Category Archives: Leadership

Gang of 14 still rides

Graham provides model of what
parties should be, but are not
By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
THERE’S something reassuring about sitting and talking with a U.S. senator and thinking, “This guy is smarter than I am.”
Even better thoughts: “He’s smarter than most other senators, and the nation sees that. And he represents South Carolina.”
Lindsey1_1 Lindsey Graham makes us all look good up there. That’s a rare and welcome thing.
It’s not just about being smart. Fritz Hollings was and is sharp as a razor, but in ways that turn a lot of people off. It’s sad to say, but too many voters would rather vote for “folks like me” than above-average intelligence. If you doubt this, let me introduce you to a few hundred office-holders.
Mr. Graham actually manages to be humble and unassuming (which Fritz could never do) while being erudite. That’s a neat trick. It’s so neat in this case, I don’t even think it’s a trick. (To help you tell the difference, when John Edwards
does it, it’s a trick.)
Remember my column last week, in which I wrote about the Emory University study that showed the brains of political partisans are wired to reinforce their prejudices — that their gray matter actually produces a big shot of pleasure when they refuse to see the other side’s point?
We centrists must have a similar mechanism that kicks in when politicians do see the other side, and even work across the partisan divide. When somebody mentions fighting for a good cause alongside both John McCain and Joe Lieberman, a flood of endorphins breaches my levees of Lindsey2 cynicism, and I think, “What a smart guy.”
But partisans should think the same thing — especially those Republicans who had such a fit when Sen. Graham joined the Gang of 14 to force a compromise that stopped the “nuclear option” from being dropped over filibusters and judicial nominees.
Boy, were they ever wrong. And it was obvious at the time that they were wrong, even from their skewed, one-sided perspective. Sure, Democrats were high-fiving because the GOP hadn’t changed Senate rules to prevent filibusters, but they were just as blind. From the time the seven Republicans and seven Democrats made their deal, it was impossible for Democrats to carry off a successful filibuster of a qualified nominee. They couldn’t overcome cloture without the Democrats in the Gang, who had promised their colleagues — such things are taken seriously by senators — they wouldn’t back a filibuster in the absence of “extraordinary circumstances.”
And there simply isn’t anything extraordinary about Bush nominees not seeing the world the way Democrats do. They would need something more substantial than a political difference over something like abortion.
The practical upshot for Republicans? They gained two conservative Supreme Court justices.
“Nobody really got tricked,” Sen. Graham said. Each of the seven Democrats had a sound political reason to be there. Besides, at least six of them have constituencies closer to his than to Ted Kennedy’s.
They came out of it fine, partly because “nobody on either leadership team wanted to take that vote.” As for Sen. Graham himself, “It helped me personally immensely within the body.” Contrary to what was being said publicly, “Everything about this deal was known to both leadership teams…. There was a big difference between the rhetoric in the morning and the negotiations in the afternoon.”
The important things to him were that “The institution fared well; the president fared well,” and so did his nominees. Both John Roberts and Samuel Alito enjoyed relatively smooth roads to favorable up-or-down votes.
But the fact that 14 senators had the common sense and guts to save the partisan majority from Lindsey3_3 itself yielded benefits beyond that, and not just for Republicans.
Once the Senate was “back in business,” National Guard and Reserve personnel got medical benefits. “There would be just no way we would have had Tricare by now” without the Gang’s deal.
It also enabled Sen. Graham to play a key role in holding the Bush administration accountable for the way it treats captured enemy combatants. “We got the Congress off the sidelines and into the War on Terror,” he said. “We had been AWOL.”
“I trust President Bush,” he said later. “I like President Bush.” But there’s just “no substitute for checks and balances.”
He doesn’t let you forget he’s a Republican. When he speaks of his party’s recent troubles, he says, “The only thing we’ve got going for us is the Democrats, and don’t underestimate them.” Partisan or not, I did enjoy that one.
What I really liked, though, was the soliloquy with which he ended the meeting, after being asked about the political dangers of his having been photographed with Hillary Clinton. It was a nice statement of what political parties ought to be, but are not. In fact, I’ll just turn the rest of the column over to him. Take it, Senator:

“There are people on both sides that can’t be happy unless the other side’s disappointed. The way some people judge political success: Is my enemy unhappy? The way I judge political success: Is my country better off, and is my party on the right track?
“My country is better off when the Guard and Reserve families and those who serve in the Guard and Reserve have health care they can count on. The country will be better off if a manufacturing company (he and Sen. Clinton have started and jointly lead a new Manufacturing Caucus) can stay and make a profit and not have to leave to go overseas….
“If she came here and said something nice about me, I would consider it a compliment. And I would return the compliment. And in the next sentence I would say… I like her, but I don’t want her to be president… because she’ll bring an agenda to the table that I don’t agree with in terms of, you know, the whole.
“But I’m not going to say anything bad about her, because I do like her, I think she’s smart, I enjoy working with her, and… if … the only way I can win is to have to run down people I know, I mean, have to say things about people I know not to be true, I don’t want the job.
“If that’s the kind of senator you want, I don’t want the job.”

Well, it’s not the kind I want. So stick around.

But did he ask for YOU?

4 Replies

The Greenville News had an item today about a joint appearance of the two GOP candidates for lite gov, gubernatorial scion Mike Campbell and incumbent Andre Bauer.

Get a load of this bit at the end:

Both said the media had overplayed the conflict between Republican Gov. Mark Sanford and the GOP-controlled Legislature.
While some problems exist, Campbell said the solution is a matter of "sitting down and working things out."
Bauer said he would continue to serve as a bridge between Sanford and lawmakers, adding that negative news reports aside, "Gov. Sanford has gotten all that he asked for."

He has? This is going to be news to the governor. It’s also going to be news that Mr. Bauer has been Mark Sanford’s "bridge" to the General Assembly. But if it were so, it would explain a lot.

Mr. Bauer is a walking, talking argument for why governors should get to choose lieutenant governor nominees to be their actual running mates — which is the way Mr. Sanford would prefer things to be. But this should not go to Mr. Bauer’s head; it’s not a distinction. Much the same could be said of other lite govs I have known.

Column on taking sides

61 Replies

Katon Dawson gets it. Why doesn’t everybody?
By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
OVER A LATE breakfast at a New York deli in September 2004, S.C. Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson cheerfully told me this story: Katon_1
Years earlier, as a novice candidate who had been burned once by his own frankness, he started carrying a piece of paper that he would look at whenever he spoke to one of my colleagues. On it he had written some good advice: “Cindi Scoppe is not your friend.”
It did not mean she was his “enemy”; it was just his reminder to be wary because a good reporter isn’t on anybody’s side.
You see, Katon Dawson gets it. Plenty of other people don’t.
I believe that one of my few qualifications for my job is that I am vehemently, stridently, nonpartisan. Mr. Dawson, and his Democratic counterpart Joe Erwin, would say I’m too harsh.
But the problem isn’t just the two major parties, loathsome as they may be. It’s this ubiquitous thing of everything being divided into “sides” — you’ve got to pick, one or the other — to the point that even smart people are unable to frame issues any other way.
Here’s another anecdote, involving the same Ms. Scoppe: A lawmaker told her there was an inconsistency on last Sunday’s editorial page.
The editorial criticized House members for rejecting, on specious grounds, business leaders’ input in the tax reform debate. The column dissected the General Assembly’s rush to override the governor’s veto of an odious bill stripping local governments of the ability to regulate billboards in their communities.
When Cindi told me the lawmaker said the two pieces contradicted each other, I retorted, “Huh?” If anything, they had a consistent theme: the Legislature acting against the public interest.
But the lawmaker saw it this way: The editorial slapped lawmakers for not doing what business wanted them to do, and the column hit them for doing what “business” (the billboard industry) wanted.
I responded, “Say what?”
Cindi said maybe we hadn’t expressed ourselves clearly enough. At this, I got a bit shrill: “How on Earth could we have been expected to anticipate that anybody would read it THAT way?”
And yet, people are always reading what we write that way. The whole world encourages them to perceive every public expression as pro-business or anti-business, or siding with Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals, black people or white people, rich or poor, fat or thin… you get the idea. That’s the trouble. Everybody gets the idea.
This is a profoundly flawed way of looking at the world. If you accept or reject arguments, or even facts, according to whether they help or hurt your side, how can we ever get together and solve anything in a way that serves the common good?
And yes, I know that the news media — especially television, although print is a culprit too — help create and reinforce this dichotomous world view. But that just makes me feel more obligated to use this page to encourage multilateral discussions that help people see things as they are, rather than the way one side or the other wants them to be.
We’re not alone in this. We ran an op-ed piece Thursday from an assistant professor at USC-Aiken who faces the exact same problem every day in the classroom.
Steven Millies wrote about a disturbing Emory University study. When the study’s author “showed negative information to his subjects about a politician they admired, the areas of their brains that control emotion lit up, while their reasoning centers showed no new activity.” Worse, when the subjects rejected information that they did not want to hear, their brains were rewarded in a pattern “similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix.”
The damning conclusion was “that our political opinions are dominated by emotion, and that the reasoning part of our brain is not interested in political information that challenges us. In fact, our brains will work very hard to avoid that information.”
This means Dr. Millies has an uphill fight in trying to teach his students that “In our political choices, we should not settle for the hollow comfort of feeling gratifyingly consistent in our assurance that one party is always right and the other always is wrong.”
The trouble is, according to polls, about two-thirds of the electorate does cling to such assurance. That makes things tough for a fair-minded professor. It also makes it tough to publish a nonpartisan editorial page, and persuade partisans that that is actually what you are doing. No matter what you wrote the day before or the day after, a partisan tends to remember only the last thing you said that ticked him off, and to take that as proof positive that you’re on that other side.
It doesn’t help that so many editorial pages are partisan, even at the best papers. You can almost always predict which “side” The New York Times will be on, and rely upon The Wall Street Journal to take the opposite view.
None of us is immune to wrapping ourselves in comforting notions. Look at me: I didn’t want to hear what Cindi was trying to tell me. But I try to learn. I try to anticipate the way partisans of all sorts will perceive what I’m saying, and to express myself in a way that they see what I mean. But I often fail, and often in ways that surprise me, even after three decades of observing politics.
Now here’s another perception problem to think about: “pro-business” or “anti-business.” Well, all I can say is that I’ll try.
In the meantime, just in case anyone is still unclear: Sometimes business people are right; sometimes they’re wrong; sometimes they’re both. And when we write about them, we’re doing our best to sort all that out.
It’s just like S.C. lawmakers: They don’t always do stupid stuff. It’s merely coincidence that on the two issues we wrote about last Sunday, they did.

The billboard sellout

40 Replies

Just in case today’s column by Associate Editor Cindi Scoppe didn’t quite convince you as to how indefensibly irresponsible the S.C. Legislature was last week in smooching the billboard industry’s big ol’ fat behind, here are two additional pieces of information.

The first is Gov. Mark Sanford’s veto message on the billboard bill — a document that lawmakers obviously took no time to read before overriding his laudable action.

The second item will be the roll-call votes in both the Senate and House.

Here’s the governor’s veto message:

R. 233, H. 3381–ORDERED PRINTED IN THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER ordered the following veto printed in the Journal:

February 21, 2006
The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I believe that we must always stand fast against the government taking or regulating away the use of property. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." Private property rights are fundamental to a free society, and I appreciate your efforts to address them in H. 3381.

The protection of private property rights is also essential to our market-based economy. Recognition of those rights provides the legal certainty necessary for individuals to commit resources to ventures. And those rights provide the basis for the development of financial markets that are essential for economic growth and development.

For these reasons, I have consistently acted to protect private property rights and fight unnecessary government regulation. For example, as a member of the 106th Congress, I voted for the Private Property Rights Implementation Act to give greater access to federal courts for individuals with property grievances against the government. In March 2004, I vetoed S. 560, the Life Sciences Act, in part because it extended the awesome power of eminent domain to dozens of new entities by including all state institutions of higher learning. In May 2004, I signed into law H. 4130 – commonly referred to as "The Small Business Regulatory Relief Act" – to require state agencies to consider their impact on small business before they issue final regulations. In June 2005, I vetoed S. 97 because it opened the door for more property, including agricultural, to be declared blighted or abandoned and subsequently condemned.

Given the importance of protecting private property rights, I recognize the need for a uniform approach to takings that is consistent with the overall purposes of the just compensation provision of Article 1, Section 13 of the South Carolina Constitution. Unfortunately, for the three specific reasons set forth below, I do not believe H. 3381 represents that uniform approach.
In my judgment, at least part of the reason why H. 3381 is not a consistent approach to the question of takings stems from the fact that the public debate on this particular bill has taken place in the narrow context of special legislation affecting one particular industry – an approach to legislative debate which, in my opinion, does not fit with the spirit of Article III, Section 34, IX of the South Carolina Constitution, which provides that: "In all other cases where general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted …"

A broader public debate on the issue of just compensation for takings is now taking place in the General Assembly in connection with the eminent domain bills pending in the House and Senate (H. 4502, H. 4505, S. 1029, S. 1030 and S. 1031), and it is my hope and expectation that the three specific concerns I have in regard to H. 3381 will be considered as that broader public debate moves forward. Accordingly, I am hereby returning H. 3381, R. 233 without my approval for the following reasons:

First, the bill would not treat billboard owners and billboard tenants as we treat other property owners and other business tenants. This bill seeks to level the playing field by putting billboards on par with other asset classes but actually serves to set billboards apart. H. 3381 would treat billboards as real property for compensation, while they would be con-sidered as personal property for taxing purposes.

As a matter of public policy, I believe billboards should be treated as we treat other property owners, but not put in a position superior to homeowners, farmers and other businesses. Currently, billboard owners pay personal property taxes based on the sign’s original cost less depreciation, and accordingly, just compensation is determined in the same way. Likewise, if the government takes a home to build a road, one value system for real property is applied for taxes and compensation. In effect, H. 3381 would give billboard owners the tax benefits of being classified as personal property and the just compensation benefits of being classified as real property which is not something enjoyed by the other asset classes just listed.

Second, I do not think that we should have one standard for state government and another standard for local government. H. 3381 would establish a double standard in that the new compensation requirements for removing billboards would apply only to local governments, not state agencies.

Again, I think we ought to treat government at different levels consistently. Under H. 3381, local governments are held to a higher standard than the state when calculating just compensation, in that local governments are required to utilize the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices, including a number of mandatory considerations, when calculating the amount of just compensation due the billboard owner, whereas the state is not. I do not believe it is good public policy to maintain two sets of pricing – one for state government and another for local governments. I think when we look at something as fundamental as private property rights they should be consistently administered.

Third, I think we need to be careful about saying we believe in Home Rule as a governing principle, but then reverse local governments’ decisions when they disagree with the state on an issue like this one. With a retroactive effective date of April 14, 2005, the bill would invalidate at least seven billboard ordinances that were passed legally by local governments. I believe that tossing out the ordinances of one group of local governments while respecting the ordinances of others – both of which were passed subject to the laws in place at that time – raises once again the uniformity issue that has caused me to struggle with this bill. Why should two local governments, under the same circumstances and afforded the same privileges of Home Rule, be treated differently?

Finally, as a matter of consistency, I believe that this bill undermines the very principle it purports to represent. By limiting the use of billboards by owners, certain provisions of this bill essentially constitute a regulatory taking without providing for just compensation – quite the opposite, I believe, of what the bill seeks to achieve. In keeping with the notion of federalism, I believe that all levels of government have to more clearly define their roles and responsibilities, and the way a community looks and feels should fundamentally be a local municipal or county decision. I do not believe it is the role of the state legislature to determine community standards from Columbia by regulating the content of billboards in the many towns and counties across South Carolina.

For these reasons, I am hereby vetoing and returning without my approval H. 3381.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

Having pointedly, insultingly ignored that, here’s how the lawmakers voted (and if you’d like to find out how to contact individual lawmakers, go here for senators and here for House members; if you’re not sure which ones represent you, look it up here):

The 28-13 roll call by which the South Carolina Senate voted to override Gov. Mark Sanford’s veto of a bill making it harder for local governments to force the removal of billboards.
A "yes" vote was a vote to override the veto, and a "no" vote was a vote to let the veto stand.
Voting "yes" were 9 Democrats and 19 Republicans.
Voting "no" were 8 Democrats and 5 Republicans.
Not voting were 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans.

Democrats Voting "Yes"
Anderson, Greenville; Elliott, North Myrtle Beach; Ford, Charleston; Land, Manning; Matthews, Bowman; Moore, Clearwater; Patterson, Columbia; Reese, Boiling Springs; Williams, Marion.

Republicans Voting "Yes"
Alexander, Walhalla; Bryant, Anderson; Cleary, Murrells Inlet; Cromer, Prosperity; Fair, Greenville; Grooms, Bonneau; Hawkins, Spartanburg; Knotts, West Columbia; Leatherman, Florence; Martin, Pickens; McConnell, Charleston; O’Dell, Ware Shoals; Peeler, Gaffney; Rankin, Myrtle Beach; Ritchie, Spartanburg; Ryberg, Aiken; Scott, Summerville; Thomas, Fountain Inn; Verdin, Laurens.

Democrats Voting "No"
Drummond, Ninety Six; Hutto, Orangeburg; Leventis, Sumter; Lourie, Columbia; Malloy, Hartsville; McGill, Kingstree; Sheheen, Camden; Short, Chester.

Republicans Voting "No"
Campsen, Isle of Palms; Courson, Columbia; Gregory, Lancaster; Hayes, Rock Hill; Richardson, Hilton Head Island.

Not Voting
Democrats: Jackson, Hopkins; Pinckney, Ridgeland; Setzler, West Columbia.
Republicans: Mescher, Pinopolis; Smith, Greer.

—————————————————————————–
The 78-25 roll call by which the South Carolina House voted to override Gov. Mark Sanford’s veto of a bill making it harder for local governments to force the removal of billboards.
A "yes" vote was a vote to override the veto, and a "no" vote was a vote to let the veto stand.
Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 49 Republicans.
Voting "no" were 13 Democrats and 12 Republicans.
Not voting were 6 Democrats and 14 Republicans.

Democrats Voting "Yes"
Allen, Greenville; Anderson, Georgetown; Anthony, Union; Branham, Lake City; G. Brown, Bishopville; J. Brown, Columbia; Clyburn, Aiken; Cobb-Hunter, Orangeburg; Coleman, Winnsboro; Govan, Orangeburg; Hayes, Hamer; J. Hines, Lamar; Hodges, Green Pond; Hosey, Barnwell; Howard, Columbia; Jefferson, Pineville; Jennings, Bennettsville; Kennedy, Greeleyville; Mack, North Charleston; McCraw, Gaffney; Moody-Lawrence, Rock Hill; J.H. Neal, Hopkins; Neilson, Darlington; Ott, St. Matthews; Phillips, Gaffney; Rhoad, Branchville; Rutherford, Columbia; F.N. Smith, Greenville; Vick, Chesterfield.

Republicans Voting "Yes"
Altman, Charleston; Bailey, St. George; Barfield, Conway; Cato, Travelers Rest; Ceips, Beaufort; Chalk, Hilton Head Island; Chellis, Summerville; Clark, Swansea; Clemmons, Myrtle Beach; Coates, Florence; Cooper, Piedmont; Davenport, Boiling Springs; Delleney, Chester; Duncan, Clinton; Edge, North Myrtle Beach; Frye, Batesburg-Leesville; Haley, Lexington; Hamilton, Taylors; Hardwick, Surfside Beach; Harrell, Charleston; Harrison, Columbia; Haskins, Greenville; Hinson, Goose Creek; Hiott, Pickens; Huggins, Columbia; Leach, Greer; Littlejohn, Spartanburg; Mahaffey, Lyman; Martin, Anderson; Merrill, Daniel Island; Norman, Rock Hill; Perry, Aiken; E.H. Pitts, Lexington; M.A. Pitts, Laurens; Rice, Easley; Sandifer, Seneca; Simrill, Rock Hill; Skelton, Six Mile; G.M. Smith, Sumter; G.R. Smith, Simpsonville; W.D. Smith, Spartanburg; Talley, Spartanburg; Taylor, Laurens; Thompson, Anderson; Townsend, Anderson; Tripp, Mauldin; White, Anderson; Witherspoon, Conway; Young, Summerville.

Democrats Voting "No"
Battle, Nichols; Bowers, Brunson; R. Brown, Hollywood; Emory, Lancaster; Funderburk, Camden; Kirsh, Clover; McLeod, Little Mountain; Miller, Pawleys Island; J.M. Neal, Kershaw; Rivers, Ridgeland; J.E. Smith, Columbia; Weeks, Sumter; Whipper, North Charleston.

Republicans Voting "No"
Agnew, Abbeville; Ballentine, Irmo; Bannister, Greenville; Brady, Columbia; Cotty, Columbia; Hagood, Mt. Pleasant; Limehouse, Charleston; Lucas, Hartsville; Scarborough, Charleston; D.C. Smith, North Augusta; Toole, West Columbia; Umphlett, Moncks Corner.

Those Not Voting
Democrats: Bales, Eastover; Breeland, Charleston; M. Hines, Florence; Mitchell, Spartanburg; Parks, Greenwood; Scott, Columbia;
Republicans: Bingham, West Columbia; Dantzler, Goose Creek; Herbkersman, Bluffton; Loftis, Greenville; McGee, Florence; Owens, Pickens; Pinson, Greenwood; Sinclair, Spartanburg; J.R. Smith, Langley; Stewart, Aiken; Vaughn, Taylors; Viers, Myrtle Beach; Walker, Landrum; Whitmire, Walhalla.

Silly me, expecting maturity

15 Replies

Well, let’s all just slap our needs, throw our heads back, and engage in prolonged belly laughter over my description of the S.C. Senate as "somewhat more mature" than the House. Sure, the House asserted its reckless foolishness first, but the Senate didn’t waste any time, either.

Well, I should have known better. That’s all there is to it.

But you’d think that even lawmakers who are completely within the thrall of the billboard industry would pause a moment when they see Phil Leventis, of all people, supporting a Mark Sanford veto. Those guys never agree on much of anything. If both of them see the wisdom in letting local communities set their own standards, why can’t the rest of them.

Oops, silly me again — using words like "wisdom" in such a context.

Time’s a-wastin’

5 Replies

Talk about quick. I had not even hit the "save" button on this item, which predicted that the S.C. House would override Gov. Mark Sanford’s eminently sensible veto of their bill to handcuff local governments for the sake of the billboard industry as soon as today, when they went ahead and did it.

That’s the thing that gets me about these guys. If you want them to do something smart and strategic that might make South Carolina a better place, such as guaranteeing equality of educational opportunity for all, or restructuring state government to make it more efficient and politically accountable, they just can’t find the time.

But given the opportunity to do something dumb and obnoxious, they fall all over themselves and send it over to the Senate before anybody can holler "Don’t!"

You go, Governor

3 Replies

Bully for Gov. Mark Sanford!

By vetoing the bill pushed through the Legislature by the billboard industry that would have required local governments to reimburse them at exorbitant rates if local communities decide to clean up billboard clutter, the governor has struck a blow for that which is right and true.

To the industry, this is about billboards. That’s not what it’s about to me or to my colleagues on the editorial board. Quite frankly, I don’t have any big beef against billboards; I often find them interesting, and a nice relief from the tedium of the open road. I’m sorry I don’t recall ever having seen a Burma Shave sign before they disappeared into pop culture history.

But if a community decides they are a blight, it should be able to do something about it. For that matter, if a mere neighborhood doesn’t want them, it should be able to appeal to its government — its local government — for a zoning change that would ban them.

This is a fundamental tenet of the proper roles of different levels of government. For that matter, it is allegedly a fundamental tenet of Republicans and others who call themselves "conservatives:" That government closest to the people governs best, and the bigger government should butt out.

But "Republican" lawmakers are South Carolina legislators before they are republicans. And the S.C. General Assembly has never believed in Home Rule. Ever since it had its arms twisted to pass the Home Rule Act in the mid-70s, it has done everything it could to undermine it, and to retain control of matters that are purely, obviously, local in nature.

The governor put it well: "I do not believe it is the role of the state Legislature to determine community standards from Columbia." Neither do I, governor. Neither does any sensible person who cares about good government.

And yet, look for lawmakers to respond to this veto as quickly and as obnoxiously as possible. Don’t be surprised if the House overrides the governor’s action as soon as today. I am less certain what the somewhat more mature Senate will do.

Guilt column

103 Replies

OK, I feel guilty about Katrina;
so what do you want me to DO?
By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
EARLIER this month, Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland made me feel pretty guilty, and I thought about expiating that guilt with a column of my own.
I managed to forget about it. I’m resilient that way.
But then, Mac Bennett and some other folks from the local United Way came in for a visit and reminded me of it. Yes, they brought up Hurricane Katrina. Katrinademolish_1
The devastation of the Gulf Coast has cut into local fund-raising. It’s been hard to compete with. “How many days was Katrina on the front page” of newspapers? Mac asked. Actually, he understated the case. He should have used present tense; it was the centerpiece on USA Today’s front the very day he said that.
Well, don’t blame me, Mac. The last time I had a column that was actually about Katrina was Sept. 23. By that time, I had said what I had to say about it, and was ready to move on. So I did.
But thousands upon thousands of people whose lives were wrecked have not moved on.
I find this irritating.
That’s why I feel guilty.
It was just a vague sort of guilt creeping around the edges of my consciousness. I would climb groggily out of bed and hit the snooze button on the radio because NPR was doing yet another story on the plight of New Orleans. “I’ve heard all that,” I would think as I got up. “That’s not a very worthy sentiment,” I would think as I climbed back into bed. “After all, those poor people are still…” Zzzzzzz.
Then Mr. Hoagland pegged people like me dead-on in his Feb. 5 column. It was about why the State of the Union message didn’t linger on Katrina. He suggested that maybe this was not because Bushdoor President Bush “is out of touch.”
“My fear is more ominous,” he wrote: “After a great deal of study and some polling, Bush is reflecting national opinion fairly well on the challenges still faced by the people of New Orleans: We wish them well, but it is their problem, not ours anymore.”
Ow. That hit home. That’s just what I had been thinking.
I’m a good guy. Really. I give to United Way, and my church. I don’t vote self-interest: If taxes need to go up, say, to help the poor get a better education, I’m for it. I’ve served on nonprofit boards. Hey, I was chairman of the local Habitat for Humanity. I’ve spent whole vacations on blitz builds — framing, roofing, putting on siding (not lately, but I’ve done it). Not even Jimmy Carter, the most self-consciously decent and moral president of my lifetime, has anything on me there. Right?
But now, if Mr. Hoagland is right (and I fear he is), it’s George Bush who’s got me nailed.
I know that Katrina, the worst national disaster in the nation’s history, was an event loaded with a profound message; it stripped away a veneer and exposed underlying problems that have always been there, problems that America needs to find a way to address meaningfully if we’re truly to be the land of opportunity.
We said this on Sept. 23:
“(T)here are millions of people who are so poor that they have no way to flee a killer storm. People who, even if transportation were available, wouldn’t leave because all they own is in their home: Katrinareport_1 They have no bank accounts, credit cards, job skills or network of family and friends in other cities to take them in. We have glimpsed for a harrowing moment the kind of random, wanton violence that the middle class never has to experience, but that plagues too many impoverished neighborhoods.”
I meant all that. Still do. But we said it, and on some gut level, I’m more than ready to get on to other important issues, because, let’s face it, that one’s depressing. Poverty right here in South C Katrinachertoff_1 arolina is a consuming passion of this editorial board. But as daunting as that challenge is, I at least have a clue what to say in terms of what we need to do about it.
Besides, Columbia and South Carolina responded superbly to Katrina. Do you think I could motivate my readers to do more than they’ve done? I don’t.
When another report comes out, as one did last week, saying government on all levels failed Katrina’s victims, and that things might have been better if the president had taken a personal interest earlier, I think, “Didn’t we establish all that some time back?”
When I read, as I also did last week, that some Katrina victims are being booted out of their government-subsidized motel rooms, I think: “What? They’re still there? It’s been — what — almost seven months, and they still haven’t found a place on their Katrinamotel_1
own?”
When folks wring their hands over whether the poor of the Ninth Ward will get to return home, I’ve thought: “Would it be the worst thing in the world if they didn’t? Other communities — such as Columbia — have given them a leg up; maybe they have a better chance in new surroundings. (Maybe the president’s Mom had a point.) Maybe the rest of the country is better able right now to provide permanent homes to poor folks. Maybe New Orleans would have a better chance of recovering — and becoming a better place for the poor to make a living in the future — if for a few years it was a community of empowered, middle-class people with a compelling economic reason to be there. Maybe an electorate like that would choose better local l Katrina9thward_1 eadership, and clean up the police department and other services that failed the poor so miserably. Would that be bad?”
So now I’ve gotten that off my chest — but I don’t feel better.
Look, I don’t know what the solution is. If you can think of something I can do, let me know. I’ll be glad to pay a higher gas tax or something. Go on, Mr. President, ask me. You don’t have my number on that. I want you to ask me to sacrifice for something.
Of course, the gas tax would help in the war on terror, which I’d be proud to do, but not do much for the Gulf.
So until I see something I can do, I will probably still think, whenever I see or hear another Katrina story, that it’s past time for those folks and the rest of us to move on — even while I think it’s wrong to think that.
But at least I feel guilty about it. That’s something. Isn’t it?

At least there were no tears

52 Replies

I’m so disappointed in Dick Cheney. Or at least I was, when I first heard he had caved in to the all-pervasive, "reality"-charged, 24-hour media Beast that had been demanding that he make a personal appearance to share his feelings about shooting his pal Harry Whittington.

Actually, I still am.

I had hoped he’d hold out a few more days, until I could run a Sunday column cheering him on.

But he caved. Of course, he flipped off the whiny, supremely arrogant White House press corps — and the entire MSM — by doing it on Fox News. But that didn’t make me feel better. It made me feel Cheneyhume worse, really, since it emphasized the partisanship that saturates Washington. I mean, the country is a poorer place when politicians can pick their news outlet according to their expectations of better treatment — and be right about it.

At least he didn’t follow the exact script that the Beast demands, which goes like this:

You sit down face-to-face with somebody like Barbara Walters in some place that looks like somebody’s living room, dressed casually because you just haven’t been able to bring yourself to return to business as usual (sackcloth and ashes would be nice, but the touch might be missed by secularized moderns).

And then what? Well, you break down and cry. Then, if you’re really good at this, you look straight into the camera, bite your quivering lip, give a game "thumbs-up" sign and say. "Hang in there, Harry. I’m with you, pal." And you fall to pieces again.

Well, I knew Dick Cheney wouldn’t do that. Still, even though he submitted his surrender to Brit Hume on ground of his choosing, dressed vice-presidentially and with nary a quiver, he still went on TV and pronounced most of the ritual sentiments demanded by the Beast and its gods: "one of the worst days of my life," etc…. you know, the kind of stuff no guy should have to share except with maybe his wife and his pal Harry — if them.

Sure, he was stoic and took full responsibility and said manly things like "I’m the guy who pulled the trigger," and the Beast will be far from satisfied, and we haven’t heard the end about his supposedly unforgivable arrogance.

But he still caved. Now I’ve got to figure another angle for the column.

And yes, I’m being a little ironic here. But I still liked seeing him frustrate the White House press corps all week up to now. I don’t like those guys — considered as a group, anyway. Oh, and before you liberals get all worked up in their defense, let me tell you I formed my negative impression
of them during the Clinton years, when I sat among them waiting to interview Clinton press secretary and native South Carolinian Mike McCurry. The topic of the day was some small development in the Paula Jones saga, and they were all abusing McCurry for failing to kowtow to them in some way or other. They do that to everybody, you know.

They make all of us look bad, and I think it was great that Mr. Cheney made them get their news from the Corpus Christi paper.

Must have been GOOD barbecue

10 Replies

Last Saturday night, I dropped by a shindig Joe Taylor was hosting at the State Fairgrounds. He was serving vinegar-and-pepper barbecue from Hemingway, and Frogmore Stew. At this event, I saw John Courson, Bob McAlister, Samuel Tenenbaum, Andre Bauer, Bob Coble, Tameika Isaac Devine, Patton Adams and…

… Mark Sanford. The governor, who isn’t famous for showing up and staying any length of time at evening social events, stuck around for at least as long as I was there. Basically, I had to split once the band cranked up and it was impossible to carry on a normal conversation with anybody.

Next thing you know, Joe Taylor is secretary of commerce.

The governor must have really liked that barbecue.

OK, my turn on the Folks op-ed

7 Replies

OK, now that the comments on the Will Folks op-ed have reached critical mass of 34 comments and rising (including two from Mr. Folks himself), I will take a few moments to address some of the points raised by readers.

First, though, let me give you a brief summary of my thinking as it went before the piece ran — before the storm, as it were.

When the proof landed on my desk, I saw Will’s mug and thought, "Oh, man — what, again?" Then I remembered the earlier conversation in which it had been mentioned that this piece was in the pipeline. A board member responded by asking, "Is it something we would run if someone else wrote it?" That’s pretty much our standard response whenever the question arises whether we should give this person or that person space on our pages — what if it were from someone else? If the answer is "yes," we generally go with it. The answer was "yes."

So I read the piece on the page and agreed with my colleague who had put it there that yes, if this had been from some other similarly situated advocate on that side of the debate, we would have run it. But note that qualification of "similarly situated": It probably NOT have run if it had come in from someone who had never been a player of some kind in the debate. I say that because the arguments were pretty weak, and persuasive only to someone who already believes all this stuff, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Coming from Will Folks, its weakness was interesting in and of itself. Coming from someone unknown to the readers, it would have had little value.

To elaborate on that, some folks have asked why we would "give a platform" to someone who pleaded guilty to criminal domestic violence. Well, we wouldn’t. But we would "give a platform" to someone who is writing on a subject that is important and timely and who:

Was the spokesman, until quite recently, of the current governor.
Demonstrated his temperamental unsuitability for the job a number of
times during the four years he spoke for the governor, but continued to
hold the position until, as I just said, quite recently.
Is still advocating, as hard as he can, policies that are priorities for that governor.
Writes with a tone and style that is much the same as the way he spoke when he was in the governor’s office — lashing out, dismissive toward those who disagree, etc.
Brings to the surface, in a particularly stark manner, something that has been hinted at more subtly up to now — the growing tension between the governor and those who think like him and an increasingly unified business leadership.

My friend Samuel Tenenbaum said "Shame!" over our having run this piece. But I feel no shame. Well, I will admit that one thing about the
decision to run this does nag at my conscience just a bit: the fact that the piece was so
weak in its arguments that it undermined Mr. Folks’ point of view, with which
I disagree. So should I have waited for a stronger piece expressing that
point of view to come in? Well, if I had, I’d still be waiting. It’s not like we had a strong piece and this one, and picked this one. This is what we had.

Another respondent says critics are attacking Mr. Folks, but dodging the substance of what he said. Well, let’s discuss two or three points of that substance:

Will dismisses the financial acumen of some of the heaviest business hitters in South Carolina (or as he puts it, "prominent leaders of the so-called ‘business community’"), and does so in a way that takes for granted that HE and the governor know better than they do what is good for business in South Carolina. He sneers at the "left-leaning S.C. Chamber of Commerce" (note to Hunter Howard — better quit wearing those Che T-shirts around the State House). He calls Darla Moore and Mack Whittle "self-appointed dilettantes." To provide a little perspective, as the governor said to me awhile back about his having hired Will in the first place, "You take someone who was playing bass guitar in a rock ‘n’ roll band and you give him a chance." Yeah, OK, let’s see — to whom would I go for credible financial advice? Darla Moore, or Will Folks? Mack Whittle, or Will Folks? Harris DeLoach, or Will Folks? Don Herriott, or Will Folks? Ooh, that’s a toughie.
While the governor can be said to have more experience in business than his former protege, to suggest that he is someone whose credentials suggest more real-world experience in financial dealings than the people Mr. Folks dismisses is ludicrous. Mr. Sanford’s record in the private sector before he took up politics is by comparison to these people — and this is charitably understating the case — less than impressive.

Actually, I’m going to stop there, and not get into his strong suggestion that ONLY the kind of tax cut the governor wants could possibly help our economy, or his indulgence in yet another gratuitous slap at public schools ("unquestionably the nation’s worst") or his mentioning that "state spending jumping another 9.1 percent" without noting by how much it had been cut in the several preceding years (some agencies, such as the Corrections Department, by more than 20 percent during that period). Basically, I’m tired of typing.

But before I go, let me address a few reader comments specifically:

Scott Barrow says "you’re giving him credibility and helping him restore his bad name by printing his columns." I don’t see how. If anything, I’m hurting the cause he advocates by running a piece from him (I already addressed the fact that my conscience nags at me about that, even though my conscience, yaller dog that it is, doesn’t know what it’s talking about).
Uncle Elmer asks, "Does Mr. Sanford really need cool-headed, articulate friends like this?" Well, no, he doesn’t. In fact, the last time
we ran a piece by Mr. Folks, the governor’s office called to question our having done so.
Honesty says, "The fact that you found the need to edit his previous editorial due to
his apparent dishonesty while deeming him worthy of now being published
as a guest editorialist borders on bizarre." Well, not really. We edit everybody, and a lot of what we edit out are unsupportable statements that are wrongly presented as fact. Sometimes we miss such mistakes and instances of outright attempts to mislead, but we try.
Will Folks himself complained that "Just once… it would be nice to submit an article and actually
have folks debate its merits instead of venting their spleens with all
this anonymous speculation regarding a domestic situation they didn’t
witness and don’t possess the slightest bit of insight into." Well, once again, Will, I tried. I refer you to the above.
Finally, Don Williams raised a broader complaint "about the plethora of conservative local columnists which have been given platform" on our pages. Well, first, I wouldn’t call Will Folks a "conservative." I think that term refers far better to the "left-leaning" Chamber of Commerce than to him. And Mr. Williams lumps him in with Bob McAlister and Mike Cakora as being three who "arrive at the same conclusions time after time." Well, Bob works for those "dilettantes" over at the Palmetto Institute, and is therefore pushing very different views from Mr. Folks on these issues. Mr. McAlister is also a very conservative Southern Baptist, while last I read, Mr. Cakora was an atheist. I have no idea where Mr. Cakora (whom I met once, about six years ago — a fact I thought I’d throw in for Mark Whittington‘s benefit) stands on the tax issue (maybe you can find out on his blog). Beyond that, we usually get complaints about running too many liberals. I don’t know whether we do or not. I particularly don’t know on local columns. Basically, we generally take what we’re sent, and choose between them based on quality and relevance (and whether they’ve been published somewhere else, which is generally a disqualifier). Mr. McAlister sends us far more columns than probably any other local contributor — more than we actually run, I would point out. Joe Darby — who is no one’s definition of a conservative — probably comes in a distant second (we hear from him less since he moved to Charleston). Tom Turnipseed? I would say he submits columns less often that Mr. McAlister, but more often than than Mr. Darby. (Mr. Turnipseed is also regularly published elsewhere). We run letters from him more often, including a short one on Dec. 18.

As for nationally syndicated columnists, here’s a blog by a fairly nonpartisan guy who takes the trouble to rate columnists according to how much they lean either Democratic or Republican. Of the ones on his list we run regularly, he sees five as Dems and only one as GOP. But then, he lists George Will, of all people, as being slightly Democratic, so… Also, he doesn’t include some of our conservative regulars, such as Charles Krauthammer and Cal Thomas. I guess "left" and "right" are pretty much in the eyes of the beholder, which is one reason I hate using the terms.

That’s all I have to say about that. For now.

USC/Clemson column

57 Replies

Gamecock, Tiger team up against caps
By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
WEEK BEFORE last, I ran into USC President Andrew Sorensen as he was on his way to an “unprecedented” meeting with House Speaker Bobby Harrell. They were going to talk budgets.
What was so new about that?
“Carolina and Clemson are talking to him at the same time,” Dr. Sorensen said. “And we’re using the same numbers.” To those who remember the old days of tigers and chickens fighting like… well, like cats and birds, over funding, this was remarkable. Mr. Harrell was so “overwhelmed,” Dr. Bobby_presidents_1 Sorensen later said, he sent for a photographer to record the event.
“Jim and I have become increasingly close in terms of… what we want to do and how we want to do it,” Dr. Sorensen said when he and Clemson President James Barker visited the editorial board last week.
Mr. Barker stressed that this new level of cooperation was “not because of the governor’s ‘tax.’ ”
In his latest executive budget, Gov. Mark Sanford proposed “a one percent reduction for Clemson, USC, and MUSC that will result in savings of $3,232,091 in general funds to encourage such further collaboration.”
“Yes,” said Dr. Sorensen, “he takes away a million from each of us to stimulate us to collaborate…. if you can understand the logic in that, please explain it to me.”
This is not the only area in which the two presidents agreed with each other and disagreed with the governor.
For instance, there is the governor’s proposed cap on tuition increases. Sounds good, doesn’t it? It would help me out, with my fourth child now in college.
And I like the governor’s stated goal, which is to force consolidation and reorganization of the state’s non-system of public higher education.
But are caps a good idea for the state of South Carolina? No, and not just because this isn’t going to convince lawmakers to cut the number of institutions.
Tuition started shooting up when the Legislature decided to cut back on direct funding of colleges, and give middle-class voters scholarship checks paid for by poor folks suckered into playing the lottery.
South Carolina’s public colleges have experienced a larger percentage decrease in state funding than those of any other Southern Regional Education Board state over the last decade — a period in which most SREB states increased funding.
Of the 16 states, only West Virginia funded its colleges at a lower percentage of the regional average last year. South Carolina was at 72.45 percent of that average. North Carolina was at the top end, at 136.95 percent.
Higher state funding means lower tuition. Not coincidentally, Kiplinger’s recently listed UNC-Chapel Hill as the best deal in the country, measured by quality compared to cost. Out of 130 public colleges listed, Clemson was 24th, and USC 31st — in spite of those tuition increases.
Or perhaps because of them. The money to improve academics had to come from somewhere. And since the General Assembly has seen fit to turn the money over to the students, via scholarships, that’s where the institutions have turned for funding.
At USC, said Dr. Sorensen, 96 percent of entering freshmen get “one of the lottery-funded scholarships.” At Clemson, it’s 99 percent. In fact, said Mr. Barker, “At Clemson, not one freshman from South Carolina paid full tuition” this year.
OK, so the heads of the schools don’t want tuition caps. Big surprise. What about the students? I don’t know about all of them, but some student government leaders at USC sent a letter
to the governor last week asking for a meeting “to make you aware of our concerns with these proposals, as we feel they do not completely address the desires of students.”
One of the signers, student body Treasurer Tommy Preston, was diplomatic about the governor’s plan when I asked about it, saying that it was “our opinion that there’s just not enough information” to know, but it seemed the caps “potentially could be harmful in the future.”
Never mind what the treasurer thinks. What does Tommy think?
“Personally,” he said, “I think our state has a bigger problem with higher education funding.”
Smart kid, that Tommy.

About Will Folks…

43 Replies

I just wrote this long piece asking what y’all thought about Will Folks’ op-ed today — not the content, but the fact that we ran it at all. I’ve gotten a lot of flak about that today.

And just as I went to save, TYPEPAD BLEW UP ON ME!!!!

Just as well — I had written down MY thoughts on the question, and it’s probably best to see what y’all think first, and then answer you.

So, what do you think?

Outsourcing the republic

14 Replies

Outsourcing the deliberative process
By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
THE POSITION we take in the above editorial is an uncomfortable one. I say that not because using a “BRAC” approach to consolidate school districts is a bad idea. In fact, it’s a great one. But it shouldn’t be.
Our system of representative democracy is all about the deliberative process: We, the people, elect representatives to go to Congress or the Legislature and study complex issues in detail, debate them, make tough decisions for the sake of the whole nation or state, and then come back and face the voters.
This proposal sidesteps that process: It empowers a separate body — not directly elected — to address a long-neglected statewide problem. The members of that body do all the studying and work out all the details — that is, the actual discernment. Then they hand the whole package to the elected body for a simple “yes” or “no.”
The tragedy is that this is apparently the only way that our small state can do away with the shameful waste of having 85 school districts — some of them incredibly tiny, each with its own separate administration.
Why? Because elected representatives won’t touch it. Why? Because they’re elected.
Anyone with common sense looking objectively at this can see that it would be insane not to consolidate districts. But any representative who advocates shuttering a local district faces the danger
of not getting re-elected.
So we find ourselves in a situation in which the most effective approach is to outsource the deliberative process. And school consolidation isn’t the only tough state issue that our delegates may choose to sub-contract.
S.C. House Speaker Bobby Harrell is proposing the same approach on tax reform. He would have a special panel draw up a list of sales tax exemptions to eliminate. Why? Because elected representatives don’t have the guts to face the narrow constituencies (from auto dealers to newspapers) whose tax breaks such a plan might eliminate.
The truth nowadays is that on some issues, our republic’s deliberative process freezes up and dies like a car engine without a drop of oil in it.
That’s how “BRAC” — for Base Realignment and Closure — entered the language to start with. It was impossible for Congress to achieve savings and efficiencies by closing and consolidating domestic military bases. Why? Because every member of Congress had to have one. Or two, or more.
Instead of an objective comparison of the relative merits of this or that military facility, followed by tough but smart decisions, the only sort of “debate” that occurred before BRAC went like this: “You keep my base open, and I’ll scratch your back, too.”
Our system is dysfunctional — at least on issues that involve sacred cows — not because representatives are out of touch, but because they are never out of touch with home long enough to collaborate seriously with their colleagues for the greater good.
Most advocates of term limits say lawmakers get “corrupted” by Washington or Columbia to the point that they forget the wishes of the folks back home. Hardly.
Syndicated columnist George Will has advocated term limits for the opposite reason. He says the only way lawmakers will stop listening to the folks back home long enough to think is if they cannot run for re-election.
I oppose term limits for various reasons, including the fact that I’d rather have laws made by people with some experience at it. But we’ve got to find some way to make critical decisions that politicians with their eyes on the next election refuse to face.
One good thing about a BRAC is that it can be seen as representative democracy the way it was intended to work: A group is delegated to study the issues with few distractions and deliberate until a rational plan emerges.
This may be the only way our elected representatives ever vote on a proposal that takes the whole state’s interest into account. A plan that makes the tough calls would probably never make it to the floor otherwise.
I like to think our system is timeless. But that reckons without technology: In the days before the 24-hour news cycle, blogs, cell phones and mass e-mails, representatives had a chance to concentrate constructively on issues and make decisions accordingly. The cacophony of modern communications makes that nearly impossible.
Some look at this situation and come up with a whole other way: skirting the republican system entirely. Gov. Mark Sanford would ask voters to curtail the Legislature’s power to appropriate, by setting an arbitrary constitutional limit on spending growth.
His reasoning sounds a bit like ours: The system isn’t working. When I asked how he could advocate undermining “small-R” republican ideals, he said: “You need to be more aware of the political environment that you’re operating in — be less, you know, idealistic, less, uh, you know, high and lofty, and just get down into the gears of how our government system actually works.”
Talk about being disillusioned. Of course, I can identify. But there’s a difference. While the BRAC idea reflects a lack of faith in the Legislature’s deliberative fortitude, it does not abandon faith in deliberation
itself. In fact, it gives the General Assembly a little help in that area.
The contrast between such a careful, studious process of objective decision-making and what the governor is proposing — a quick Election Day show of hands, yes or no, on an unfathomably complex fiscal question — could hardly be greater.
I’m still not thrilled about having to institute a “work-around” to set policy, but comparing a “BRAC” to setting future budgets in a single plebiscite makes me feel a lot better about it.

Anybody care about the mayor’s race?

16 Replies

Hello? Hello?

I’m perplexed as to why, after over 24 hours, there are NO comments on my last post. Is it me? Was it badly written? Or is it the topic? It’s me, isn’t it? I knew it. I’m ugly and my mother dresses me funny. Boo-hoo.

Seriously, I’m not just whining that no one is paying attention to me here. There’s a serious point. I’m still figuring out this blog thing, and trying to understand why some posts will get over 60 comments, and others none. I thought this one, with just a few days left to filing, would be a talker. Lord knows I get plenty of mail and phone calls from people who complain about poor ol’ Mayor Bob. Thing is, no one with a chance ever runs against him. You’d think people would be interested if someone with even a slight chance (and I’ll admit, he doesn’t have much of one) stepped forward, or was thinking about stepping forward.

Maybe lots of people read it, had nothing to say yet, and are waiting to see whether Mr. Fisher actually runs. Or maybe they’re not interested.

So please respond to this one, and tell me, so that I might serve you better: What sorts of topics interest you most? What would be more likely, in your opinion, to get a good debate going among a wide variety of people? I’ve pored over the posts that get the most comments and the ones that get the least, and I have yet to discern reliable patterns that I can put to practical use.

Of course, there are some topics that need to be discussed whether they have high market value or not. So here’s a corollary question: How might I approach local politics in a way that would engage more people?

Thanking you in advance for your advice…

Will Fisher run?

4 Replies

Businessman ought to run
against Coble to ‘raise issues’
By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
THE DEADLINE to file to run against Mayor Bob Coble is a week from today, and so far the only challenger is perennial candidate Joe Azar.
This could change.
I asked Columbia ad man Kevin Fisher, president of Fisher Communications, about rumors that he may step in to provide an alternative to another lopsided Coble-Azar match-up.
He didn’t say “yes,” but he hadn’t decided against it, either. If he goes for it, we could have the Fisherk_1 first competitive contest since Mr. Coble toppled
incumbent Patton Adams in 1990. We could see, for the first time in 16 years, a lively debate about critical issues facing the city — and at a pivotal moment in its history. As a result, more than a few voters might actually turn out to participate for a change. (A record 14,035 voted in the 1990 election; in 2002, only 8,680 bothered.)
That, said Mr. Fisher, would be his motivation if he does decide to go for it. “I would like to see a hot mayor’s race,” he said — one that engaged the community constructively.
He said he doubts that he could win on April 4, saying he would likely be a “sacrificial lamb” against an incumbent with far more political experience and name recognition than he. He’s likely right about this.
As he said, a lot of people in Columbia really like Mayor Bob. In fact, Mr. Fisher likes him: “He’s a really nice guy, and much nicer than me.”
He thinks that’s part of the problem. He sees Mr. Coble as the sort of “nice guy” who “can’t say no” to bad ideas, and can’t get good ideas implemented.
“Bob waits for consensus to build” rather than leading, Mr. Fisher said. Under the current weak-mayor, or council-manager, form of government, the citizens of Columbia “really do have seven little mayors,” he said.
While he advocates changing to a strong-mayor form of government — a possibility that has been under study by a special commission that appears to be going nowhere — he said that even under the current system, the city “would have a stronger mayor” if he succeeded in replacing the current officeholder.
He says he might have a chance to make a respectable showing against the incumbent if, as he suspects, voters’ liking for Mr. Coble is “mile-wide, inch-deep.”
But in any case, he would see the race as worthwhile if he managed to “raise the issues” in a way Coble_2 that engaged the community.
And what are those issues? In our conversation Wednesday, Mr. Fisher cited a litany of bad decisions and missed opportunities, from AirSouth to the Three Rivers Festival to the city-owned convention hotel idea; from the deal to take over the bus system from SCANA (which he thinks could have been negotiated on terms much more favorable to the taxpayers) to the 10-year failure to get the Canalside project under way (which Mr. Fisher says ended with the city selling the prime property to a developer for less than taxpayers had invested in it).
As a frequent contributor to our op-ed page, Mr. Fisher has aired his views on a number of other local issues. While I don’t necessarily agree with all his points, he usually presents them emphatically and persuasively — suggesting that he might do the same in a political campaign. Some of the views expressed in these columns:

The city shouldn’t
have given $375,000 to Trelys, a venture capital firm started by entrepreneur Larry Wilson and other wealthy investors.
A new arts festival proposed by long-time ad executive Marvin Chernoff is a "boondoggle"
that should not receive the $218,000 it is seeking from the city.
The commission charged with studying the city’s structure
should dismiss the mayor’s “silly” proposal for a “hybrid” system that would call for a full-time mayor while keeping the city manager.
“The building of EdVenture in the State Museum parking lot represents the perfect storm
of no vision, no leadership and no sense of aesthetics.”

Mr. Fisher says he doesn’t understand why, “with a week to go,” he is the only viable challenger being mentioned. He thinks there are plenty of other strong potential candidates. In particular, “I… think it’s a great opportunity — but nobody’s doing it — for a minority.” (Mr. Fisher, by the way, is white.)
So with only a week to go, what is keeping him from making up his mind whether to file? He says there’s only one factor in the way: He’s not sure he could run effectively for the part-time job — and if successful, do the job as well as he would want — and still make a living. He said his business makes it hard to delegate: “So much of it is about me…. I sell myself.”
He said he has no big-time backers, although he has gained the impression that some might step forward if he filed and demonstrated that he was serious.
But he won’t know unless he tries.
Does my writing this column indicate that I would prefer Mr. Fisher to Mayor Coble? Nope. I really don’t know at this point. But I do know I’d like to see a lively, relevant and competitive campaign that fully engages the electorate. With everything happening and on the verge of happening right now, our capital city can’t afford another yawner.
That’s why I hope Mr. Fisher goes for it.

Hey! Leave those kids alone

10 Replies

The job of editorial page editor — the way I choose to do it, anyway — involves a curious mix of leadership and collaboration.

As I frequently tell readers, our editorial board makes decisions by consensus, meaning that even if not everyone in the room buys into the position completely, it has been shaped to the point that each member can live with having the editorial appear beneath his or her name (which, while editorials are by definition not signed — only columns have bylines — is always up there on the masthead with the rest of our names for all the world to see. For an illustration, zoom in on the upper left-hand corner of this page.)

My colleagues occasionally say I’m not being entirely candid when I say that because we don’t always reach consensus, and sometimes we take a certain position only because I insist , despite the lingering objections of one or more members. True, there are times when I consider it necessary to take a position, and a consensus proves impossible — on some political endorsements, for instance. Unlike other issues, an endorsement picks one candidate or another, yes or no — leaving no room for the compromises that make consensus possible. And I firmly believe that failing to endorse — when one of these people will be elected — is a copout.

My response to this gentle remonstration is that just as often (if not more so), I give in and go along with the consensus. An example is today’s lead editorial. Personally, I’d like to see summer vacation start at Memorial Day and end after Labor Day. I sympathize with those who want their kids to enjoy the same sort of three-month idylls that I remember
from my own youth. And while I’m a big advocate of standards in the schools, I personally fail to understand what is magical about 180 days of instruction. I seem to recall many thousands of hours that I spent in school as being superfluous. I believe what I learned between kindergarten and 12th grade could have been taught in half the time.

But my colleagues pretty much unanimously insist that I’m completely WRONG on this, and since I have to confess that to some extent my position is based in sentimentality rather than evidence and logic (and I tend to treat positions based in "feelings" rather than thought with contempt), I’ve gone along with them.

But I only go along so far, and the copy has to get by me to get on the page. An example — a paragraph in today’s editorial originally read like this:

On a practical level, the bill approved Wednesday by the House Education Committee isn’t quite as bad as some previous attempts to set local school calendars: It allows schools to start back as early as the third Monday of August, rather than holding them to the agrarian, post-Labor Day schedule that the businesses on the beach seem to think will benefit them. But then, if you want to talk practicalities, the whole notion that starting school in August somehow shortens the summer vacation is nutty: An early start means kids get out of school by the end of May instead of mid-June. The actual length of summer vacation is the same no matter when it starts and stops.

I was willing to go along with all but one word of that. I paused in the editing process to send an instant message to the writer:

A couple of points re this…
1. Summer vacation IS shorter than it used to be. Kids didn’t get off in mid-June; they got off around Memorial Day.
2. August is more summery than June. It’s hotter. In June, the ocean water is sometimes still cold. Most of June occurs in the spring. All of August (and most of September) occur during the summer.
I guess what I’m saying here is, I object to "nutty." "Unconvincing," perhaps — at least, to a consensus of our board.

So, being the editor, I changed the word, and the writer did not protest. But she still thinks it’s nutty.

So happy together

2 Replies

Also today, I ran into USC President Andrew Sorensen on an elevator. In contrast to my cluelessness on my last two posts, I did manage during the short ride to determine what he was up to.

He was on his way over to what he termed an "unprecedented" meeting with Speaker Bobby Harrell.

What was so new about this? "Carolina and Clemson are talking to him at the same time," Dr. Sorensen said. "And we’re using the same numbers." Basically, he was talking budget requests.

To those of us who remember the old days of tigers and chickens fighting like
… well, like cats and birds — in the General Assembly over funds, we have already seen a remarkable degree of cooperation between the state’s three research universities (counting MUSC) in recent years.

But this sort of coordination does sound new. It will be interesting to see what comes of it.

Beyond that, what’s up with Andre and Democrats, period?

17 Replies

At lunch today, I ran into former Gov. Jim Hodges. And I went up to him to say hi, and we were both perfectly civil. Really, we were — I even introduced him to my boss, Publisher Ann Caulkins. He was most cordial. Ad man Kevin Fisher, with whom Ann and I were meeting (more about that later), even remarked upon it.

But that’s not what I wanted to tell you about. What I wanted to tell you about was what happened a few minutes after that. Mr. Hodges was seated at a round table with several other people at the Capital City Club. Eventually, he was joined by Andre Bauer. He made a joke to Andre — something about asking for his help with Medicare. I know it was a joke for three reasons. First, everyone at the table laughed. Second, Jim Hodges is younger than I am (even though his hair is much whiter now than in this picture). Third — and this is the really funny part — the Legislature not long ago placed the state Office on Aging under the lieutenant governor’s office, for reasons that remain unclear in spite of Sen. Jackson’s oped. The senator wrote that my colleague Cindi Scoppe was wrong to call that move "nonsensical," but still didn’t explain why lawmakers saw fit to take that function away from the governor and give it to the gov lite.

Anyway, this is an interesting juxtaposition of events. First the op-ed from Sen. Jackson. Now, we see the lieutenant governor getting all convivial with the former governor over lunch.

I knew that Andre was a determined and hardworking campaigner who would pursue anyone’s vote, but this is taking it to a whole new level.

What else did he say?

1 Reply

My first version of today’s column originally started out with a summary of what Gov. Sanford considered to be most important in his State of the State speech. But I took so many words setting up that list, and then had so much trouble deciding where to go after listing those items, that I scrapped it and started over with what you see on today’s page.

Here is that first rough draft/outline, as far as I took it, anyway:

One of the great challenges in making the most of the governor’s annual pre-State of the State briefing luncheon for editorial page editors is that you don’t get a copy of the speech until you get there.

So you find yourself trying to eat, read the speech (which is on your lap with your notebook, there being no room on the table), ask the governor questions about it as you’re reading it, hear other people’s questions, and take notes simultaneously.

(By the way, this is not a complaint aimed at our current governor; it was ever thus. Or at least, ever since I started going to these in 1994.)

So after a lot of scattershot questions based on things haphazardly gleaned from the text on the run last Wednesday, Charleston Post and Courier Editor Barbara Williams had the good sense to make this request: You tell us what you consider to be the main points of your speech, governor.

His answer, as near as I could write down while trying to get some salad into my mouth, was as follows:

Workers compensation

Restructuring

Holding the line on spending, and paying back trust funds.

Leverage private-sector investment in rural South Carolina (broadband access).

Education.

On education, he said he had three main points to stress:

Early childhood.

Charter schools, for the in-between-aged kids.

Tuition caps at the higher-education level.

That’s as far as I got. Anyway, I thought you might find this helpful if you try to wade through the speech itself. Or maybe you won’t. Anyway, there it is.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits