The greater wonder is that there are people who don’t see it, or don’t care, or both

EHVaX2jX4AAf6-m

Just this morning I got around to reading Frank Bruni’s Sunday column, which begins:

The wonder of the Trump administration — the jaw-dropping, brain-exploding phantasmagoria of it — is that it doesn’t bury its rottenness under layers of counterfeit virtue or use a honeyed voice to mask the vinegar inside. The rottenness is out in the open. The sourness is right there on the surface for all to see.

It’s at the president’s rallies, where he plays a bigot for laughs, a bully for applause.

It’s in the ballrooms and beds at Mar-a-Loco, where he mingles official government business with free marketing for his gilded club.

It’s in the transcript of his phone call with the president of Ukraine, for whom the quid, the pro and the Biden-ravaging quo couldn’t have been clearer.

It’s at the microphone in the White House briefing room, where his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, showed up on Thursday, announced that President Trump would host the next G7 meeting at one of his own golf resorts, and conceded that, yes, aid to Ukraine had been tied to that country’s indulgence of the president’s political obsessions….

Yeah, it’s pretty amazing, all right — in that we’ve never in American history seen anything like this.

But you know what is a greater wonder? The fact that there are all these people out there — Republican officeholders, and the “base” that terrifies them — who don’t see it, or claim not to see it, no matter how many times Trump slaps them in the face with it, compelling him to look.

People still defend him, in spite of all.

That’s the wonder of it…

Doesn't it make you proud to have a South Carolinian acting as White House chief of staff? For the moment, I mean?...

Doesn’t it make you proud to have a South Carolinian acting as White House chief of staff? For the moment, I mean?…

71 thoughts on “The greater wonder is that there are people who don’t see it, or don’t care, or both

  1. bud

    The best way to describe the Trump presidency: He has all the corruption of Richard Nixon, combined with the cruelty of Andrew Jackson and the incompetence and dishonesty of George W. Bush. So we have seen all this before, just not in the same president.

    Reply
    1. David T

      What options do we have? Old Angry Bernie, Old Touchy Joe, Pocohontas and a handful of people who’s only hope is to be selected as a running mate to those three.

      Reply
      1. Mark Stewart

        Every single option is better than what we have. Even Pence; though it is hard to see how he is not also worthy of impeachment as well.

        If you, specifically, have come around to your own personal conclusion that Trump is not what anyone ought to tolerate from our country’s commander-in-chief then there just may be hope for our Republic.

        Reply
        1. Brad Warthen Post author

          “Every single option” is indeed better. Or at least less bad.

          That includes Pence, although he falls further and further in my estimation every day.

          Since I’ve never had a strong objection to actual conservative Republicans (the real thing, not the yahoos who have been calling themselves conservative in recent years) — and Pence, before Trump, perfectly fit that bill — I’ve thought from the start of Trump’s term that it would be far better to have him as president. This set me apart from Democrats, who have always been appalled by the notion.

          But every day he serves under this guy, every time he defends him, makes him less and less palatable…

          Reply
          1. Bill

            “This set me apart from Democrats, who have always been appalled by the notion.”

            That’s all important to you isn’t it ?
            I’m sorry,but being ‘”nonpartisan” doesn’t make you special or sensible,anymore.It makes you part of the problem.

            Reply
            1. Mark Stewart

              I think that we just need to focus on the mentally unstable and personality disordered person who bamboozled his way into the White House. The fact that he has irretrivably tarnished the synchophants who surround himself is a factor to consider, but there is more time for that discussion.

              Reply
            2. Brad Warthen Post author

              Well, I was setting up a separate point, but after writing a couple of sentences about it, I decided to hold it for a separate post.

              The point is related to the fact that, while Trump’s defenders go on about impeachment being a partisan Democratic thing, in truth Democrats would be appalled at a President Pence. That’s just one of several points I wanted to make along those lines, so I’m saving it…

              Reply
              1. Brad Warthen Post author

                But as for its being “important to me” to draw the distinction between myself and Democrats — and Republicans — yeah, it is.

                I don’t want anyone confusing anything I have to say with any party’s talking points.

                I really, really don’t want to be misunderstood…

                Reply
                1. Bill

                  Hopefully,good people are more complicated than that.
                  Labels are convenient like church lady or whatever…
                  Yeah,well

              2. Bill

                Pence is a right-wing extremist;people SHOULD be appalled.
                I haven’t gotten out in the streets since Vietnam,but now’s the time for incivility and violence if need be…

                Reply
                1. bud

                  Yes Pence is appalling. So is Romney, Moscow Mitch, Lindsey and the rest of what is the current GOP. No the Democrats are not perfect. Just look at this ridiculous feud between Hillary Clinton and Tulsi Gabbard. But damn it they are our only hope. It’s just absolutely unthinkable to vote for ANY Republican in this election cycle. They are all deplorable.

                2. Brad Warthen Post author

                  Now see, you shouldn’t go for absolutes, ever.

                  I’m on record here as being against demonstrations. I think they’re usually a lousy way for people to express themselves politically.

                  But not even I would challenge anyone to “name one time,” as though they couldn’t do it.

                  For instance, there was the whole Civil Rights movement. The witness of dignified people peacefully standing up for human dignity, braving dogs, billy clubs and fire hoses, had and ENORMOUS effect on changing our society in the ’60s. Yeah, it took LBJ and legislation to get the job done, but the demonstrations shaped the environment in which legislative action could occur.

                  And there’s no question that antiwar protests eroded American resolve to keep fighting in Vietnam.

                  Closer to home, I think two events had a big effect on the Legislature’s decision in 2000 to take the Confederate flag off the dome and out of the chambers (and unfortunately to create a whole new problem by putting it on the lawn). Those events were the first King Day at the Dome rally — by far the largest number of people I’ve ever seen at the State House, estimated at 60,000 — and Joe Riley’s march to Columbia.

                  Those two things motivated lawmakers to do something, even if it was the wrong thing. And from their perspective, it worked, because no King Day rally was ever that big again, even when Obama and other presidential candidates attended and spoke.

                  And so it was that nine innocent people would have to die before lawmakers addressed the issue again, 15 years later, and finally did the right thing.

                  In my book, public demonstrations are almost never the way to go. But you can’t say they never accomplish anything…

                3. David T

                  “It’s just absolutely unthinkable to vote for ANY Republican in this election cycle. They are all deplorable.”

                4. David T

                  I’m not convinced that either of those marches or rallies really changed what was going to happen anyway. Civil rights would have changed, the flag would have come down. Rally or not, I am guessing that sooner or later the Confederate memorial and the Tillman statues will come down. We’re good at erasing history for political correctness these days.

                  Removing and destroying monuments and statues from the Civil War is acceptable, but ISIS removing and destroying monuments and statues in the Middle East in a tragedy. Slavery had a basis in both events, where is the line between acceptable and tragedy? Would it be acceptable to blow up slavery built pyramids in Egypt?

                5. Mark Stewart

                  Removing historical markers placed by other people to signify something we now disdane is different than doing something such as destroying the pyramids or torching Mount Vernon. That’s clear, no?

                  I think the statues of the Confederate Soldier and Ben Tillman should be removed from the Statehouse grounds. The Confederate statue should be found a new, more historically appropriate home. Like a cemetary. The Tillman statue should go into deep storage in some governmental warehouse. My guess is no future generations will ever want it back out.

                6. Barry

                  “Name one time where protesting and marching has accomplished anything.”

                  When I worked in the General Assembly long ago, the threat of requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets perked up. Bikers descended on the state house offices in droves. The legislation died as soon as they left the grounds in their leather chains.

                7. David T

                  “Removing historical markers placed by other people to signify something we now disdane is different than doing something such as destroying the pyramids or torching Mount Vernon. That’s clear, no?

                  I think the statues of the Confederate Soldier and Ben Tillman should be removed from the Statehouse grounds. ”

                  So which side are you on? You first say that those monuments honoring the dead should not be removed, then you state that you think two monuments on the State House grounds honoring the dead should be removed.

                8. Mark Stewart

                  I’m on the side of protecting history – and not a believer in the idea that we have to forever adhere to the viewpoints of those who later try to shape that history, whether this be through words, monuments, flags or whatever. That distinction is clear, no?

                9. David T

                  You state you want to “preserve history”. But then also state that you want the Confederate monument removed. Isn’t the Confederate monument an historical object… just the same as say the pyramids?

                  If one wants to eradicate memories of slavery in this country why not bulldoze the slave market in Charleston. I’m sure that would be a prime location for some luxury condos.

          2. David T

            Maybe Bernie will get the nomination and select AOC as his running mate. He said yesterday that if he were President she’d have a position in his administration. Secretary of Bartending???

            Reply
              1. David T

                Because she so business minded, like running Amazon out of her district. She better hope Bernie hires her, because she’ll probably be out of a job after the next election.

                Reply
                1. Barry

                  Even with that, she is preferable.

                  She will be around. She gets a lot of publicity from Fox News sycophants and right wingers. That pushes everyone else (most people) in her direction.

                2. David T

                  It won’t surprise me if she doesn’t stay in office, look at how voters tend to vote… Strom Thurmond kept getting re-elected even when he was spending 360 days a year in a renovated nursing home wing in Edgefield, SC and mentally was back living in the 1920’s.

        1. BDWmson

          The Mulvaney Miscue was refreshing initially as it was the first time it seems someone in the WH actually told the truth. And a southerner of sorts no less. But then he was forced to walk-it back ( i.e. deny the truth) all the way back into another daily Trump-ed up fabrication. Enough IS enough already.

          Reply
  2. Harry Harris

    “He has all the corruption of Richard Nixon”
    I was a grownup through the Nixon years. I saw the good stuff and most of the bad stuff that we were allowed to see. To me, as bad as he was as a President and person, President Trump makes Nixon look like a choirboy. Nixon was also scarily competent. Where Trump is beyond scary is the point, I believe of Brad’s post. He has honed his skills for convincing a segment of the population that he is right about everything and that they are the majority in the country. He has duped another group, the so-called “evangelicals” into an unholy alliance. There’s enough overlap between both groups to hold most of the second group in line with help from certain allies among their leaders. I travel among “evangelicals,” and the suspension of their caring for truth and conscience coupled with and their erroneous sense of righteousness is shocking and disheartening. It works out to a highly-leveraged electoral disaster and effective minority rule (partly due to gerrymandering) with a lot of money backing it.

    Reply
    1. Doug Ross

      Nixon’s downsides: racist

      “The day after the United Nations voted to recognize the People’s Republic of China, then–California Governor Ronald Reagan phoned President Richard Nixon at the White House and vented his frustration at the delegates who had sided against the United States. “Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did,” Reagan said. “Yeah,” Nixon interjected. Reagan forged ahead with his complaint: “To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!” Nixon gave a huge laugh.”

      Nixon: war monger who appointed war criminal Henry Kissinger

      “The American bombing of Cambodia resulted in 40,000[46]–150,000[47] deaths from 1969 to 1973, including at least 5,000 civilians.”

      “Kissinger had also come under fire for private comments he made to Nixon during the Bangladesh–Pakistan War in which he described Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi as a “bitch” and a “witch”. He also said “The Indians are bastards”, shortly before the war”

      Nixon: kept an enemies list that was forwarded to the IRS for greater scrutiny/audits

      Nixon: tried to cover up the release of the Pentagon Papers

      Nixon: covertly (with Kissinger) tried to overthrow Allende in Chile resulting in dictator Pinochet taking power (this is a familiar theme in U.S. history — regime change from bad to worse).

      I’m trying to think of one thing Trump has done while in office that it worse than any of those.

      Reply
      1. bud

        You gotta love the Trump defenders. They’re reduced to suggesting that Trump is not as corrupt as Nixon. Pretty low bar, but Trump can’t even get over that. Here is a short list of Trump’s corrupt actions:

        Worked with the thuggish Saudi regime to enable horrific slaughter of civilians in Yemen. This support of barbarity continues even after a journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, was brutally murdered by MBS and his henchmen.

        Enacted a policy that enables ICE agents to snatch small children from their mother’s arms and has them thrown into crowded, feces infested cages.

        Guts EPA regulations that enables power companies to dump coal sludge into rivers.

        Attempts to ban Muslims from entering the country.

        Praises white supremacists as being good people.

        Conspires with Russians to find dirt on Hillary Clinton and then obstructs justice in order to cover it up.

        Pressures Ukrainian president, by threatening to withhold congressionally authorized weaponry, to find evidence supporting a loooong debunked conspiracy theory regarding a company called Crowdstrike. Obstructs justice on this as well.

        Pressures the same Ukrainian president to provide dirt on a political opponent using the same diabolical threat of withholding weapons.

        Abandons valued American ally, the Kurds, that allows the slaughter of civilians by the Turks. Apparently after Turkish president asked him to do so.

        Repeatedly violates emoluments clause of the constitution in order to profit himself.

        Allows family members to attend classified foreign policy briefings.

        Circumvents the normal vetting process to get son in law high level security clearance.

        Pays porn star hush money in violation of campaign finance laws.

        Sexually assaulted at least 20 women. (To my knowledge Nixon was never accused of this kind of behavior)

        Slanders American president by accusing him of being born in Kenya.

        And there is much more. But suffice it to say Trump is worse than Nixon.

        Reply
        1. Doug Ross

          I won’t try to argue any of your points other than to say you leave out a lot of details that don’t fit your narrative. Limit yourself to just the past 2.5 years — I spoke solely of Nixon’s time in office.

          I’m not a Trump defender. But I don’t believe he has been worse than Nixon (or Bush) to this point as a President. Maybe as a human being in general over the course of his life but not as a President. He’d have to be responsible for the deaths of thousands more innocent people.

          Reply
          1. Doug Ross

            But I will ask you to provide the full, complete quotes that support both of these statements:

            — Attempts to ban Muslims from entering the country.

            (it was some Muslims from some countries.. there are and have been plenty of Indian Muslims entering the country)

            — Praises white supremacists as being good people.

            (Let’s see the complete quote in context with the sentences preceding and following this statement)

            Reply
            1. Doug Ross

              I’ll save you the trouble. Here is the full quote in context of talking about Charlottesville. when he was talking about “fine people” it was specifically about people who WEREN’T white supremacists but were in favor of keeping the Robert E. Lee statue up.

              “Trump: “I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs — and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch.

              “But there is another side. There was a group on this side. You can call them the left — you just called them the left — that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.

              Reporter: (Inaudible) “… both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the –”

              Trump: “Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides — I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say.”

              Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest –”

              Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”

              Reporter: “George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.”

              Trump: “George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down — excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?”

              Reporter: “I do love Thomas Jefferson.”

              Trump: “Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

              “So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

              “Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group.”

              In case you want to twist Trump’s words again, here is his SPECIFIC quote about white supremacists:

              ” and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. ”

              Sadly, you’re a victim of MSNBC brainwashing. It’s understandable though. If you get spoonfed your opinions, you end up barfing up lies.

              Reply
              1. Mark Stewart

                Doug,

                Your tripping on the underbrush again. It’s like you revel in being obtuse. I don’t get it… what’s it about?

                Reply
                1. Doug Ross

                  What’s what about? Bud said Trump said something he didn’t say. I showed the evidence that refutes bud’s misguided, biased, lemming liberal claim.

                  So what am I tripping on? Facts?

                  Thanks, “Barry”, for your ever insightful commentary. You’re entering stalker territory now with your obsession.

                2. Doug Ross

                  I’m guessing you get a tingle running up your leg every time you post one of your zingers. I’m totally humiliated now by your repartee.

              2. bud

                you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.
                -Trump

                Trump is calling neo-Nazi, white supremacist thugs “fine people”. That is what he called them, fine people. To defend that is, well, indefensible. Doug, I really can’t understand why you want to take up for this miserable, racist, rapist, mean spirited, disgusting excuse for a human being. It makes you look very small.

                Speaking of racists I saw the other day where David Duke is endorsing Tulsi Gabbard.

                https://www.marketwatch.com/story/rep-tulsi-gabbard-gets-2020-endorsement-from-david-duke-2019-10-19

                Reply
                1. Doug Ross

                  You obviously have a reading comprehension problem, bud. Understandable when you have blinders on.

                  I posted the full quote where liberals PURPOSEFULLY took Trump’s words out of context to advance their agenda. You got played.

                2. Doug Ross

                  As for Tulsi, I am 100% impressed with her response to has-been Hillary’s attempt to retain any semblance of relevancy. Hillary proves every day why America chose a blowhard egotistical TV show host over her. She’s a petty, politically motivated, partisan pariah spouting lies as she fades into the sunset.

                  She’s a loser who couldn’t ride her husband’s coattails far enough to beat Donald Trump. You gotta be a pretty awful human being to do that.

                3. bud

                  I posted the full quote where liberals PURPOSEFULLY took Trump’s words out of context
                  -Doug

                  Here’s the context that matters. There were two sides Charlottesville. One was ANTIFA. ANTIFA is an acronym for anti fascist. Initially this group was a rather benign organization intent on countering neo Nazi organization. Seems like a pretty good cause to me. But they have become a bit too militant for my taste but there intentions are generally good.

                  The other side was a stridently neo Nazi, white nationalist hate group carrying torches and chanting anti-Semitic rants. There was nothing but hate in their approach to this event. There is no quibbling about why they were there and what they were attempting to accomplish – the spreading of pure hate against people they considered inferior. In short they were NOT in any way, shape or form “good people”. The fact that Trump could not unambiguously condemn this hateful, disgusting band of deplorables speaks volumes about the character of POTUS. He’s a racist and just can’t condemn racist hate groups because in his heart he agrees with them.

                4. Doug Ross

                  Sure, bud, if you don’t like the actual quotes, make up your own narrative that fits your MSNBC worldview.

                5. David T

                  Politicians say stupid things, Travon Martin could have been Barak Obama’s son according to him if he had had boys.

                  “Doug, I really can’t understand why you want to take up for this miserable, racist, rapist, mean spirited, disgusting excuse for a human being. It makes you look very small. ”

                  That made me laugh, Trump is so far in bud’s head that he’ll never be able to escape. It’s right where Trump wants to be with those who oppose him.

    1. Mark Stewart

      He is unbelievable. There is no there there except that he wants to be a personality in the conversation. Graham has nothing to add to American history – in any positive sense at least.

      Reply
  3. Mr. Smith

    And here’s another character to add to the gallery of rouges that represent South Carolina in Congress: Rep. Jeff Duncan. In his most recent constituent letter, he wrote:

    “Sham Impeachment
    Democrats are still playing political games here, folks. They have been out to impeach President Trump since his first day in office almost three years ago. This isn’t about Ukraine, oversight, or upholding our laws. This is about trying to overrule the will of the American people. It appears they won’t stop for anything…they just continue their politically-motivated witch hunt to take down our President. At this point, it isn’t enough that Mr. Trump be defeated in the upcoming 2020 election. His whole presidency must be delegitimized—along with the people who voted him in. It’s shameful!
    Schiff and the Democrats’ agenda is clear—overturn the 2016 election. I’ve already come out in support of censuring Schiff, which you can read more about HERE, but at this point, he needs to be the one forced to answer some questions under the threat of perjury.
    The House Freedom Caucus has since demanded the immediate recusal of Chairman Schiff as the leader of the Democrats’ unauthorized impeachment probe. You can read more about our initiative HERE.
    It also seems like Democrats also don’t want Attorney General Barr to pursue the facts surrounding the beginnings of the Russian probe and the surveillance activity of the Trump campaign. We need to find out the TRUTH! You can read more about Attorney General Barr’s probe on the CIA and FBI’s investigation on the Trump campaign in 2016 HERE.”

    I’ll just note that the last linked reference takes you to the Daily Caller, an avowedly right-wing site created by Tucker Carlson. But for Rep. Duncan an objective news source.

    Rep. Duncan has achieved nothing as Congressman – other than support resolutions condemning the appearance of a rainbow flag at a US consulate and offer bills that attempt to make so-called “silencers” easier to purchase. And yet he keeps getting re-elected, because (A) he’s the incumbent, and (B) he styles himself as a Brother-in-Christ conservative – and now unblinking defender of our so-called president.

    Reply
    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Wow. Not a word from Rep. Duncan about the substance of the matter. He tries to dismiss the substance, saying “This isn’t about Ukraine…”

      Uh, yeah, it is. And Trump has NO defense.

      I was struck by the fact that in his rant in the Cabinet meeting, Trump went off on the whistleblower(s). He has trouble keeping up, doesn’t he? His own diplomats have gone far beyond the whistleblower complaint in confirming what was going on. You could take what the initial whistleblower said and toss it out; it’s completely unnecessary to demonstrating that Trump made it clear to everyone involved that the aid was being withheld until Zelensky promised to help Trump dig dirt on his political adversaries.

      Reply
      1. Brad Warthen Post author

        Actually, you could have thrown out the whistleblower complaint on the day before it became public, since that was when Trump himself released the rough transcript that substantiated the complaint…

        People keep comparing this to Watergate, and reminding us that Republicans stuck up for Nixon, too — until the last minute.

        This is totally different. This is as if the tapes had been released a day after the burglary itself. (Yeah, I know that’s impossible, since the coverup — which is what the tapes showed — came later. But you get my drift.)

        We know what the facts are now. Continued GOP support of this guy is unconscionable…

        Reply
  4. bud

    This is about trying to overrule the will of the American people.
    -Jeff Duncan

    Duncan is certainly one of the deplorables. But this sentence in particular is really odious. The will of the American people was for Hillary Clinton to become president. Anyone who says otherwise is just flat wrong. And they need to be called on it. Every time.

    Reply
    1. David T

      Actually Hillary was just the will of those urban people who lived in large cities. Look at the election maps by county, Trump carried about 90% of the country. It was just the heavily sardine canned, urban areas that went for Hillary.

      Reply
      1. Guy

        Oh, you mean registered voters? Did something change and now raw uninhabited land has the right to vote?

        Great point!

        Reply
        1. David T

          In other words, the heartland of America voted for Trump. It was a handful of large cities that voted for Hillary. Doesn’t really matter because both sides have to play by the rules and Trump won, so the Democrats are crying “but the popular vote”. Twist it however you want, I really don’t care.

          Reply
          1. Barry

            “Heartland of America”

            Counties with 100 people in them count, but quit pretending some big groundswell exists across the country.

            Miles and miles of grass will never vote.

            Reply
            1. David T

              You Democrats have an excuse for everything. Look at the maps, the majority of Minnesota voted Red, yet the urban areas turned the state blue. The same goes for California and New York. Unless you live in an apartment and take a subway to work your vote doesn’t count in those states.

              Reply
              1. Barry

                I’m not a “Democrat.” . I don’t let politicians or parties lead me around by the nose like you do.

                “The majority of Minnesota voted red” is true if you believe that square miles actually drive to the polls and cast votes. Common sense tells us people vote, not property.

                Minnesota voted for Hillary just like South Carolina voted for Trump.

                Reply
                1. Brad Warthen Post author

                  That’s a question that can mislead you.

                  For instance, in all my years on the editorial page, we never endorsed a Democrat for president (although if I’d still been there in 2012, it would have been my intention to break that streak).

                  So if you went by that (and some Democrats, wanting to find fault with us, did), you’d say we were solidly Republican.

                  But when you totaled up all the endorsements — governor, legislative, local, etc. — we made in that period (1994-2009) we endorsed slightly more Democrats (53 percent) than Republicans….

                  The simple explanation for that (and maybe it’s TOO simple) is that we liked South Carolina Democrats more than we did national ones…

                2. Barry

                  Voted for Romney in 2012
                  Voted for McCain in 2008
                  I think I voted absentee for Bush in 2004. (I can’t remember for sure, I just know I was on a business trip far from SC on Election Day. It was either him or no one)
                  I voted for Bush in 2000.
                  Voted for Dole in 1996
                  Voted for Bush in 1992
                  Voted for Dukakis in 1988

                3. Barry

                  Oh- I will never vote for a republican for president again.

                  I’ll write in the late, great teddy pendergrass before I’ll make that mistake again.

                  I’ve already committed to following the Trump sycophant rule in 2020 so I’ll be voting for the democratic nominee no matter who it is, what they say, or what they do. After 2020, I’ll never vote for a Democrat again either.

      2. Mark Stewart

        Land doesn’t vote, people do. Good grief.

        Here is the SC population breakdown:
        5 million – Total in 2015

        Main Statistical Areas:
        1.2 million – Greenville-Spartanburg
        800,000 – Columbia
        750,000 – Charleston
        300,000 – Myrtle Beach
        250,000 – Fort Mill
        200,000 – Florence
        200,000 – Hilton Head
        200,000 – Aiken/Augusta

        Those 8 areas together represent about 4 million of the state population total. Like the country as a whole, about 80% of the population of SC lives in a metropolitan area, though obviously, none of these is like a major American city in polulation/density. It is also the case in SC that 60% of the poulation – 3 million people – live in just 4 cities. Actually, it’s more of interest that the hinterlands of the state have not depopulated faster than they have been…

        Try these for insight into what the American human landcape actually looks like –

        https://engaging-data.com/sizing-states-electoral/
        http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/4566/1091/1600/usa.gif
        http://geographer-at-large.blogspot.com/2011/12/map-of-week-12-12-2011us-population.html

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *