Getting Sirius about Alvin Greene

OK, it wasn’t such a surprise when NPR wanted to talk with me about SC politics. But this request took me aback a bit:

Hi Brad,
This is Dan Pashman, I produce Whatever with Alexis and Jennifer on the Martha Stewart channel on Sirius. It’s a general interest talk show, and we’d like to invite you on to talk about Alvin Greene. I’m sure you’re very familiar with his story, but the intrigue surrounding it is just starting to break through on the national level, and we’d love to get the local perspective. How did he win the primary? Is this some kind of joke? Is he really as unlikely a candidate as it seems? What are folks in the state saying about him? And are you sure this isn’t some kind of joke? We’d like to do this today at 6 pm eastern, you could do it from a land line phone and it would take about 15 minutes. The show is lighthearted and fun, we do some politics and the hosts are curious about Greene, but it’s definitely not wonky. The hosts also talk a lot about dating and celebrities, etc, so we cover a lot of ground and this interview can definitely have a fun element to it. Please let me know if you’re available.

Thanks,
Dan

Anyway, I’ll be on tomorrow (we moved it back a day) at 6, if you can listen. I can’t not having satellite radio.

By the way, Dan wrote me later to ask if I could answer his questions above so that he could prep the stars of the show. Here’s how I replied:

How did he win the primary?

No one knows. These were all factors in what happened, though:

— No one was paying attention to that race because whoever it was was expected to be a sacrificial lamb and lose to DeMint in the fall.

— The candidate expected to win, Vic Rawl, didn’t campaign all that much. He thought he had it in the bag. And indeed, if you had asked me who was going to win that, I would have said, “Vic Rawl.” Not that I cared. I assumed that Vic Rawl would be the guy to lose to DeMint in the fall, that that was that. (I’ll tell you, I did not vote on that race. I saw Rawl’s name there, and recognized it, but decided I didn’t know enough about him to vote for him — of course, I’m used to knowing more about candidates than most people, and in this case, I hadn’t even met the guy.)

— Alvin Greene’s name came first on the ballot. Never underestimate the power of that in the absence of name recognition.

— “Greene” is considered to be a “black” spelling of the name. So it’s assumed that lots of black voters, not knowing either of these guys, chose him because he sounded like the black guy.

— Bottom line, his winning makes all the sense in the world to Alvin — he ran, right? so why wouldn’t people have voted for him? — and totally blows the minds of everybody else.

Is this some kind of joke?

Not to Alvin Greene. He’s serious as a crutch.

Is he really as unlikely a candidate as it seems?

Yes.

What are folks in the state saying about him?

Democrats are saying as little as possible. Republicans are saying “Greene-Sheheen,” loudly and often. Vincent Sheheen is the Democratic nominee for governor.

And are you sure this isn’t some kind of joke?

Yep. To folks outside the state, and to Republicans inside it, it IS a joke. But not to other South Carolinians. We’ve had enough embarrassment.

By the way, Kevin Geddings is out of prison

Nikki’s secret meeting to try to woo business

12 Replies

Well, this is ironic…

When I was typing this post back here about how Nikki Haley is trying to compensate for the fact that the Chamber backs Vincent Sheheen, I got a call from Henry McMaster. Actually, first I got an e-mail from Trey Walker asking for my phone number, then I got a call from Henry.

What was Henry calling about? Well, let me back up a day…

At the end of Monday’s Columbia Rotary Club meeting, I ran into Henry (he and I are both members) on my way toward the door. It was the first time I had run into him since he lost the primary, and we chatted for a minute about that. He said something about wishing he could roll time back a couple of months, which prompted me to ask him what he would do differently, to which he responded that there really wasn’t anything he could have done to achieve a different result. Too much tumbled Nikki’s way in quick succession — the ReformSC ad, the Sarah Palin endorsement, the wave of sympathy arising from the Will Folks stuff — not to mention having Jenny Sanford out there working for her.

I sensed that Henry was, at least in spirit, not entirely thrilled with his new role as supporter of the GOP nominee. But he’s a good soldier, and he quickly roused himself to do his duty. As I was about to walk away and Crawford Clarkson was approaching, he grabbed my arm and said hey, he wanted to invite me and Crawford to a special meeting on Thursday at noon at the Wilbur Smith building.

He said it was a chance for business people to get answers to the questions they have about Nikki Haley. Nikki will be there to answer them. “And you’re a business man now, right?” he said to me. You betcha, I said.

Questions? At the Wilbur Smith building? Questions like, what did Nikki do for Wilbur Smith for that 40 grand, aside from having “good contacts”? Well… actually, all sorts of questions, Henry said, such as about her position on this bill or that one… I didn’t press him further, because I figured I’d find out Thursday, right?

And the best part? Henry said the media wasn’t being invited. So as a business guy, I’d have a scoop. Nice being a businessman, huh?

That was yesterday.

Today, Henry called me rather flustered. He said it was a “totally closed, no-press event.” That meant somebody like me, who would turn around and write about it (and I would, too), was NOT invited. “They’re right emphatic about it,” he said.

He told me how embarrassed he was, and I knew he was. I thanked him for calling — after asking if our former Rotary president, and president of ADCO, Lanier Jones could go instead of me. Lanier’s a businessman, and he doesn’t blog.

Henry said the meeting was getting really crowded, and he didn’t know, but he’d check.

I feel bad for Henry.

How about that zero? THAT was something, huh?

19 Replies

I have two things to say about this brouhaha over Charles Bolden saying he was told to help Muslims feel good about their culture’s historic contributions to science, and the White House denial of such a brief.

First, the silly thing: I have trouble picturing the no-nonsense Marine on a self-esteem-building mission. When I try, my imagination comes up with something really goofy, like:

Hey, guys and how about the concept of zero? That’s a biggie! I don’t know what we’d do without it! Why, back in the Middle Ages, sports fans all over poor, benighted Europe didn’t know how to keep up with what was happening on the field when their team hadn’t scored (which is a big disadvantage when you’re soccer-crazy — you could spend the whole game in the dark!). They had to make up lame alternative words, like “zip” and “nil.” The guys who kept the medieval scoreboards would just be standing up there scratching their heads wondering what to put up until somebody finally scored… Boy, I’m glad I wasn’t trying to follow sports back then…

And that just doesn’t sound like Gen. Bolden.

Now, to my serious point: If Charles Bolden says that the White House told him it wanted him to make the Muslim world feel warm and fuzzy about itself, that’s what happened.

Charles Bolden is one heckuvan impressive guy, and a squared-away Marine. If he says those are his orders, those are his orders, and don’t get between him and his mission.

Anyone at the White House who says otherwise either isn’t in the loop, or is lying.

And that’s the name of that tune.

Nikki “means business” — but business backs Vincent

16 Replies

Wow. After having won the nomination on a wave of Tea Party extremism, the Nikki Haley campaign is trying rather desperately — and transparently — to portray her as “conservative” in the actual, traditional, conservative sense of the word.

So it is that I got this release from Nikki a few minutes ago:

I wanted to write you a quick note about National Review’s latest article on Nikki’s incredible primary victory and message of conservative reform focused on creating a pro-business, accountable government that’s truly working for the people of this state. Take a moment to read a few excerpts below…

National Review: She Means Business

South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley is a chamber of commerce conservative…

And so forth and so on…

Hmmm. Nikki “is a chamber of commerce conservative”? Really?

No, not really. Because the SC Chamber of Commerce is backing Vincent Sheheen.

Perhaps the National Review meant that she was “Chamber of Commerce-ish,” or “Chamber of Commerce-like,” or “Chamber of Commercesque.”

But you know what? Not even that would wash. Here’s what Nikki’s campaign had to say about the actual, real-world Chamber of Commerce in reaction to its endorsement of Vincent:

COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina business leaders are sticking with a decision not to endorse state GOP gubernatorial nominee Rep. Nikki Haley as her campaign Wednesday called the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce “a big fan of bailouts and corporate welfare.”

In case you don’t keep up with these things, that’s not the way “a chamber of commerce conservative” talks. That’s the way you talk when you’re the darling of the anti-establishment Tea Party.

Another reason you should advertise here, you silly, foolish businessperson

10 Replies

The other day a local business that I had considered a fairly decent prospect to buy an ad on the blog told me no thanks, that they had just signed an ad contract with a local TV station. You know, old media. Sigh.

That poor would-be customer should have read this:

According to the findings of the 2010 Digital Influence Index, by Fleishman-Hillard International Communications with Harris Interactive, when it comes to driving consumer decisions about a range of products and services, the Internet is by far the most influential media channel, but marketers have yet to capitalize on that influence.

Of the seven nations the study addressed, four reported the Internet to be the most important source of information. China ranked the web highest in importance, followed by Germany, Japan, and the U.K., placing it above advice from friends, family or coworkers, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, postal mail and e?mail. And though respondents spend a significant amount of time on the web, they still reported peer advice as an important information source. The Internet and peer advice tied in importance among Americans.

Magazines, radio and postal mail had the least importance among respondents, with an average of 10, 12 and 15 percent reporting each respective media as “absolutely essential” or “extremely important.” Newspapers and television received similar average rankings of around 16 percent.

All I can say is tsk-tsk, if only they’d known. I mean, I feel bad for them; don’t you?

You asked for it; you got it: Your Virtual Front Page, July 12, 2010

6 Replies

Here it is, folks! For today, anyway. I’ll see if I can get this going again…

Administration issues new drilling moratorium (WashPost) — This one’s not based on water depth.
Polanski is set free by Swiss (WSJ) — As Eugene Robinson puts it, “the long, unspeakable nightmare of being confined to his three-story chalet in Gstaad, the luxury resort in the Swiss Alps, is finally over.” And he will not be held accountable for raping a child in the U.S.
Sen. Brown to Support Financial-Overhaul Bill (WSJ) — So much for the say-no-to-everything darling of the Tea Party. I have no idea whether this is good legislation or not (it’s about money, right?), but I love it when people refuse to be pigeonholed.
Sheheen leads Haley in money race (thestate.com) — He’s gonna need every penny of it, too. If he had ten times as much, though, it wouldn’t be enough to counter the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free, hagiographic media she’s getting from the national outlets.
Hefner’s Hold On ‘Playboy’ Could Be In Peril (NPR) — So maybe he should try holding it with both hands for a change. Sorry. Couldn’t resist… You know, I’d be cheering for this sleazebag’s competition in this corporate takeover bid if it weren’t you know, Penthouse. By comparison, Hef is almost the Mom and Apple Pie option.
Harvey Pekar of “American Splendor” fame dies (Cleveland Plain Dealer) — Don’t know whether this will make the front of many other papers, but it makes my virtual one. I liked what Roger Ebert said this morning: “Harvey Pekar. I guess he’s finally satisfied.” And linked to this cartoon, which is essential Pekar. He was, as the main character in “Clueless” would have said, way existential. And finally, here’s a clip from the excellent movie about Harvey starring Paul Giamatti.

Show us transparency, Nikki: Release the e-mails

22 Replies

Did you see the strong editorial in The State Sunday, challenging Nikki “Transparency” Haley for hiding behind a loophole in FOI specifically carved out to protect legislators, and legislators alone, from transparency in order to keep her state-issued e-mail secret?

I was very glad to see it. As the edit pointed out, this isn’t about Will Folks or disgusting sex allegations. Neither The State‘s editorial board nor I expect to find anything about that if we ever see those e-mails. But the fact that this started with such accusations creates a smoke screen that lets Nikki get away with a flagrant flouting of the principles she lets on to hold most dear. From the heart of the editorial:

Ms. Haley, after all, is not just someone who thinks government transparency is a nice thing. Her one claim to fame as a legislator is her crusade to bring sunlight to a legislative process that for too long has protected lawmakers from accountability rather than giving the voters information they deserve. Her entire campaign for governor is built on that push for openness, for letting the public in on the Legislature’s secrets, for eliminating the special perks and privileges legislators give themselves and their friends.

Does that apply only to the direct expenditure of public money?

Does it apply only to other people?

Imagine if the blogger had claimed that he helped Rep. Haley secretly funnel millions of tax dollars into a green-bean museum and steer tens of millions more in cushy no-bid contracts to her campaign donors, and that messages on her government e-mail account would back up his claim. Is there anyone who would not be demanding that she make the correspondence public?

What is she hiding? Why doesn’t she want us to see the messages she has been sending as she juggled her campaign for governor with doing her job as a legislator?

It is not Ms. Haley’s job to disprove unsubstantiated allegations. It is, however, her job to prove that her commitment to ushering in government transparency and ushering out special legislative privileges is sincere — even more since it has been called into question before. She still hasn’t explained what she did to earn more than $40,000 in consulting fees from a government contractor that hired her for her “good contacts.”

If Ms. Haley were governor, we already would have seen her e-mails, because what governors write on their government e-mail accounts is public record. In fact, Gov. Mark Sanford’s attorney saw fit to turn over some e-mails from his personal account, because she determined that he was using it to discuss public business.

If Ms. Haley were the president of the University of South Carolina, we already would have seen her e-mails. Ditto if she were a $30,000-a-year clerk in the bowels of the bureaucracy, because what nearly all state employees write on their government e-mail accounts is public record.

The only reason her public e-mail correspondence has remained hidden is that she is a legislator, and legislators have written themselves a special exemption to the Freedom of Information Act.

This exemption is the very epitome of the secrecy that Ms. Haley vows to eliminate.

I’m glad to see this now. Because at some point, someone was going to point out this obvious inconsistency and raise a stink about it. My concern has been that it would happen in late October, thereby engendering another tidal wave of protective emotion that would sweep Rep. Haley to victory.

The time to address this is now, when there’s time to be calm. Time to see that she cannot possibly have any legitimate excuse not to share these state-sponsored communications.

What is she hiding, indeed? For all I know, absolutely nothing. But then I don’t know, because she’s hiding it, in a stunning display of contempt for the ideals she says she stands for.

Greene media juggernaut cranks up (snicker!)

25 Replies

Two things to share…

First, this photo, which may or may not be legitimate; I have no idea. It was brought to my attention by Scott English, Mark Sanford’s chief of staff, via Twitter. He got it from the Washington Examiner. PhotoShop or reality? Either way, it’s a primo example of the current rage in political comedy, the item that allows us all to sneer at Alvin Greene. (Speaking of PhotoShop: I not only cropped the picture before posting it here; I also lightened it up and increased the contrast. We have standards here at bradwarthen.com.) The knee-slapping cutline that came with the picture:

This sign is from US 521, near Greene’s hometown, and hotbed of support, in Manning, SC. No signs for Republican Sen. Jim DeMint were spotted anywhere near the area, suggesting that Greene has opened an imposing lead in the early-advertising race.

Yuk, yuk, chortle, snort.

Which brings me to my second point: At what point does mocking Alvin Greene simply becoming mocking a man for being poor, black and unemployed and from a small town in South Carolina? At what point do the Republicans who are LOVING this, or the mortified Democrats who hide their faces in shame that THIS is their nominee, or smart-ass bloggers who post satirical photos (real or fake; irresponsible bloggers just don’t care, do they?) get called on the carpet for the so-far socially acceptable practice of running down Alvin Greene?

Food for thought, there…

Graham said what I think about the Tea Party

14 Replies

On Sunday, my wife was reading the paper, and announced that there was something in there about what Lindsey Graham said in that New York Times Magazine profile recently.

Turns out it was a rehash of the quote about not being gay.

What I had HOPED was being quoted was what he said about the Tea Partiers, because it’s the one question that ought to be asked of those folks repeatedly:

“Everything I’m doing now in terms of talking about climate, talking about immigration, talking about Gitmo is completely opposite of where the Tea Party movement’s at,” Graham said as Cato drove him to the city of Greenwood, where he was to give a commencement address at Lander University later that morning. On four occasions, Graham met with Tea Party groups. The first, in his Senate office, was “very, very contentious,” he recalled. During a later meeting, in Charleston, Graham said he challenged them: “ ‘What do you want to do? You take back your country — and do what with it?’ . . . Everybody went from being kind of hostile to just dead silent.”

In a previous conversation, Graham told me: “The problem with the Tea Party, I think it’s just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out.” Now he said, in a tone of casual lament: “We don’t have a lot of Reagan-type leaders in our party. Remember Ronald Reagan Democrats? I want a Republican that can attract Democrats.” Chortling, he added, “Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today.”

Whenever I hear Nikki Haley (you know Nikki Haley — she’s that extremist who wants to censure her own party’s senior U.S. senator for being a rational human being) say that line, “take our government back” to Tea Party cheers, I wonder the same things. Take it back from whom? To do what with it?

Yeah, good luck with that, professor

8 Replies

Enjoyed the book review in the WSJ this morning of the book “Getting it Wrong,” debunking some epic media myths:

William Randolph Hearst never said, “You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war.” Orson Welles’s “War of the Worlds” radio broadcast didn’t panic America. Ed Murrow’s “See It Now” TV show didn’t destroy Sen. Joseph McCarthy. JFK didn’t talk the New York Times into spiking its scoop on the Bay of Pigs invasion. Far from being the first hero of the Iraq War, captured Army Pvt. Jessica Lynch was caught sobbing “Oh, God help us” and never fired a shot.

But the best part was at the very end:

For all Mr. Campbell’s earnest scholarship, these media myths are certain to survive his efforts to slay them. Journalism can’t help itself — it loves and perpetuates its sacred legends of evil power-mongers, courageous underdogs, dread plagues and human folly. At the end of the book, Mr. Campbell offers some remedies for media mythologizing, urging journalists, among other things, “to deepen their appreciation of complexity and ambiguity.” Good luck with that, professor.

Yeah, good luck indeed. For instance, good luck expecting any depth or perspective in the PC tsunami that will wash over us from the national media as they thrill over the idea of “an Indian-American woman” becoming governor in the South. Never mind what she would do as governor, the simplistic identity politics narrative overrides all…

Free Times list: “Cabal That Controls Columbia”

4 Replies

I’m way busy on deadline for an ADCO project, but in the meantime I thought I’d give y’all something to chew on: The Free Times’ list of “The Secret Cabal That Controls Columbia: The Power Elite in the Capital City.”

First, that publication’s own disclaimer, which takes a bit of the oomph out of the pitch: “OK, first things first: We don’t really think the people on the list that follows constitute a cabal — we just needed a zippy title to get your attention.”

That said, on to the list:

Ben Arnold
Steve Benjamin
Sue Berkowitz
Marvin Chernoff
Bob Coble
Tameika Isaac Devine
Eric Hyman
Alan Kahn
Leon Lott
Darla Moore
Steve Morrison
Cathy Novinger
Tom Prioreschi
The Quinns (Richard and Rick)
Ed Sellers
Rep. James Smith
Ann Timberlake
Jean Toal
Don Tomlin
Jack Van Loan

Well, they certainly got that last one right — my good friend Jack, the Godfather of Five Points. In fact, I really feel like a connected guy reading that list, as I know all but one person on it, and most of them pretty well. With those kinds of connections, I ought to be a mover and shaker myself.

But there are some flaws here. First, not only isn’t this not a “cabal,” but in truth no one “controls” Columbia. And there seem to be omissions from the list. There’s James Smith, but not the other Hardy Boy, Joel Lourie. There’s Eric Hyman, but not Harris Pastides.

But go to the piece, read the explanations, and judge for yourself. And speak out — who is on the list who shouldn’t be, and who isn’t who should?

We haven’t had a good spy swap in AGES…

18 Replies

I’m watching with some fascination as the Russian spies we recently pulled in admit their guilt, and we get ready for a swap for some people the Russians are holding:

The US is to deport 10 people who spied for Moscow in exchange for four people convicted of espionage in Russia.

A judge in New York ordered the immediate deportation of the 10, and it is thought they may leave in hours.

The 10 had pleaded guilty to spying for a foreign country but a charge of laundering money was dropped.

Details of the four being freed by Russia were not given other than that all had had “alleged contact with Western intelligence agencies”.

Fascination, and a certain amount of nostalgia. Not only did I grow up in the Cold War (when world affairs were simpler — you were either on our side or theirs), but I’m a huge fan of such spy novelists as John le Carre and Len Deighton. This story’s got it all, including the James Bond/Austin Powers element of The Alluring Spy — a stock character that serious spy fiction didn’t stoop to, but there she is in the flesh, Anna Chapman of the bedroom eyes.

But wait? How are we going to have a proper swap without Checkpoint Charlie. Doh! I knew they shouldn’t have torn down that wall. The proper forms can’t be followed now!

That sort of ruins it for me. That, and the fact that these Russian spooks were so inept. Definitely not up to KGB standards. Putin should hang his head.

Another question — we’re swapping 10 for four? How come it always works out this way for us? And for Israel. You ever notice how Israel will do these swaps for like, 10,000 Palestinians for one IDF soldier? I suppose that says something about the value we place on our people, but still — seems to me like a rip-off.

Ron Paul inching toward another run?

18 Replies

We all have our little cheap tricks for driving traffic to our blogs. One local blogger posts cheesecake pictures and claims to have had sex with a candidate for governor. I occasionally put “Ron Paul” in a headline. The Paulistas come running in droves from across the country, for items such as this:

Last month’s trip to Iowa was his third to the state since November 2009, so it begs the question: Is Paul trying to lay the groundwork for a 2012 White House run?

“I am very serious about thinking about it all the time,” Paul said about his possible presidential aspirations. “My answer is always the same thing: You know I haven’t ruled it out, but I have no plans to do it.”

For now, Paul will continue to travel the country to promote his philosophy, while his 2008 presidential campaign operation has morphed into the Campaign for Liberty, a 500,000-member organization that promotes libertarian views.

Apparently he’s thinking of running as a Republican again this time. Don’t know why he doesn’t go back to running as a Libertarian. It was a closer fit (despite the GOP’s moves in that direction), and his chances would have been just as good. If I were a Libertarian, I’d feel abandoned — soon as the guy gets some notoriety, he leaves. Perhaps the emergence of Sanfordistas such as Nikki Haley encourages him that he’s making progress. Of course, I wouldn’t call it progress, but he would.

The mullahs aren’t all bad: Iran bans the mullet

3 Replies

Folks, that Alvin Greene story I referred you to earlier is the most-read story at The Guardian‘s Web site in the past 24 hours. Yes, The Guardian. In London. England.

So it is that, after celebrating the Gamecock’s national championship last week, we return to the harsh reality that the world will continue to view us as a fascinating oddity, the source of the world’s oddest political stories.

Sigh.

To distract myself from this, I checked out the second most-read story on The Guardian‘s site in the last 24. Turns out to be this:

Iran bans the mullet

Islamic republic aims to free itself of ‘decadent’ western hairstyles

Imagine a country where a man with a ponytail could have it cut off by the cops, as could one with a mullet, or one whose hair was slathered in gel, fancifully spiked, or simply too long. Repeat offenders would face stiff fines, while their barber-accomplices would have their shops closed.

It may sound like paradise, especially if your own crazy-haired days are behind you. It’s actually the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose cultural ministry has just unveiled (although that’s perhaps not the most appropriate word in this context) a list of approved hairstyles in an attempt to free the country of “decadent” western cuts.

And people say bad things about repressive Islamic regimes. A government that bans the mullet can’t be all bad. At least it shows that when the mullahs decry our culture, they actually do have a clue as which parts of our culture are truly awful.

Of course, we don’t need any of their forced haircuts or such over here. Over hear, we have the free market to punish such sins against good taste. I mean, just see if you can get a job paying big bucks if you wear a mullet to the interview. Of course, if you DO try it and it WORKS, get back to me and maybe I’ll grow me one. I’m not proud. I’ll just stay out of Tehran.

Oh, and if you want to know more about the Iran coiffure crisis, here’s an earlier story that was in the Telegraph. Seems that lately, I’m getting more and more of my News That Matters, international and local, from British newspapers…

“It’s not a joke,” says Greene of his “GI Alvin” plan

38 Replies

Lest you be dismissive of the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate, first check out his plan for bringing jobs back to South Carolina, as reported by The Guardian (which, last time I checked, was not part of the SC MSM that should be covering this election):

“Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays. Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an army uniform, air force uniform, and me in my suit. They can make toys of me and my vehicle, especially for the holidays and Christmas for the kids. That’s something that would create jobs. So you see I think out of the box like that. It’s not something a typical person would bring up. That’s something that could happen, that makes sense. It’s not a joke.”

No, I’m not making this up. It’s not a joke. A new twist on GI Joe. That’s his plan. You know, as a guy who was unemployed for a really long time, I’m resenting the picture he’s presenting to the world of guys like us. And for the record, I have NOT shown any dirty pictures to co-eds.

But as a Mad Man, I think I smell a tagline in the making. He could build his whole campaign around it: “It’s not a joke!”

And you know what, it isn’t. Not a funny one, anyway.

Backup tagline: “It’s not something a typical person would bring up.”

And as I could tell the client in all honesty, there are plenty more where those two came from…

Maybe Nikki will teach Democrats a lesson

40 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Newsweek endorsement of Nikki Haley

31 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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