Cheerleaders for failure keep shaking pom-poms

In case you’re wondering what the folks who cheer for South Carolina to fail are thinking today, here’s a brief snippet from the S.C. Policy Council:

thenervesc

lawmakers have turned off the unproductive tax-dollar spigot for hydrogen research funding, at least for one year.http://bit.ly/dAexDCabout 1 hour ago via bitly

Oh, and what do I mean by saying they’re cheering for South Carolina to fail? Well, you know, just like all those Republicans who are cheering for the U.S. economy to keep failing, especially in light of the stimulus. Or all those Democrats who cheered for the U.S. to fail in Iraq (and in fact couldn’t wait, but kept wanting to rush the process by declaring it already a failure). Or the Sanford allies who do the same with regard to public education.

You know, like that.

Senate wasting time on voter ID

While we all wait for the Senate to act on the Sanford vetoes overridden by the House (an override doesn’t stick unless both chambers do it), Mike Fitts reports that they are busy squabbling over a partisan litmus-test issue:

With dozens of vetoes overturned by the House headed to the Senate for consideration, that legislative body was entangled this morning in a Democrat-led filibuster over voter I.D. legislation. Democrats fear the bill would disenfranchise thousands of people, especially the poor, who often do not have drivers’ licenses or easy access to their birth certificates.

Yeah, I know that many people of goodwill on both sides — people I respect — think there is a huge principle involved here, and that the consequences of their losing the fight would be dire. But I remain unpersuaded.

As I’ve written in the past, including one of my very last columns at the paper, I am unpersuaded by both sides. The GOP claims they must stop widespread voter fraud. The Dems claim they are trying to prevent wholesale disenfranchisement. I frankly think any fraud that actually occurs, or people who would even be inconvenienced by voter ID, are few and far between, and not enough to determine the outcome of elections.

But you say, isn’t ONE case of voter fraud an outrage? Isn’t a single person denied the right to vote a sin against democracy?

Look, call me heartless or apathetic, but I take the 30,000-foot view on this. I’m looking at the forest. To me, the staggering numbers of people who vote with NO idea who they are voting for or why is a MUCH greater threat  to democracy than these rare phenomena the two parties are obsessing over.

Doubt me? Well, then, I have two words for you: Alvin Greene.

Nikki and the neo-Confederates

“Nikki and the neo-Confederates”… Hey, THAT could be a name for my band! Kind of Katrina-and-the-Wave-ish. I wonder if Nikki would agree to front us?

Just though y’all might be interested in viewing the video of Nikki Haley and the other candidates seeking the endorsement of a group called “South Carolina Palmetto Patriots.” And who are the “South Carolina Palmetto Patriots” aside from folks with a certain affinity for redundancy? Well, by their agendas ye shall know them. To quote from the group’s “2010 Agenda:”

The Federal government has stolen our liberties and rights and nullified our ability to self govern as a state. It is the obligation of all people of our great state to restore unto ourselves and our children these inalienable rights as set forth in The Constitution of the United States of America.

Mind you, that’s the preamble to their 2010 Agenda, and not their 1860 Agenda. Don’t believe me? Here it is.

You think maybe I’m kidding when I say the GOP this year has spun so far out that the worst thing you can call a Republican candidate, in his estimation, is a “moderate?” All four gubernatorial hopefuls dutifully sat down and earnestly answered this group’s questions. Did they do that for any group that YOU belong to?

I didn’t watch all of it. I couldn’t. But if you want to here’s the link. And here’s the first clip from Nikki’s interview:

Oh, ‘whine, bitch, moan…’ just write us a letter, why don’tcha…

Hey, since I am no longer with the MSM, I don’t have to listen to your whining, bitching and moaning about us.

So it is that I don’t have to be diplomatic, and can now answer your feeble complaints with the full disdain that characterizes the finest traditions of the MSM.

Such as when our valued friend Kathryn brought our attention (see how easily I slip back into the royal, editorial first-person plural?)  to this article, headlined “Journalism monopoly was also a market failure,” and particularly this passage:

“If your neighborhood or community or issue didn’t interest the newspaper, it might as well have been banned from the community agenda. And if you had something to say, and wanted the community to hear or read it, your options were to pray you could get a letter to the editor published, or an even-rarer Op-Ed piece, or put out fliers around town. “

Added Kathryn, who passionately cares about Columbia and is always getting involved up to her elbows in the nitty-gritty of community issues, “I found this to be true, far too often…”

Oh, yeah? Well, now hear this:

I’m sorry, but we in the MSM are too busy to care about your esoteric, narrow personal concern. If you’d like to hire a consultant who can write us a press release about it, sexing it up with great quotes and some cool graphics, and maybe work in Gamecocks football, we may put it in the queue. But keep it simple — left-right, liberal-conservative, whatever. Don’t confuse us with gradations of meaning. Stuff like that makes our heads spin like that girl in “The Exorcist” — yeah, the one who threw up the green pea soup.
Meanwhile, write us a letter. But keep it short. And include your full address and a daytime telephone number, a photocopy of a picture ID, at least, three references, and annotated supporting material to back up your assertions. And pick a number between one and 1,000, and we’ll let you know whether your number wins. If it doesn’t, we will grind your epistle up with the other 999 and turn it into compost, so that it will be useful to us.

What, precisely, was Carol Fowler supposed to do?

Last evening on “Pub Politics” when I was on either my first or second very tall Yuengling (and thanks much to the Kincannon Law Firm for sponsoring the show and springing for the brewskis), we got onto the subject, inevitably, of Alvin Greene.

This, of course, was Thad Viers’ cue to start saying, over and over, “Green-Sheheen… Green Sheheen…” Or was it “Sheheen-Green?” I forget. Seems to me the scansion or something works better the first way…

But the rest of us engaged in trying to answer the kinds of questions that the guy in Paris was asking me this morning: How did this happen? Who was to blame?

One of the guys — probably Wesley, he being the Republican in the host duo — blamed Carol Fowler, Democratic Party chair.

But I protested. What, exactly, was Carol supposed to do? She’s the chair of the Democratic Party (or, as Thad would say, the “Democrat Party”). So is she really supposed to tell a poor black man, No, you can’t run for office?

As it was, she got paternalistic enough to give one pause, if one is inclined to get touchy on behalf of the powerless and clueless. This from Corey Hutchins’ report from BEFORE the primary (the only such enterprise reporting on Greene, when it could have done some good, that I’ve seen):

The candidate, a 32-year-old unemployed black Army veteran named Alvin Greene, walked into the state Democratic Party headquarters in March with a personal check for $10,400. He said he wanted to become South Carolina’s U.S. senator.

Needless to say, Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler was a bit surprised.

Fowler had never met Greene before, she says, and the party isn’t in the habit of taking personal checks from candidates filing for office. She told Greene that he’d have to start a campaign account if he wanted to run. She asked him if he thought it was the best way to invest more than $10,000 if he was unemployed.

How much further was she supposed to push it?

And while the party regulars certainly had a preferred candidate, just how far were they supposed to go in saying, Hey, vote for this white guy we like instead of this black guy we don’t even know? To what extent does an Equal Opportunity party do that?

Maybe there’s something I’m missing. Help me out here.

‘I am not a moderate.’ That just says it all…

First, an apology: I realize it’s unfair to single out this one thing that Gresham Barrett said in his interview with The State. There was a lot of other information in the piece, and I learned things about him I hadn’t known — or had forgotten. I recommend that anyone who plans to vote in next Tuesday’s runoff and is undecided read it.

But I tend to zero in on telling details, and this one really struck me — not for what it says about Gresham Barrett, but for what it tells us about what’s going on in the Tea Party-besieged GOP:

Barrett said he’s been on the receiving end of more attacks, including a Haley TV ad, than any other Republican gubernatorial candidates “My record over the last several months has been distorted. I am not a liberal. I am not a moderate. … Unfortunately, a lot of people have disagreed with my TARP vote and can’t get over it. There’s nothing I can do about that. It is what it is.”

Let’s hear that again:

“I am not a moderate.”

God forbid he should be seen as anything but an extremist. Obviously, he (like pretty much all the Republicans this year) believes that would be political death. Which reminds us why I simply could not see endorsing, or voting for, any of the GOP gubernatorial hopefuls this year — which is a real departure for me.

Now, to highlight some of the good stuff I learned about him from the piece: He remains unafraid to differentiate himself from Mark Sanford, at least in small ways. I knew that he did not hesitate to criticize him in the past. But this year, Republicans all seem to be doing a calculation that goes like this: What’s going on? The voters — at least MY voters, who are usually sensible conservatives — all seem to have lost their minds this year! How can I stay on their good side? What’s my guide? Oh, yeah — Mark Sanford! HIS ideas are totally nuts… since the voters have gone nuts, maybe they’d like it if I act like HIM… and so forth. But Gresham Barrett is saying no to that, at least to some extent.

And that means voters (or at least, those who did not vote in the Democratic primary) have an actual choice next Tuesday. Not that he has a chance, but at least they do have a choice, between an actual conservative Republican, and a Sanfordista who talks about being a conservative (and not so much a Republican).

Big Pharma should be paying me to do this

I’m conducting an experiment.

I just took some extra-strength Tylenol that expired in 2002. (Maybe I should have stuck to the non-alcoholic “beer” the way Thad Viers did at “Pub Politics” last night — although actually I think this is more of a sinus congestion thing.)

So far I haven’t keeled over. No hallucinations. I haven’t grown a third arm or anything. Wait…. no, that was nothing.

If I can get some funding from Tylenol, I’ll write up the results, assuming there are any…

Apparently, the B&C Board has lost the big one

Looks like maybe the governor won — meaning South Carolina lost — on the big Budget and Control Board $25 million vote, according to James Smith via Twitter this afternoon:

RepJamesSmith

25 million eliminated from B&C Board jeopardizes our AAA credit rating & eliminates 800 MHz radio funding essential for emergency response.

Actually, I wrote this post right after getting that Tweet late this afternoon. But then I got another Tweet from Anton Gunn saying that wasn’t right, and I got confused, and I had to go do “Pub Politics,” so I took this post down. But everything I’ve seen since then indicates James was right the first time: The $25 million veto has been sustained. So this post is back up.

That’s all I know right now. If you’ll recall, this is the veto that Frank Fusco said would key functions of the Board. To quote, he said:

If our General Fund budget is not restored, these areas of the Board would have to virtually cease operation:

• The State Budget Office

• The SCEIS statewide financial system

• The Board of Economic Advisors

• The Office of Human Resources

• The Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum

More when I know more.

But if this report is right, there are essentially no grownups in charge over at the State House.

Folks, just so you know where we all stand: I agree 100 percent with the governor that the Budget and Control Board should not exist. In fact, I’m pretty sure he got the idea from ME.

But until we actually do away with it, it actually performs a lot of vital government tasks (which would be performed by the executive branch in a more rational system, but we don’t have such a system — all we have is the B&C Board). To simply eliminate its funding, thereby making it impossible for it to perform these tasks, is simply insane. It’s anarchistic. It’s nihilistic. It’s appalling. It’s… it’s … South Carolina.

We’re making one heck of an international impression

It’s just not the sort a sane person would want to make.

As I was getting out of a vehicle to walk to the State House right after lunch today, I got a call on the Blackberry from Paris. Caller ID said the number was … well, there were 11 digits. To summarize the phone call, I quote from the e-mail I found when I got back to the office:

Good Morning M. Warthen,

I am a french journalist, working for a french national private media
called Radio Classique.
I am working today on a story about Alvin Greene and the democrat
candidacy.
It would be very interesting for me to talk to you about that and may be
doing a short interview by phone.
Is it possible ?
It would be great.
May be within two hours or tomorrow morning your time ?

It would be great and very interesting.

thank you very much.

Best regards.

Marc Tedde
Radio Classique

I asked if he also wanted to talk about all the Nikki Haley stuff. He didn’t know about any of that. Just as well.

Just what South Carolina needs.

Anyway, we’re going to do the interview tomorrow morning — afternoon, his time, morning our time. I’m going to let him call me again, rather than vice versa, I assure you.

See me on “Pub Politics” today at 6

Phil Bailey just called to ask me to fill in on the show this evening for Thad Viers, since it looks like the House is going to go into the night on the vetoes (he said they were on No. 46 or something).

Yes, that’s “Pub Politics,” the very show on which Sen. Jake Knotts called certain parties “ragheads,” or so I’m told. Somehow, Phil and Wes (Donehue) have yet to get around to posting that episode where I can see it. (In the paper this morning, it was, oddly enough, referred to as an “Internet radio show.” Maybe things have changed. Both times I was on it, there was video.)

Anyway, this is a special occasion, in that I will be the first and ONLY member of the “Three-Timers Club.” Maybe it’s not as prestigious as the club Steve Martin and Elliott Gould and Paul Simon and Tom Hanks belong to, but I take my honors where I can get them.

You can watch the show here.

House overrides ETV and tech school vetoes

Went over to the State House after lunch, but when you’re trying to follow something like this all-day march through the governor’s vetoes, you can’t just drop in in the middle and know what’s going on.

Modern irony: As I sat there, listening first to Jerry Govan orate about S.C. State, and then to Glenn McConnell showing off his parliamentary razzle-dazzle, I found that I learned more about what was happening from Twitter than I did from being there, such as this Tweet from James Smith:

Vetoes of ETV, DHEC, tech schools archives have thankfully been overridden – rural health, technology incubator EEDA – sadly sustained.

And this one from Nathan Ballentine:

voted to override 1, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 31,33 (Tech Board, ETV, Library, Museum)

… both of which I reTweeted while I was there.

And then when I got back to my laptop, I saw that my buddy Mike Fitts had put out a comprehensive report of what had happened thus far. From that, and other sources, I learned that the House overrode the governor on:

Mind you, the Senate must ALSO garner two-thirds for the governor to be overridden. I’m not sure where the Senate is on things at the moment. I do know that the House plans to work into the night and not be in session tomorrow, while the Senate will have a Thursday session.

Meanwhile the House has UPHELD the governor’s vetoes of the following, which means the Senate doesn’t have to act, because the governor wins (and, in most cases, South Carolina loses):

  • The Small Business Center at the University of South Carolina
  • Innovista research funding
  • Education programs known as High Schools That Work and Making Middle Grades Work.
  • the Education and Economic Development Act, which ecodevo types have relied on as a critical tool in readying youth for the working world

Truer words than Jake’s never spoken in SC

Well, I’ve gotta hand it to Jake Knotts — he stood up as what he is and spared no words about it: He is a redneck. And he was right to be proud of the supposed ephithet. A farmer suntan is a mark of hard work, something of which a simple kind of man should be quietly proud. Or blusteringly proud, depending on his inclinations.

In saying that, he touched on something — a minor, side issue, really — I tried to explain in my column about why we VERY RELUCTANTLY endorsed him against Mark Sanford’s candidate in 2008. The decision nearly killed Cindi Scoppe from sheer mortification, but there was one silver lining in it for me: I had always felt a tiny bit of middle-class guilt over always being against the rednecks (on video poker, on the lottery, on the Flag, and so on), and sometimes doing it in a way that betrayed class snobbery on my part. I figured, endorse this rough, brutish son of the soil against the Club for Growth snobs just once, and for the next 20 years I wouldn’t have to feel that guilt again. Yes, I’m being a little facetious, but also a little bit serious.

Anyway, you can’t deny (unless you are a Republican Party functionary, in which case you will deny it most vehemently) the truth of what Jake said about the hypocrites of his party, who defend Nikki from his brutishness because she’s their gal, and their likely standard-bearer in the fall. Unlike Henry McMaster, Jake will not humbly join that train; he remains what he is, with all the good and bad that entails.

What is Jake right about?

He’s right when he says that if he’d only called Barack Obama a “raghead,” the Lexington County Republican Party would not have indignantly censured him and sought his resignation. Calling the president a “raghead” would be merely a comical slip, compared to the deliberate demonization of the president through such devices as Henry’s “Vultures” ad. If Jake had only been talking about Obama, it would merely have put him on the ragged edge of what is increasingly his party’s mainstream (as the mainstream is more and more infiltrated by Tea Party extremism). Oh, Carol Fowler would have fired off an indignant statement. The Black Caucus may have drafted a fiery resolution that would have died a lonely death on the House floor. But within the Republican Party, only a deafening silence. The righteous fury we’re hearing is coming from advocates for Katrina Shealy and Nikki Haley. It’s coming from the Sanford wing of the party, which is seeing the chance to achieve what it could not in eight years of holding the governor’s office — seize control of the party.

He’s ABSOLUTELY right when he alludes to the uncomfortable truth about the newly politically correct GOP. It deserves to be carved into granite somewhere over at the State House:

“If all of us rednecks leave the Republican Party, the party is going to have one hell of a void.”

Indeed. Where would the S.C. GOP be without rednecks? In the minority, that’s where. That’s assuming they went back to the Democratic Party where they came from.

I was just over at the State House myself, and fell into conversation with Dwight Drake, and I happened to ask him — now that he’s out of it — how he thinks Vincent-vs.-Nikki contest will shake out.

He said that of course one must start with the obvious — that this is a majority Republican state (actually, a plurality-Republican state, but why quibble?) … which caused me to interrupt him to say, “Which it wouldn’t be if all the rednecks left, as Jake said.” And he readily agreed.

Of course, he would agree, being a Democrat. But if Republicans were totally honest, they would agree, too. There is no question that the balance of power in the South shifted from the Democrats to the Republicans as Strom Thurmond and George Wallace led legions of rednecks to abandon the Democratic Party. No, not everyone who switched parties was a redneck; some were mere pragmatists who saw there was a heap of white people in their districts and if they wanted to be elected, they needed to go with the GOP. But that would not be the case if not for the rednecks. However much of the GOP vote may be thus described — 15 percent, 30 percent, whatever — it’s enough to mean there are more Republicans than Democrats.

And while your more high-minded sort of Republican — the kind who like to imagine themselves as the sort who 50 years ago would have been Republican, when in the South it was not much more than a debating society making up a demographic roughly the same size as the Unitarians (the kind who are feeling SO broad-minded because they may have a nonEuro, something that would excite relatively little comment among Dems) — may protest loudly at the notion, on some operational level, consciously or unconsciously, every Republican with the pragmatic sense to win a primary knows this. Occasionally we see overt manifestations of it, such as in 1994 when the GOP unashamedly boosted their primary turnout by including a mock “referendum” question on the Confederate flag. Or when, having taken over the House as a result of that election, the new majority made it one of its first orders of business to put the flying of the flag a matter of state law, so that no mere governor could take it down.

Lord knows that other pathetic gang the Democrats has enough to be embarrassed over, but this is the big dirty secret of the Republican Party. Huh. Some secret. Everybody knows it.

The Republican Party can talk all it wants to about conservatism and “small government,” yadda-yadda, but we all know that it has political control in these parts because of the rednecks in its ranks. That’s just the way it is.

Virtual Front Page, Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Your top stories at this hour:
  1. Panel Sharply Raises Estimate of Oil Spilling Into the Gulf (NYT) — Remember how they were saying it was like an Exxon Valdez every week? Now it’s more like every four days. Interesting, and important, but weak as a lede.
  2. Obama to Call for Broad Energy Action (WSJ) — From the Oval Office tonight. If only it had happened already, THIS would be my lede.
  3. McMaster endorses Haley (thestate.com) — Thereby showing that of all of them, Henry McMaster is the real Republican in this race, the True Believer in Reagan’s 11th Commandment. Party solidarity uber alles.
  4. Petraeus Faints During Hearing (WashPost) — But he seems to be OK now.
  5. U.S. Man Arrested for ‘Hunting’ Bin Laden (WSJ) — American construction worker arrested in northwestern Pakistan “with a sword, a pistol and night-vision goggles.” Which is a shame, because this dude was obviously ready.
  6. AT&T, Apple Struggle to Handle iPhone Orders (WSJ) — So evidently, the economy’s not hurting TOO badly…

Two views on the McMaster endorsement

First, we have this release from Nikki Haley:

Friends,

With one week until Election Day, I am proud to welcome my friend Attorney General Henry McMaster to our campaign!  General McMaster was a true gentleman on the campaign trail and I am thrilled to have him join our team.

You can watch General McMaster’s endorsement from this morning here.

Over the past few days, we have seen South Carolinians from all political backgrounds join our movement.  The people are tired of arrogant, unaccountable governance and we are ready to take our government back!  General McMaster’s endorsement is merely a reflection of the support we are seeing from across this state – and I am honored by the trust he has placed in me.

To help us  build on these great successes, please consider contributing to the campaign today.  I can promise you that we are spending campaign contributions wisely.

Thank you for all your hard work on my behalf and I look forward to seeing you on the campaign trail soon!

My very best,

Nikki

Interestingly, that came over the transom (view transom here) AFTER I got this from S.C. Democratic HQ:

SC Dems: McMaster Endorsement Confirms Haley as Establishment Candidate

COLUMBIA- South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler released the following statement today in response to State Attorney General Henry McMaster’s endorsement of GOP gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley.
“It’s no surprise to South Carolinians that Henry McMaster would endorse Nikki Haley today. Mrs. Haley proudly represents the Republican Party establishment in South Carolina. As a devoted student of Mark Sanford’s School of Political Ideology, she would continue to promote the same failed policies and agenda of the Sanford/McMaster administration.  South Carolina voters are tired of the GOP establishment and ready to take our state in a different direction under the leadership of Vincent Sheheen,” said Fowler.
Paid for by the South Carolina Democratic Party – 1.800.841.1817 or www.scdp.org –
and not authorized by any federal candidate or candidate’s committee.

Establishment candidate? Our Nikki? Them’s fightin‘ words!

How many budget vetoes did they deal with? Zero

Having seen nothing on the Web about the big budget showdown, and seeing that the House had quit for the day, I called James Smith back to see what was up; how did it go on the budget vetoes.

They didn’t get to any today. Good thing I didn’t go over and watch.

They’ll be back tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.

OK, so that means there’s still time to set the record straight on something. As midlandsbiz points out:

“The State” Newspaper Prints Incorrect Budget Amount for Museum

COLUMBIA, SC – June 15, 2010 –  The State Newspaper printed an article today about the Governor’s budget vetos.  This story has an incorrect figure for the South Carolina Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum’s budget.  The museum’s general fund budget of $765,000 is a part of the Budget and Control Board’s total general fund budget of $25 million.  Governor Sanford’s Veto #52 would eliminate the entire $25 million, including the museum’s much smaller budget, and will be voted on as a single line item by the General Assembly beginning today.

Yeah, I saw that when I was reading the paper this morning, but by the time I had gotten to my laptop I had forgotten about it.

For days, I’ve been moaning about how the MSM wasn’t doing enough on the vetoes, and then I saw that huge error. Twenty-five million instead of 765,000. I saw where the confusion came from, but still. Man-oh-man, if THAT was what was budgeted for the museum even I might vote to sustain.

I’m happy to report that the figure has been corrected on thestate.com. But you know, there are some people out there who still rely on the dead-tree version…

At least Cindi had that good column on the subject today.

CREW wants Henry to probe Greene candidacy

“CREW?” Yeah, I had to look it up, too. I learned that it is “Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington,” which rang a bell, and sure enough, they’re the crowd that not only listed Mark Sanford as one of the worst governors in America, they used his picture to illustrate the concept.

For what that’s worth.

Anyway, now they’re all worked up about Responsibility and Ethics right here in SC, and demanding that Henry McMaster, among others, investigate how in the heck that Alvin Greene guy became the Democrat’s champion against Jim DeMint. Here’s what they say, in part:

Washington, D.C. – Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), took two significant actions against the questionable Democratic candidate for South Carolina Senate, Alvin Greene.  In a letter to South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, CREW asked for an investigation into whether Mr. Greene was induced to run for the Senate in violation of South Carolina law.
CREW also filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that primary-winner Greene and three other candidates in the June 8, 2010 Democratic primary in South Carolina: Gregory Brown, Ben Frasier and Brian Doyle and their campaign committees, violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and FEC regulations by failing to file mandatory disclosure reports prior to the election.
Melanie Sloan, CREW’s Executive Director, said “The people of South Carolina have a right to fair, transparent and fraud-free elections.  Paying candidates to run for office and concealing the sources of campaign funds undermines the integrity of the electoral process and threatens our democracy.”…

Seems kind of overly optimistic to me that Henry would be interested. He’s kind of busy these days knuckling under to the Nikki Haley tidal wave that’s washing the state GOP far, far out into right field (bradwarthen.com, never afraid to mix two overworked metaphors). After the whuppin’ he got last week, he’s now dutifully following in her footsteps.

So that leaves the FEC on its hands and knees looking for that elephant poop Jim Clyburn’s talking about.

Man up, lawmakers: Override those vetoes

Little left to say, except it’s time for lawmakers of both parties in the House to set aside all the B.S., lay down their insecurities, eschew their customary fecklessness, man up and veto those indefensible vetoes. I’m talking about this veto and this one and this one and most of the others.

I’ve really had it with the argument from the GOP leadership that they just have to sustain most of these vetoes. Kenny denied it the other night when I asked whether Nikki Haley’s strong showing last week had scared the leadership into thinking they have to go along with the Sanford nihilists, even though they’ve slapped him down every other time (even when he had a case, which he doesn’t this time). But I’m convinced that’s the only logical reason to explain this fear to do the right thing. Cindi thinks so, too. And Cindi knows WAY more about the budget process than I do. You’ll note that she gives the governor credit where he deserves it, on fairly marginal issues that don’t involve much money (Cindi has always been much more inclined than I am to reach WAY out to try to find some things to give the governor credit on), but she concludes with this cold bath of common sense:

Most insidious is his repeated implication that by vetoing what he considers frills, he will cause the money to be spent on “core services” of government. Now, I’ll be the first to agree that, as he puts it, “the vast majority of this year’s budget should be directed to core government functions like public safety, education, and health care.” But the facts are that 1) that already is happening and 2) his vetoes do not redirect money from “frills” to “core services”; they simply allow the money to sit in the bank for a year.

I have long believed that the Legislature needs to either increase taxes or else eliminate some programs or agencies altogether (and probably eliminate some even if it does raise taxes). But that’s a decision that needs to be made in an orderly way, by a clear majority in the Legislature — not by a disgraced lame-duck governor with an ax to grind and a third of the members of the House. And perhaps not even by a Legislature that is too frightened of its own shadow to make rational decisions about the responsibilities that come with insisting on operating the government. If lawmakers can’t override most of the governor’s vetoes this week, perhaps they should make arrangements to come back to town later this summer, when emotions have settled down, to consider taking some of the money Mr. Sanford wants to squirrel away and using it to patch critical holes that he has created.

And as for you Democrats: I was much reassured by James Smith telling me yesterday that the Dems would override (with the caveat that while that was the leadership position, Dems don’t do bloc voting), but then I read the paraphrase of Joe Neal in the paper this morning saying Democrats have not decided how they will handle Sanford’s vetoes today and I wonder: Will they stick it out and do the right thing? (And you know what? This is one case in which we actually NEED the Dems to vote as a bloc, because that might embolden the jittery mainstream Republicans.)

If they don’t, and if the Republicans (minus the Sanford loyalists) don’t, then on the whole they are useless.

Fun Post IV: Jon Stewart’s latest on SC

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Alvin Greene Wins South Carolina Primary
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

I say it’s a “Fun Post,” but you know what — the fun of being mocked by “The Daily Show” is starting to wear thin. Even Jon Stewart, so charmed by us last week, seems to be getting sick of all the absurdity here in what he terms “America’s whoopie cushion, South Carolina.” There was an edge to his delivery last night — as when he said, “Only South Carolina can take a silk purse and turn it into a sow’s anus” — that seemed to say, “Enough already with you people!”

Fun Post III: Drummer shows up at wrong gig

This bit of fun comes to you courtesy of our pal Burl Burlingame out in Hawaii.

You have to watch it long enough for the music to start before it gets good, but it’s worth the wait. Nothing like a bit of musician humor.

And Burl should know from musician humor, being a talented purveyor of melodies himself. Rather than having spent the last 40 years talking about starting a band the way I have (still working on the name, and the playlist), he has played in a number of them.

Very little-known bit of music trivia here, sort of on the order of Moonlight Graham‘s half-inning in the bigs, only much more small-time: Burl and I were in a band together VERY briefly back in the summer of 1971, right after we graduated from Radford High School. The band was together for the length of one rehearsal, over at Steve Clark’s house. Burl played harp (harmonica for you non-musical squares out there), and I was the front man. Thought I was Mick Jagger.

And what does all this have to do with politics, which is what you usually come to this blog for? Well, a few years back Steve Clark ran for one of those congressional seats in Texas that the Republicans caused such a stir by gerrymandering into existence. But he dropped out before the actual primary.

And — wonder of wonders! — I just discovered (looking for a link) that he’s running AGAIN, as a “Tea Party conservative.” At least, I think he’s still running. His campaign Facebook page hasn’t been updated since February.

To get a sense of just how wildly absurd it is to me to think of Steve this way, check out the picture of him

in 1971, and compare it to his campaign picture. And no; I’m not telling you which one’s which. DANG! I thought there’d be more of a contrast (I had not yet looked when I typed that last sentence) — I forgot that Steve, who even then spoke of a career in politics, used to always tuck his shoulder-length (or at least Prince Valiant-length; somewhere in that range) hair back behind his ears before being photographed. Crafty, eh?

Maybe if this campaign also goes belly-up, we can get into some serious negotiations about getting the band back together.

Fun Post II: Ariail on Roll-Call Voting Bill

Secondly, we turn to our favorite cartoonist Robert Ariail for a hilarious take on our dear senators and their commitment to transparency.

Yep, this is to a certain extent a pro-Nikki Haley cartoon, since she has made that issue her own (even though she has amply demonstrated her disdain for the Senate version — either because she thought it didn’t do enough or because she didn’t want them “stealing my issue;” take your pick), and I figure Nikki doesn’t need a boost, riding as high as she is right now.

But as well as she’s been doing, I doubt she’s had a good laugh lately. I mean, think about it: It’s not like she can enjoy the Jon Stewart stuff. So this one’s for you, Nikki.

And the rest of us can enjoy it with you.