Gamecock fans, you may now thank me

How did the Gamecocks topple the No. 1 college football team in the nation? Well, I’ll tell ya…

Saturday was the first time I watched an entire Gamecocks football game ever. So of course, it follows that they had their biggest win since I moved back to SC in 1987.

As you know, I’m not a football fan. But I now have HDTV in my house. I got the TV for my birthday, and Thursday the cable guy spent 7 hours at my house hauling it out of the 18th century. So this was the first Saturday since I got HD, and as I always suspected, I DID get interested in football once I had HD. Something about the color and spectacle of it, rendering in super-sharp digital imagery. (“Hyper-intense eye candy,” as I described it after the first time I experienced it.) A true case of the medium being the message, I guess.

And I enjoyed it. I say again, I’m not a football fan, but there’s a certain enjoyment to be had in watching someone do something well. Back when I was a reporter and sometimes helped out the sports department by covering a game for them in one of the rural counties I covered, I used to always sit in the stands — the press box held no charms for me — and when there was a good play by either team, I’d get so into it, I’d stand up to applaud. Which was awkward if the stands I happened to be sitting in was occupied by fans of the opposite team.

And on Saturday, we saw Stephen Garcia (selected as national Offensive Player of the Week by the Walter Camp Football Foundation), Marcus Lattimore and the rest of the boys playing football just as it should be played. Which was fun to watch.

Oh, and if you doubt that they won because I was watching, here’s proof: I didn’t quite watch the entire game. I wandered away from the TV during halftime, and missed the beginning of the second half. Yes, I was out of the room when Garcia bizarrely threw for a safety. In other words, the Chicken Curse briefly asserted itself when I wasn’t watching.

As a new business model for the blog, I may turn from advertising and instead get Gamecock fans to pay me to watch every minute of every game in the future. If the price is right, and it’s on HD, I just might do it…

THAT’s why they locked her up on the Death Star

The only surprising thing about this was that Matt Drudge seems to think it’s news:

Drudge Report

tweetdrudge Drudge Report

Princess Leia did cocaine on ‘STAR WARS’ set…http://bit.ly/9CSJRY #tcot

I sort of thought that was a given. I mean, we’re not talking about a paragon here. This is the actress we had known previously only as the nymphet who uttered that memorable (to guys, anyway) line in “Shampoo.” And then there was that tell-all book of hers. (But that was a novel, right? Right.)

I’ve got no particular reason to pass this on today, beyond the fact that it allows us to start off the week thinking about Princess Leia, which is always good.

Alternative headline: “THAT’s why Chewbacca made that weird noise…

Your Virtual Front Page, Friday, October 8, 2010

I’ve been remiss the last couple of days, but here’s one more front before the week ends:

  1. Dow Climbs Above 11000 (WSJ) — Yay, economy! For once. Meanwhile, the dollar continues to plummet — just as I’m planning a trip to England. Again, my sense of market timing is impeccable.
  2. Largest U.S. Bank Halts Foreclosures in All States (NYT) — The bank built by Bennettsville boy (say that five times) Hugh McColl leads the way on another promising sign. In less happy news, but a development that should absolutely thrill Nikki Haley, Mark Sanford and our other anti-gummint friends, “Employment Picture Dims as Government Cuts Back.”
  3. China angry at dissident’s Nobel (BBC) — Yeah, well, ya see, China — y’all are the bad guys on this. As Austin Powers would say, “It’s Freedom, Baby — yeah!”
  4. Despite U.S. Apologies, Pakistan Blocks Supply Route (NPR) — It’s horrible that we killed a couple of Pakistan’s people, and I know I’m going to catch it from my more peaceful friend, but I can’t help thinking: If Pakistan isn’t going to deal with al Qaeda and the Taliban, it would really help if it would get its people out of the way so that we can.
  5. Chile miners should be reached ‘within hours’ (BBC) — But it’ll still be at least next week before they can be pulled out.
  6. Why SC will beat No.1 Alabama (thestate.com) — A little something for your sports fans. Ron Morris, for once, agrees with something Lou Holtz says.

A thought-provoking note from SC Citizens for Life

Still catching up with my e-mail…

I got this message from Holly Gatling in response to this post:

Dear Brad,

Do you have a marriage license?  A piece of paper you were willing to sign your name to as a statement of commitment?

That’s the difference between Sheheen and Haley.  Haley put her name on a statement of the agenda of South Carolina Citizens for Life and Sheheen declined.  How sad.

And why is there such hatred across this land for conservative, pro-life, Republican women?  The misogyny is grossly apparent.  Conservative, pro-life women are the greatest threat in politics today to the abortion industry, the greatest destroyer of human life on the planet.

We’re in this economic crisis because 50 million members of the human family have been wiped out by abortion.  That’s 50 million members of a tax-paying workforce and ALL their progeny.

I urge and encourage you to THINK with the body part men and women share equally — the brain.

Committed candidate v. undecided. The choice is clear.

Your friend,

Holly Gatling, Executive Director
South Carolina Citizens for Life

I appreciate my friend Holly — we worked together at the paper years ago — taking the time to respond. Here are some thoughts that her note generates for me:

  • Regarding the marriage license analogy: It makes the very good point that Vincent does not want to be married to S.C. Citizens for Life — a fact that has nothing to do with his own convictions as a Catholic. Vincent wants to work with everybody — Republicans, pro-choice Democrats, Zoroastrians should any show up at the State House — on issues having nothing to do with abortion. So why should he want to draw a bright line that says I’m one of these good people over here, and you’re one of those bad people over there? Which is the purpose of such endorsements, from the perspective of a Nikki Haley. Nikki wants to make sure everyone knows she’s on THIS side and therefore against THOSE people. And as long as she accomplishes that, she’s happy. As someone who presided for years over an editorial board that was sharply divided on abortion, I never tried to force us to take a position on it, for two reasons: It did not bear upon the issues that were important to moving South Carolina forward (which is what we were about), and it would have been foolish to create ill will on the board that would have spilled over into areas where, if we could achieve consensus, we might be able to make a difference. I wrote a column on the subject once. So I understand Vincent’s position, even if Holly doesn’t.
  • Who has “hatred” toward “conservative, pro-life, Republican women?” Certainly not I, and I would challenge anyone to demonstrate the opposite. And if they go looking for such women whom I “hate,” they’ll definitely have to look for someone other than Nikki Haley. Yeah, I’ve been pretty appalled at some of the things I’ve learned about her the last few months, but my one big beef is that she’d be disastrous for South Carolina as governor. That could be said about a lot of women — and men — against who I hold no malice. I really don’t know where that statement in the note comes from.
  • Finally, THINK is exactly what I’m urging people to do in this election. That, in fact, was all I was saying back before the primary in this post (“Don’t vote with your emotions, people. THINK!,” June 6), which some thought was way harsh on Nikki. But all I was saying was, THINK before you vote. Don’t base your vote on such emotional nonsense as being excited that she’s an Indian-American woman (or that she’s a “conservative, pro-life, Republican woman”), any more than you should be excited that Vincent is the first Catholic, and the first Lebanese-American, to win a major-party nomination for governor in this state. Still less should you vote because of the ENTIRELY irrelevant fact that you don’t like Barack Obama, which has absolutely zero to do with who should govern this state. THINK. Please, it’s all I want.

Mind you, in the past I have praised SC Citizens for Life for THINKing rather than going with the emotional flow, such as in this column on Feb. 7, 1996:

The endorsement of Jean Toal by S.C. Citizens for Life last week constituted one of those little epiphanies that have the potential to enlighten public life, if only we would pay attention.

In this case, the lesson to be learned was this:
The terms “liberal” and “conservative,” as they are popularly used today, serve virtually no useful purpose. They help not at all in the increasingly onerous task of meeting the challenges that face us in the political sphere. In fact, they often get in the way.
The Toal endorsement, while making perfect sense to the objective observer, momentarily demolished the world view of self-described “liberals” and “conservatives” as surely as Galileo messed with the heads of the geocentric crowd. “Conservatives” lost their cozy view of there being two kinds of people — Christians and “liberals.” Meanwhile, “liberals” couldn’t quite bring themselves to celebrate the endorsement because having common cause with those “conservative” right-to-lifers makes them queasy.
It’s nice to see nonsense knocked on its rear end.

My purpose at the time was to contrast the good sense demonstrated by Holly’s organization, as opposed to the mindlessness of her frequent allies among “conservative” Republicans who wanted to boot Justice Toal for the sin of being a Democrat (and therefore, in their small minds, a “liberal,” a word they use with all the thoughtfulness, subtlety and understanding of the mob crying “Witch!” in Monty Python’s “Holy Grail”).

My point then, as now: THINK.

By popular demand, another TIP missive

I’m way behind on e-mail — yesterday was a real bear, and I’m trying to catch up on everything today — and I had missed this message (it came in yesterday) until someone asked me about it on Facebook:

TIP calls for a Full Airing of the Truth

COLUMBIA– This afternoon Conservatives for Truth in Politics announced their call for the chair of the South Carolina Republican Party, Karen Floyd, to give a full detailed explanation of her role and other party officials’ role, in authorizing convicted felon, Jim Hirni, be allowed to raise money for the republican party.  The call comes following a State newspaper report of a scandal in which the SCGOP was found to be partnering with a convicted felon and former deputy to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.  This revelation, along with the public admission that a SCGOP consultant employed Mr. Hirni and received $34,000 from the party casts serious doubt on the judgment of Ms. Floyd and we believe fellow conservatives and republicans deserve the truth of how this was allowed.

“It is absolutely essential to our democracy that voters are able to trust their leadership,” said Cyndi Mosteller, Co-Chair and former 1st Vice Chairman of the SC Republican Party.  “Yet it appears until a more forthright explanation is given, that the SCGOP consciously decided to embrace the corrupt politics that have defined Washington, D.C. for a generation.  Karen Floyd should address this issue immediately, and our party should take the necessary steps to disassociate itself from Mr. Hirni.”

“Dr. Woodard and I took the podium last week to announce the formation of Truth In Politics because we were concerned about many questions that have arisen in the media concerning our nominee.  We are just trying to find answers to some very serious questions.  Ms. Floyd and other party leaders quickly denounced us.  This is the same person that objected to us standing up for our convictions and try to do what we feel is right–yet appears to think its perfectly fine to authorize a Washington DC convicted felon to raise money for the republican party,” said Mosteller.

In addition to asking for Ms. Floyd to explain to the people of South Carolina, TIP also asks that Ms. Haley’s campaign manager, Tim Person, make a detailed public statement on whether Mr. Hirni has worked with him on the Haley campaign since it was reported the two worked together in the past.  “This is not the same Republican Party that I got involved in 20 years ago.  It makes me recall the famous quote from John Dalberg-Acton in the 19th century, ‘power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.’  I hope the leadership of the party will move swiftly so we can put this behind us immediately,” said Dave Woodard.

###

So there you have it.

Guys, Debbie wants your pants

OK, guys, calm down. I don’t mean that Debbie, or any of the other trash running through your heads. This call is from Debbie McDaniel, owner of Revente and Sid&Nancy in Five Points:

Attn all my guy friends:
We need jeans and other casual clothing at Revente’s Last Call to dress the homeless veterans that are referred to us.
These items are NOT sold, but placed in our clothing closet just for them. May be dropped off at any of our shops if you cannot get to the Millwood location. Many thanks!!!!!!

So run those old jeans on down to Debbie’s place over on Saluda. And while you’re there, tell her she should buy an ad on the blog….

Karen gets fanciful, and I like it

After all the silly, monotonous, offensive ideological rants about Nancy Pelosi and such, I enjoyed this change-of-pace message from Karen Floyd:

Dear Subscriber

It’s so strange how much things change over the years. Back when our founding fathers were striving to make this country great, men of influence proved their knowledge and wisdom by wearing a silly white wig. And as male masculinity dictates: the bigger the wig, the greater the power.

In case you don’t know, the white wigs of old have been replaced as status symbols with one intangible quality: Facebook Friends! That’s right- the wide world of politics is now funneled down to this tiny concept, which defines how much people esteem a campaign’s ideals.

This new Facebook system is much more reliable than the ridiculous white wig arrangement. By looking at an old painting of Benjamin Franklin wearing a wig, can you gauge how much support he had from the people? I don’t think so. However, you can easily go to the SCGOP Facebook page now with one clickand immediately see that we are supported by a whole host of individuals across the state.

So, we need your help to reach 5,000 friends on Facebook. This would be equivalent to a massive, curly white wig that gloriously hangs down to the floor.

Please click here now to visit our Facebook page, click the “Like” button and share with your friends!

Sincerely,

Karen Floyd

SCGOP Chairman

I didn’t quite enjoy it enough to be a fan, but I generally don’t do institutions, and especially not political parties. People, I do. And I’m already Facebook friends with Karen.

“The Brad Show” is back in production!

Speaking of the untimely cancellation of brilliant television, you will recall that “The Brad Show” was cancelled after one well-received episode.

But now, it’s back! Or will be, in the next few days. I just taped the second installment this morning. I had the honor of interviewing Caroline Whitson, president of Columbia College and the former chair of the commission that studied transportation needs in Richland County a couple of years back. Now, Dr. Whitson is helping lead the effort to pass the penny sales tax referendum on Nov. 2, and that was the topic of our conversation at our studio at ADCO.

That interview will appear sometime early next week. My next show will likely be with Steve Benjamin. Actually, we had set up the studio for him — he was originally scheduled for noon yesterday, and Jay had set up the studio for a single camera (Dick Cavett style), instead of the two-camera approach we used with erstwhile Benjamin opponent Steve Morrison. That was to cut down on editing time, since we wanted to have it up today, on the new mayor’s 100th day in office.

But the mayor had to cancel at the last minute yesterday (which actually kind of worked out great for me, as I had the cable guy at my house doing something that I had thought would be relatively simple, but ended up taking more than seven hours), so we’re going to try again next week.

I’ve begun negotiations with some other guests. I spoke with Joe Wilson the other day and he said he’d be “honored” to appear, and I have a request in to the Rob Miller campaign as well. There should be other programs related to the November election. After that, I hope to branch out a bit. For instance, the Shop Tart has indicated her willingness to grace us with her presence, and I hope to grill her about how to sell ads, since she’s so infuriatingly good at it. (Speaking of the Tart — next week I’m going to write her another guest spot on current politics, so watch for that as well.)

After Caroline left, Jay and Gene and I got to chatting about doing some “radio” versions of the show. This would allow us to do more of them, since we could do them over the phone and not have to coordinate schedules with guests. But that’s preliminary. We’ll see. In the meantime, we need to work the bugs out of our studio. For instance, this morning I turned we turned the thermostat way down to keep Caroline and me from roasting under the lights. Afterwards, as I was talking with Jan and Gene, I noticed poor Julia huddled in a blanket, leaning toward her Mac for warmth.

So there are adjustments we’ll have to make. But first, we have to get the first installment of the revived show up. Watch for it next week.

I feel your pain Joss; I feel it

Twitter brought my attention to these thoughts from Joss Whedon on why we are not likely to see a sequel to “Serenity:”

While it wasn’t a box office barn burner, Serenity is now something of a hit on DVD and Blu-ray, which makes the possibility of a sequel seem more likely. Alas, Whedon only shakes his head at the prospect: “As far as Firefly is concerned, that will always be unfinished business. Serenity was a Band-Aid on a sucking flesh wound. I think every day about the scenes that I’ll never get to shoot and how badass they were. It’s nice to know that people still care about Firefly but it’s actual grief that I feel. It’s not something you get over, it’s just something you learn to live with.”

I feel your pain, Joss; I really do. We all do. Gorram it.

Loose women should stay in the home, where they belong

As noted back here, Lindsey Graham is about acting on principles, while Jim DeMint is about posturing on them. And now, he’s posturing on loose women. Personally, I’d rather see the loose women posturing, but we don’t always get what we want. This has The Slatest positively chortling upon reading the Spartanburg paper:

It’s almost enough to make you hope for an Alvin Greene upset: The Spartanberg Herald-Journalreports that Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, recently reaffirmed his belief that certain categories of people aren’t fit for the nation’s classrooms, including gays, lesbians, and unmarried women who are living in sin. DeMint was speaking at the “Greater Freedom Rally” at First Baptist North Spartanburg when he made the remarks, which rehashed comments he first made in 2004. TheHerald-Journal characterized his statement thusly: “DeMint said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn’t be teaching in the classroom, and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who’s sleeping with her boyfriend—she shouldn’t be in the classroom.” No word on what areas of public life men who sleep with their girlfriends should be barred from. Steve Benen is a little troubledby the fact that DeMint “is not just some random right-wing voice —he’s a prominent U.S. senator, a kingmaker in GOP primaries.” Josh Dorner points out that “two political action committees controlled by DeMint—MINT PAC and the Senate Conservatives Fund—are spending millions of dollars to elect GOP candidates from coast-to-coast.” Benen thinks this would be a fine time to find out how “the Junior DeMints” feel about gays and loose women. “It’d be interesting to know if they’d be willing to put some distance between themselves and their far-right hero,” he says. “Of course, there’s always the possibility that these folks agree with DeMint, and with a month to go before the election, that’d be good to know, too.”

Now, let me say I take a back seat to no one in longing for traditional values. I think I would have been at home in the Victorian era, I really do. As long as I was in the social class that had indoor plumbing. And I believe firmly that the best environment for kids is a stable, loving home headed by a mother and a father, married to each other. That’s a value worth standing up for, and it is NOT outlandish or comical for anyone to wish that the role models influencing our children also model that value.

But this is NOT the Victorian era. And DeMint’s chances of imposing Victorian values upon society are slim. He is also speaking of things that should be (if one has a conservative view of the purview of the federal government) outside his scope of legitimate action. And what this illustrates to me is his penchant for striking a pose in favor of a value, with neither any hope or realistic prospects of advancing the cause. Rather, he uses the value to draw a line between himself and his detractors, not in the hope of getting anything done, but in order to gain electoral advantage.

And this is problematic.

Poll shows Sheheen starting to gain on Haley

As I said earlier about the Crantford survey — I don’t know whether this is right, but I certainly hope it is. This just in from the Sheheen campaign:

A new poll released today proves what we already knew – Vincent Sheheen has captured the momentum in the race to be South Carolina’s next governor.

News reports stated just a few weeks ago that Nikki Haley had a 17-point lead.  Yet a national pollster just released two polls conducted a week apart that show a dramatic shift towards Vincent Sheheen.  Hamilton Campaigns conducted a survey last week that gave Haley a 51%-41% lead with 8% undecided.  The second poll, conducted this week, shows Vincent cutting the lead in half to 49%-44%.

Read the pollster’s analysis:

“Bottomline – As voters have begun to tune in to this race, the margin between the two candidates has been cut in half in a short period of time. Given the rapid movement and voter discontent with Mark Sanford, this race has certainly become one to watch over the closing weeks of the campaign.” (View entire poll results)

This race is a dead heat and Vincent Sheheen is the candidate on the move.  It’s not surprising that Vincent has the momentum in this race because voters are learning troubling new things about Nikki Haley on a daily basis.  Trust has become the dominant issue in the last few weeks and South Carolinians are beginning to realize that they cannot trust Nikki Haley.  Help keep the momentum going.  Donate today and spread the word by forwarding this email to friends and family.  We need your help to close the deal.

For some time, I’ve been having some pretty dark thoughts about the state of democracy in South Carolina. First Alvin Greene, then a fall electorate perversely bent on ignoring all the negatives about a candidate who would be very bad news as governor of our state.

Each bit of news like this makes me feel less cynical, and gives me greater hope in the wisdom of the voters as they finally begin to pay attention…

What worries me is that this may not be enough movement, fast enough. It does South Carolina no good if the majority completes its shift to Sheheen in mid-November….

Tucker Eskew remembers when governors governed

Tucker Eskew at the Summit Club Tuesday.

Yesterday at the Summit Club, Tucker Eskew spoke to a luncheon meeting of the local chapter of the International Association of Business Communicators. (And OMG, I just committed one of the cardinal sins of Newswriting 101. I just wrote what is termed a “The Ladies Auxiliary met on Wednesday” lede! Which is to say, a lede that tells you a scheduled event occurred, but doesn’t tell you what happened, or why you should care. Well, so what? I don’t have an editor or anyone else to get on me about it. Perhaps you’ve noticed.)

The first thing that interested me about this was how many former staffers from The State were there — Michael Sponhour, Jan Easterling, Jeff Stensland, Preston McLaurin and others, all there to represent their various clients. It was Old Home Week. And I think I was a bit of a curiosity at the gathering, because it was the first time many of them had seen me NOT as an editor at the paper. But perhaps I’m just thinking of myself as the center of the universe again. My wife says I do that.

Anyway, the interesting thing was hearing Tucker ramble about his experiences with the politicos he’s worked for. Some of it was familiar ground — stuff I lived through as well, but experiencing it from a different vantage point — but other parts told me something new. In case you don’t know Tucker, here’s the promo the IABC put out before the event:

High-stakes strategist and high-visibility spokesman Tucker Eskew will share some stories and lessons from his time in the South Carolina State House, the White House, No. 10 Downing Street and his consulting firm, Vianovo. Tucker is a spokesman and strategist whose career began with Ronald Reagan, Lee Atwater and Carroll Campbell. It then continued with George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. Drawing on these experiences, Tucker will reflect on the statecraft and stagecraft he’s witnessed and practiced over 25 years as a communicator. Register now for this inside look into the politics of media and communications from a man who’s been there and done that.

Tucker has come a long way since he was that punk kid we had to joust with when I headed the governmental affairs staff (10 reporters, back in the day) at The State and he was Carroll Campbell’s press secretary. He’s been behind the scenes at a number of interesting moments in history, and I enjoyed hearing his stories about:

His biggest mistake ever. This one made me smile, because it had nothing to do with handling Sarah Palin or anything you might expect. It was when we caught him, the governor’s press secretary, parking in a handicapped space in front of the Capitol Newsstand on Sunday mornings to pick up the papers. As he noted, the item ran in the “Earsay” column, a feature I started as a place to put all those interesting tidbits that reporters always avidly told their colleagues when they got back to the newsroom, but seldom got around to writing for the paper.

The BMW announcement. Probably the high point of the Campbell administration. Tucker sort of lost his temper at the time with reporters who reported cautiously on the announcement rather than playing it as being as big as it would eventually be — reporting just the initial employment, for instance, instead of the likely (and the predictions were borne out over time) economic impact over the long run. Of course, the reporters were just being the kind of healthy skeptics they were trained to be, in keeping with the rule, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” I mean, you certainly don’t give her any points from promising to love you at some point in the misty future. I got the sense Tucker understands that now. But he also takes satisfaction in knowing that BMW was as big a BFD as he maintained at the time.

Then and now. The hardest part of his job in the days before the BMW announcement was keeping the lid on the deal until it could be completed. He said he learned to say “no comment” 150 ways. When it was all done and he met the head guy from BWM, the German said, “So you’re the man who says nothing so much.” He urged us to remember that “This was an era when newspapers were large, well-staffed and aggressive.” That was indeed a long time ago.

The 2000 South Carolina Presidential Primary. This is the one part of his speech I had a real beef with. At some point — I didn’t write down the exact quote — he said something about being proud of the Bush victory. McCain supporter that I was, I would have found such pride distinctly out of place. Tucker had been on the Bush team so long — Campbell had been instrumental in getting Bush pere elected in 1988 — that he could see it no other way, I suppose.

The Long Count in Florida. At the point at which the campaign should have been done, he was asked to pack his bags to spend two or three days in Palm Beach. A week later, his wife mailed him a full suitcase. This was shortly after they had had a baby, and as he and an expectant world stood on one side of a glass wall looking into a room where the chads were being counted and obsessed over, it struck him how like standing outside the hospital nursery the experience was. And all he could think was, “That was one ugly baby” he was looking at in Palm Beach.

September 11, 2001. He was working in the White House press office. As everyone was still reeling from the impact of the first three planes, Whit Ayres called to ask him if he was all right. Sure I am, he said. Ayres said that on TV it looked like his building (the Eisenhower Office Building) was on fire. That was an optical illusion caused by the angle from which a network camera located downtown was shooting the smoke rising from the Pentagon. At around that time, some staffers asked whether they were supposed to be evacuating the building. No sooner had he said “no” than alarms went off. Everyone had been trained to walk, not run, to the exits in an emergency. So they were particularly alarmed to see and hear Secret Service agents yelling at women — including nice, soft-spoken women from South Carolina — to “Take off your shoes and RUN!” That’s because the agents had heard there was another plane headed toward them. Later in the day, he would advocate for the president to come back to the House and be seen leading. And he would write some of the first words released publicly from the administration, by Karen Hughes.

The great missed opportunity. He spoke of how writers right after 9/11 were hailing “the end of irony and cynicism.” Of course, it was just a pause before intensifying, as the partisan bitterness from both sides later exceeded our worst imaginings.

London during the media blitz. It was decided that in the War on Terror, London was the world media center, particularly for the Arabic press. So Tucker was sent there to represent the administration in liaison with Tony Blair’s staff at No. 10. He said it was “the most corrosive, cynical media environment that I’d ever been exposed to.” And he had thought we were bad back in Columbia. At least we didn’t Photoshop pictures of his boss with blood dripping from his fangs. (Tucker urged us to read Tony Blair’s new book. I certainly will, since I just asked for and got it for my birthday.)

Sarah Palin on SNL — In 2008, he was sent from the McCain campaign to become one of the handlers of someone he had known nothing about — the surprise running mate. A high point of that experience was accompanying her backstage when she went on “Saturday Night Live” — something Tucker had urged her to do. He actually had fun for once. But there was work to do as well. He had a role in nixing some bits of the script, such as a line that rhymed “filth” with “MILF.” And the bit that had McCain being “hot for teacher.”

South Carolina’s national image. “We were a shiny piece of trash on the side of the road for awhile,” he said of our time in the “Daily Show” limelight, but he thinks our image is better now. Nevertheless, he knows that South Carolina business people and others who have to travel outside the state pick up on a distinct impression of South Carolina, and “it’s not a good impression.” Someone had asked him whether we just had too many “characters.” He suggested that “it’s not about the characters, but it is about character.” After all, Thurmond and Hollings managed to be characters without reflecting too badly on our state’s character. That is less the case today.

Back in the day, Tucker used to get on my nerves, mostly because he advocated so tenaciously for his boss, whom at the time I saw as more of a partisan warrior than a guy interested in governing. (This was due in part to the fact that he was building his party, and doing so quite successfully. I kept comparing him unfavorably to Lamar Alexander, whom I had covered in Tennessee. Alexander had worked with Democratic lawmakers as full partners and accomplished a lot as a result. Campbell had more of an in-your-face style, doing such things as holding press conferences to rub it in when a Democratic lawmaker switched parties.) Now, I look back on the Campbell administration as halcyon days, a time when a real governor got things done, a state of affairs we haven’t been so fortunate to experience since.

Time matures our perspective. And it’s certainly matured Tucker. My Democratic friends will no doubt see him as anathema because of the names with which he has been associated. But I see him as that brash kid who has grown into a Man of Respect among people who do communications from that side of the wall — the side I’m now on, by the way.

And why is it so easy for me to see him that way now? Because he harks back to a time when we had a governor more interested in governing than posturing. A couple of times he proudly quoted someone — I missed who — calling Campbell an “exemplar of governing conservatism,” with emphasis on the “governing.” Campbell believed in it.

Tucker is too professional to put it this way, but he was obviously appalled at having to work for someone as insubstantial as Sarah Palin — the exemplar of the sort of Republican politician that dominates the scene today. He was at pains to explain her appeal in positive terms, describing her as an unaffected person who causes crowds to think approvingly, “She doesn’t talk down to me.”

He was asked whether he was the one who said Ms. Palin had “gone rogue.” No. But he marveled at being charged with promoting a candidate who was so startling unprepared to run for such a high office. He spoke of the kinds of experience and knowledge that one took for granted in a candidate at that level, and said, “We had never worked with someone who had never done those things.” As far as seasoning experiences were concerned, “Almost none of that had ever transpired.” But he didn’t call her a rogue. “I didn’t say it, but I observed it and was charged with dealing with it.”

And deal with it he must, because, as he realized after a time on the campaign, “She doesn’t have a lot of people who have been around her a long time.”

It was interesting, in light of these observations, to think back on what he had said a few minutes before, in a different context, about how amazing it is to see Nikki Haley “rise, in relative terms, from nowhere…” He had meant it in a good way. But the comparison to Palin is rather unavoidable.

Asked what he thought of the state’s two U.S. senators, he diplomatically spoke of his respect for both, but emphasized that they are very different. DeMint is about the “principle,” and Graham “stands on principle, but still gets things done” — making him another “exemplar of governing conservatism.” With distinct understatement, he noted that “DeMint has made himself a lot of friends around the country, and probably some opponents within” the Senate — the place where one has to work with people to get anything one believes in done.

A longtime Republican operative in the audience asked whether President Reagan could even get elected in today’s political environment. She — Christy Cox, longtime aide to David Wilkins — seemed to doubt it. Tucker said he would hope Ronald “Morning in America” Reagan could “change the climate.”

But the point was made. The climate would indeed have to be changed for the Great Communicator to be successful today.

So that’s why I can appreciate Tucker better today. Once, I saw him as a sort of partisan guerrilla warrior, part of the problem. Now, he joins me in harking back to a time when those who called themselves conservatives ran for, and served as, governor because they believed in governing. And as I said earlier, that was a long time ago…

Buddy, can you spare a scholarship?

Got this from Stan Dubinsky. I got it without any context, so I don’t know who produced it, or anything else about the campaign it’s a part of (help me out, Stan — do you have a link?).

Most of the way through it, I was thinking, “You’ll never get anywhere with this.” That’s because the kinds of people who are the reasons higher education was never funded at a competitive level in South Carolina, and has been incredibly slashed from the already-low levels to a fraction of those levels, really don’t give a damn about the considerations depicted in the video. When the video asks the viewer to imagine “no social workers,” I’m thinking that the Tea Party types are going, “Hell, yes! Sounds great to me!” (And no, historically the “Tea Party” has not been a factor, by that name. But the mentality that it represents has long held sway in our state, and is one of the main reasons we lag economically behind much of the rest of the country. )

But then I get to the end and realize, this little film isn’t aimed at them. Or at me. It’s aimed at people in a position to give private dollars to prop up the institution. The makers of this video assume that the public conversation is long ago finished, and lost. In this piece, they’ve moved on.

And well they should. Several rounds of cuts back, the Legislature was only funding between 12-15 percent of the cost of running our supposedly “public” institutions of higher learning. I don’t know where the percentage is now. These formerly state institutions now look to the state as one of many, many donors it has to line up.

And this video is one way of doing that.

Every time you turn over a rock…

… another problem from Nikki Haley’s past crawls out.

This time, it has to do with the House member leaning on the Employment Security Commission to suspend an audit of her family business:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley called a commissioner at the state’s workforce agency while she was a sitting lawmaker to ask that an audit of her family’s business be suspended.

Haley’s Democratic opponent, Vincent Sheheen, made Haley’s request public this afternoon while responding to Haley’s campaign statement that unemployed South Carolinians should submit to drug tests in order to collect unemployment benefits.

Haley says she asked for an extension.

Former Employment Security Commissioner Becky Richardson confirmed to The Post and Courier that Haley made the request. Richardson said she couldn’t recall all the specifics but said that the audit was indeed suspended, though she doesn’t remember for what length of time. Richardson said Haley told her “that it was a real busy time” when she made the request in early 2005. Haley has served in the statehouse since 2004…

How many more things will we learn about — before and after the election — that just don’t quite pass the smell test? It’s bizarre that she keeps trying to hammer Vincent over worker’s comp. Well, I guess Vincent decided he’d heard enough of that nonsense — particularly in light of how Nikki has tried to use the system.

And what on Earth is wrong with the people who still plan to vote for her?

I mean, isn’t this kind of abuse of power by politicians the very thing that riles up the Tea Partiers who are her base? Do those folks believe in anything?

Pro-life snub of Sheheen misses huge opportunity

Pat pointed out back here the fact that my old friend Holly Gatling (formerly of The State‘s Pee Dee bureau) and her compatriots at South Carolina Citizens for Life endorsed Nikki Haley for the thinnest, most procedural of reasons. That is indeed true:

Citizens for Life director Holly Gatling says Haley scored a 100 on its 19-question election survey. She says Democrat Vincent Sheheen has voted with the anti-abortion group and has “never been hostile to our issues.” But he did not return the survey, so the group backed the candidate who put it in writing.

The fact is that in Vincent Sheheen, the pro-life movement has that most rare and precious of commodities, a creature that those who care should want to warmly embrace, cosset and nurture — a pro-life Democrat. Not since Bob Casey won his Senate seat from Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, despite the nasty blowback from the likes of NARAL, has there been such a chance to support a pro-life Democratic nominee for high office.

And SCCofL has blown that opportunity for the sake of a piece of paper not obediently filled out.

Thereby the pro-life movement misses the opportunity to demonstrate it is more than a lapdog of the Right, to be taken for granted, to be bought for a piece of paper filled out with the answers that everyone knows they want to hear. The state Chamber of Commerce has had the guts to demonstrate in this race that it is not slavishly Republican. Even Republicans, from Cyndi Mosteller to Bobby Harrell, have to varying degrees expressed their differences with the nominee of their party. Why pass up this opportunity to demonstrate some real, conscience-based, independence for the sake of a piece of paper?

As The State noted a month ago, the pro-life movement has TWO strong candidates in the major-party nominees for governor (the subhed was, “Voters who support procedures left in cold by major candidates for governor” — those of you who want to pause and hold a moment of silence for the folks Holly calls the “pro-aborts” because for once they don’t have a champion, go right ahead; I will move on), and one of them is someone who, being a Democrat, actually takes some political risk, who actually gets out of the comfort zone of a member of his party, for his support for life. Me, I’d want to give a guy like that some props. But that’s me.

Your Virtual Front Page, Monday, October 4, 2010

Here’s what we have on this, the 53rd birthday of my cousin Craig, who was born the day that Sputnik was also launched. I remember that because it was the day after my 4th birthday (and thanks to all you who wished me a Happy on Facebook over the weekend). Anyway, the news:

  1. Two S.C. soldiers killed in Afghanistan (thestate.com) — The deaths of Specialist Luther Rabon, 32, of Lexington, and Staff Sgt. Willie Harley, 48, of Aiken, killed together by an IED, brings the Guard’s total, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, to 13. Meanwhile, we have apparently killed some Germans who were working with al Qaeda over the border.
  2. Maliki, Allawi consider deal on forming new Iraqi government (WashPost) — There’s still an Iraq, and there’s still stuff going on there? Even the occasional battle, which the Iraqis are having a bit of trouble winning without us
  3. Good TARP News Doesn’t Fit; Media Are Flummoxed (NPR) — The MSM struggles with such questions as “What do we do with the end of TARP? And what do we do with the news that TARP will not have cost anything like the $700 billion we thought it would? What if it really cost $50 billion, or less?” Poor MSM. And the Tea Party just standing there ready to yell “Liar!” at whatever you say…
  4. Rousseff falls short of outright win in Brazil election (BBC) — This is several hours old now, but since I was griping about the lack of Latin American news in the American MSM, I thought I’d share this with you from the BBC. Meanwhile, the president of Chile promises to get the miners out soon, and Raul is thinking about releasing more political prisoners in Cuba. The Church is on the case.
  5. Twitter Names New CEO (WSJ) — I knew it. There was just something… different about my Tweets today. A disturbance in the Force, I thought…
  6. A new snapshot of U.S. sex lives (WashPost) — No, there are no pictures. In fact, I sort of faked you out with this. It’s actually pretty boring, about condoms and stuff. Which just ruins it for me. And the story keeps using “orgasm” as a verb, which I find objectionable.

The counter-Haley insurgency within the GOP goes mainstream (but sotto voce)

Republicans who are enamored of their gubernatorial nominee can dismiss Cyndi Mosteller (sister of close Sanford ally Chip Campsen) if they like. But they’ll have a bit of trouble shrugging off this missive from their own Speaker of the House:

PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO ALL REPUBLICANS YOU KNOW.

Dear Friends,

This Election Year there are a lot of accusations flying around and very few facts backing them up.  Republicans need to make sure all voters are fully informed before they go to the polls this November and that is why we felt it was so important that we get the real facts out.

Recently, special interest groups in our state have tried to accuse State House Republicans of fighting against reforms that we not only support, but that we have actually voted on and passed.  They are even accusing Republican leadership of not supporting the very reforms that we have worked hard to get passed.

The SC House Republican Caucus is a conservative body that has a record of conservative reforms and a clear vision for our state’s future.  Over this series of emails, we will tell you the facts about that solid record and share with you our plans to build on that record.

Transparency

The House Republican Caucus supports more transparency in our state government.  A more open government makes for a more accountable government.  We believe the people should be able to see how their elected officials vote.

FACT:  In January 2009, we adopted a Rule in the House of Representatives that was authored by Representative Nikki Haley that put more of our votes on the record. Click here to see the House Rule.

FACT:  Just this past session, the House of Representatives unanimously passed Rep. Haley’s bill that would make the House Rule requiring more recorded votes a law.  Click here to see the bill we passed.

Even though it passed unanimously and would appear as though it was easy to pass, there were still hurdles we had to overcome to get us there. The House Republican Caucus and I, as the Speaker, worked very hard to get this important rule passed and to get the legislation through the House of Representatives.

Unfortunately, this bill never made it through the SC Senate.  Because of that, the House Republican Caucus has put Transparency at the top of our election agenda and plan to address this issue again in the next legislative session.

As I said at the beginning of this email, there will be a lot of untrue allegations made during this election season, but facts are facts.  The House Republican Caucus, and I as the Speaker, have not only supported more transparency in government, we have backed up the talk with action by passing a House Rule and a House Bill.  This is the kind of leadership you expect from Republicans, and I am proud to be able to tell you about it.

Bobby Harrell

Speaker,

South Carolina House of Representatives


PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO ALL REPUBLICANS YOU KNOW.

A friend sent this to me, noting rightly that “you’re certainly not a Republican, but I thought I’d pass it on anyway.” I’m much obliged.

Whoa. Normally, when a Republican leader starts out a mailing, less than a month from a general election, with “This Election Year there are a lot of accusations flying around and very few facts backing them up,” he’s unloading on the Democratic nominee. Not this time, baby. Not the way I read it, anyway — because I’ve only heard one person try to paint the leadership as opposed to transparency.

Sure, in keeping with Reagan’s 11th Commandment, Bobby didn’t come right out and say “Nikki Haley is a liar!” But even your more comprehension-challenged Repubs ought to be able to understand this message. Right? Or are they thicker than I give them credit for being?

Or… is there something I’m missing?

That wonderful, marvelous Adam Smith

I said something about “Adam Smith sermonizing” in The Wall Street Journal back on this post.

Speak of the devil, I just happened to read a book review in that paper this morning about the book, Adam Smith: An Enlightened Life (I am not making this title up), By Nicholas Phillipson.

Talk about your gushing. The reviewer writes, breathily,

Even his appearance is a mystery. The only contemporary likenesses of him are two small, carved medallions. We know Adam Smith as we know the ancients, in colorless stone.

It is a measure of Nicholas Phillipson’s gifts as a writer that he has, from this unpromising material, produced a fascinating book. Mr. Phillipson is the world’s leading historian of the Scottish Enlightenment. His “Adam Smith: An Enlightened Life” animates Smith’s prosaic personal history with an account of the eventful times through which he lived and the revolutionary ideas that inspired him. Adam Smith finally has the biography that he deserves, and it could not be more timely.

Smith’s fame, of course, was made by the “Wealth of Nations.” The book appeared in 1776, a good year in the annals of human liberty. Its teachings are so fundamental to modern economics that familiarity often dulls our appreciation of its brilliance.

Smith constructed his masterpiece on a few ingenious insights into the workings of a commercial economy….

He’s so wonderful, but so unknowable! His ways are so far above our ways, and his thoughts so far above our thoughts, that we know him only through colorless stone! Quick, a paper bag — I’m hyperventilating…

Of course, I must admit, I haven’t read Wealth of Nations. For two centuries and more, I’ve been holding out for the movie version. Maybe it’s all that and more. But at the moment I’m giving myself a break from nonfiction to reread O’Brian’s The Wine-Dark Sea, which of course actually is wonderful. (Speaking of the movie, I watched “Master and Commander” last night on Blu-Ray. If only someone would undertake to make a separate film on each book in the Aubrey/Maturin canon! As soon as it came out on Netflix, you wouldn’t see me for a year…)

After that, I’m going to read the books I got for my birthday, starting with Tony Blair’s new political autobio. Then there’s Woodward’s Obama’s War. Only then will I allow myself the pleasure of reading the latest Arkady Renko mystery, Three Stations.

Then, before I read Adam Smith, I will go back and finish Trotsky: Downfall of a Revolutionary, which I set aside to read Bob Leckie’s Helmet for My Pillow and Eugene Sledge’s With the Old Breed, back-to-back. Then, sometime after Trotsky, I’ll go read Adam Smith — right after I poke myself in the eye with a sharp stick. Twice. Colorless stone, indeed.

What really happened in Ecuador (one version, anyway)

I really hate that my only regular source of information about what happens in Latin America — now that I no longer have my subscription to The Economist that the paper paid for — is the opinion columns of Mary Anastasia O’Grady in The Wall Street Journal. They’re all written from the standard WSJ point of view — free markets good, government bad — and while I certainly prefer that to, say, the twisted neo-Maoism of Hugo Chavez, or the native populism of Evo Morales, or the demagoguery of Rafael Correa, I would still prefer my reporting without the Adam Smith sermonizing.

But whaddaya gonna do? In this country, the MSM panders so to the extreme apathy of Americans toward anything beyond their borders that the only way I’ve ever kept up with our own backyard is by reading British publications (such as The Economist).

All of that said, having Ms. O’Grady’s observations delivered to my door each week is better than nothing.

And I read with particular interest her piece this morning about what happened in Ecuador last week. An excerpt of her debunking of Mr. Correa’s claims of a “coup” attempt:

Mr. Correa says that, once inside the hospital, the police “kidnapped” him for 10 hours, in what he is calling an attempted coup d’état.

Not so, says Ms. Zaldumbide, at least one other patient, and two doctors and a nurse who were on duty at the time. They say Mr. Correa retained all his presidential privileges and was never without the protection of his security team.

They also say he was offered an armed escort to leave but refused it. Ecuador’s minister of internal and external security has also said that the president was never detained.

Nevertheless, at 9 p.m. Mr. Correa, who was doing telephone interviews with the state-controlled media during the time he was supposedly “kidnapped,” ordered 500 army troops to the hospital. The soldiers arrived with tanks and submachine guns and opened fire on the police. A fierce gun battle lasted 40 minutes, took the lives of two men, and terrified hospital staff and patients.

Wow. Although there apparently was no coup at all, what did happen certainly sounds more exciting than the real coup I lived through in Ecuador when I was a kid.

Back then, we knew how to have a revolution without our hair getting mussed. I say this because I was, like Forrest Gump and just as clueless, present as history was made.

We lived in the upstairs of a large house owned by a captain in the Ecuadorean Navy. One day in 1963 when my parents were out, they told us to go hang out with the kids downstairs, in the landlord’s part quarters. While I was there, the capitan had a visitor. A few days later, that visitor (an admiral) was the head of the junta running the country, and our landlord held some high post in the government. I want to say minister of agriculture.

When my parents told me there had been a coup, I asked what a coup was (I was only 9 years old). They told me it was like a revolution. So with some apprehension, I went over to the window and peeked out at the intersection of Maracaibo y Seis de Mayo, expecting to see violence in the streets. I saw nothing. Things looked pretty normal over across the street at the home of the chief of police, which always had a guard walking up and down the sidewalk outside. Perhaps, I thought, the fighting was elsewhere.

But there was no fighting. The story I remember hearing at the time — and it may be totally apocryphal — was that the junta waited until el presidente had a bit too much to drink, then put him on a plane and let him wake up in Panama. Presto — instant revolution.

What I saw subsequently certainly jibed with such a peaceful transfer. The only time I ever saw violence in that country when I was there was when some friends and I went downtown to see a Western movie with a title that I suppose caused a lot of people to think it was in Spanish (I want to say “Comancheros”). The crowd was queued up on one side of the theater, then a rumor spread that the tickets would be sold on the other side, and I got knocked down in the stampede. Then there was that other time when I was at some event in a park, and was pushing my way through a crowd to the front to see what was happening, and popped through the front ranks just as a line of cops pushed us back at bayonet point — but I don’t remember what that was about; I just remember my surprise at the bayonets, which seemed excessive. (Or was it just rifles without bayonets? I was so young, and it was so long ago — and a boy’s memory tends to romanticize, especially when living the sort of TV-free, Tom Sawyer existence I experienced down there. Everything was an adventure.)

Now, looking back, I read that the junta canceled elections. I don’t remember that. I do remember that they canceled Water Carnival. Water Carnival was a deeply cherished (by 9-year-old boys) tradition that involved having permission for several days to assault strangers with water balloons. To me, the canceling of Water Carnival has always stood out as the very epitome of oppression.

Of course, it may just be that my parents told me it was canceled…

Come to think of it, Ms. O’Grady’s accounts are probably more reliable than my memories. What do kids know? I later learned that several of the adults with whom I regularly interacted — including my guitar teacher — were working for the CIA, or U.S. military intelligence. Who knew?