously hasn’t had the money to get out enough about himself via ads. And doesn’t have enough experience to brag about it convincingly on his website.
It’s different with Micah. Not only is he my own House member, but when I first met him I was thinking about running for the seat myself, so my questioning of him was wide-reaching. We’ve had many such interactions since.
And of course, in this case, I have several generations of interaction between his family and mine. Members of my mother’s family have been close to members of his since long before he or I was born — going back the 1930s, I think.
That certainly wouldn’t decide it for me. I’ve voted against a number of people with close family connections. Back in the 70s, my wife and I voted against one of my father-in-law’s business partners. I go into my consideration of a candidate with little regard to such history. It’s just one more thing to make me a bit more comfortable about the more objective decisions I’ve made about someone. It’s not a big necessary with me, but it’s nice when you know all your family will agree with you. That doesn’t happen all that often…
Johnson has run a terrible campaign. I can only assume it’s because he has no money. But it’s also likely because he has little experience and doesn’t have quality advisors. You see almost no tv commercials about him- and very few online ads.
His name recognition is as poor as any major party candidate in the last 40 years in South Carolina.
For a Democrat to win in South Caroliina, he has to stick to 2-3 issues at most, he has to talk about them non-stop and must have some very catchy phrases that people can repeat easily. He should be a populist and someone that is willing to offend a few people by saying things that people don’t normally hear from a state level politician.
It would be ideal if he (and I do say he) was from Greenville or Spartanburg and was known as a smart business minded person who had a great career owning or leading a successful company before going into any public service.
and even then, it would be a very hard hill.
You could have stopped after the first two sentences.
As I addressed in this post today…
I worked for a state senator whose colleagues had silently promised him a judgeship for years- and he finally realized they were lying to him. I think the part that bothered him the most is he considered some of them close friends, friends with his family, based on time spent with them over the years.
They were doing what they convinced themselves they needed to do at the time. The heck with what they had told him.
I would assume you aren’t that easily manipulated by politicians given how many you’ve dealt with over the years. But maybe they saw you coming from a mile away.
Micah probably did that to you too.
You don’t know me very well, despite all these years on the blog…
An August 2024 Meet the Press show had Lindsey Graham on. During that segment, he berated Republicans that had endorsed Harris, as the Cheneys have done. ‘How the hell can you for her?”
That’s when I realized that he was choosing Party over Country. I am voting for Country over Party.
I watch MS NOW and Michael Steele, former chair of the Republican Party is what I call a common sense Republican, which there are very few of. Former Ohio governor, John Kasich, a frequent guest, is another. There are no common sense Republican at the national or state level. They’re all Trumpers or Trumpies (my word play based on band groupies).
Trump and his acolytes and sycophants are using tribalism to divide us.
Yeah, that was the post-2017 Lindsey Graham. He had been a better man before…
You might like this if you give it a listen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY27NOLrQfw
From my first glance at it, I probably will…
Hope you will listen to it.
Michael is also doing a segment on his Sirius radio show about once a month (or maybe slightly more frequently) called “Can we agree?” It’s fairly short- not a long segment- about an hour but edited down.
He invites two public people (not necessarily just politicians) to discuss one issue and sees if they can find agreement. He interviews them separately, then he brings them together to discuss the topic, and he records it and plays it back for his audience.
Today’s segment was republican economist Stephen Moore and Maya MacGuineas, the President of Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget that he interviewed Friday but played it today for the audience.