Category Archives: Democrats

Ted Vick makes the Daily Mail

Yes, the Daily Mail, as in the one in London — the one in “Paperback Writer,” for my fellow Boomers.

Imagine my surprise. I just this morning loaded the Daily Mail app onto my iPod, and this was one of the first stories to pop up, right there on the main U.S. news page.

And why on Earth would an arrest of a South Carolina lawmaker be worth a headline in such a venue? I think maybe it was Todd Rutherford’s explanation about the rock in his shoe. They even squeezed that into the hed, “South Carolina Democrat arrested for second DUI in a year but blames ‘impairment’ on rock in his shoe.” An excerpt:

A South Carolina state representative has been arrested for his second DUI in less than a year despite claims by his attorney that his perceived impairment was because of a rock in his shoe.

State Rep. Ted Vick, D-Chesterfield, was arrested on the Statehouse grounds around 11 p.m. Tuesday by the Bureau of Protective Services, according to Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Sherri Iacobelli.

An officer followed Vick after seeing him stumbling as he walked into a parking garage in Columbia. Vick got into his car and hit a cone before the officer could catch up and ask him to stop…

But Vick’s lawyer, fellow Rep. Todd Rutherford, said Vick was not impaired.

Vick was walking funny because he had a rock in his shoe, said Rutherford, D-Columbia…

There’s nothing ‘right-wing’ about Mark Sanford

61 Replies

Just saw this fund-raising appeal from the Democrats:

ROLL CALL: Conservatives Buy Airtime for Mark Sanford

If you think Elizabeth Colbert Busch has a clear path to victory on Tuesday, think again.

She’s neck and neck with Mark Sanford — 46-46. And now, right-wing groups are throwing everything they’ve got at keeping this seat in Republican hands.

Brad — We can’t allow Elizabeth to be pummeled like this if we want to win on Tuesday.

There are only 4 days left. Will you dig deep for Elizabeth and Democrats in tough districts like hers?…

… and want to quibble with the wording.

Yeah, I get why the DCCC would want to say “right-wing.” Because it pushes their peeps’ buttons.

But Sanford isn’t “right-wing;” nor are those who tend to flock to his banner. He is libertarian, a classical liberal, which is why, even as his party establishment deserts him, he is backed by the likes of Ron and Rand Paul.

I looked up the group that Roll Call said was backing Sanford. It’s called “Independent Women Voice.” (Note that the Dems did NOT mention the name of the organization, because it might have provoked a positive response in their target audience, which of course is why the group calls itself that.) The organization describes itself this way:

IWV is dedicated to promoting limited government, free markets, and personal responsibility

Note that there’s no mention of traditional values, or a strong defense, or any of the other traits associated with conservatism, much less the “right wing” — only the libertarian values are mentioned.

Dueling videos, opening shots in 2014 campaign

2 Replies

James Smith’s comments about Nikki Haley and “corruption” should also be taken within the context of the above ad from the Democratic Governor’s Association.

Meanwhile, with the video below, Haley supporters show that they want to run against Barack Obama again. But at least this ad mentions Sheheen, which is something.

How do the ads strike me? As I indicated earlier, I’m a little leery of the word “corruption.” Yeah, Nikki Haley has a serious transparency problem, she’s not very good at paying her taxes on time, and that $40k she got from Wilbur Smith when she was in the House raises a questions that have not yet been answered. But “corruption” is a word I tend to use for something more overt, more red-handed. Early in my career, back in Tennessee, I saw out-and-out corruption — Gov. Ray Blanton selling pardons. He went to prison for it. Maybe that made me overly fussy. The things the DGA are citing here are real problems, and they provide us with plenty of reason not to vote for Nikki Haley; I’m just quibbling over the word.

The Sheheen/Obamacare ad is just disgraceful. But then, so is the governor’s position of refusing to accept federal funds to expand Medicaid, so I see it entirely in that context. For me, her position is indefensible, so the ad is as well. Then there’s that additional ugliness of playing to the fact that “Obama” is the boogeyman to so many white voters in South Carolina. “Obamacare” is used as an incantation, with the operative ingredient being “Obama,” not the “care.” The issue is secondary to the fact that that awful Obama person is associated with it.

James Smith gets way harsh on Nikki Haley

4 Replies

From Rep. James Smith’s Facebook page:

If SC had seen genuine ethics reform previously and had an ethics committee with any teeth, Nikki Haley would likely have been forced out of the House and never would have made it to the Governor’s office. Her actions and the culture of corruption continue to bring shame on SC and the people of our state deserve better.

Coming from such a nice, easygoing, mild-talking guy as James Smith, that is way harsh. Especially that last sentence.

That’s the kind of stuff his neighbor Mia McLeod would say. We can see this, I suppose, as a heating-up of rhetoric as James’ friend Vincent Sheheen prepares to take on the governor. But I think it’s also a measure of the degree to which James, mild-mannered as he is, is fed up.

Anyway, for context, here’s this morning’s story in The State about the ethics bill.

DCCC’s Appalachian Trail advert

7 Replies

The national Republican Party has washed its hands of Mark Sanford — but the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is firmly in the corner of his opponent, Elizabeth Colbert-Busch,

As evidenced by the ad above.

Meanwhile, some Republicans seem to be worrying about their association with Sanford even if he wins. The concern seems to be that he would further damage their reputation with women, either way.

In that vein I share the below interview with Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board.

I heartily disagree with Mia on food stamps and junk food

64 Replies

Here’s the latest from Mia McLeod:

Dear Governor,

Seriously? Can you just “SNAP” and in an instant, delete certain foods from some South Carolinians’ grocery lists?

Sure, obesity is a genuine, significant health concern for too many people in this state. But that’s not why you’ve made a recent “SNAP” decision. You know it. We know it. And soon, citizens across this state will know it too.
Contrary to South Carolina’s definition, “SNAP” doesn’t mean “Simply Nonchalant About the Poor.” It’s actually a federal program, fully funded by the USDA. Now, isn’t it ironic that our state’s most notorious critics of “BIG” government, are arrogantly hypocritical enough to assume the despicable role of “BIG Brother” when it’s politically expedient?

As asinine as this latest stunt is, it’s even more offensive. Targeting a segment of the population in furtherance of your own political agenda is one thing. Refusing to allow federally-funded healthcare for hard-working South Carolinians while in the same breath, expressing concern about obesity and its impact on their health and well-being, is another.

You don’t want the federal government telling us whether to accept or how to spend our federal tax dollars when a state match or financial investment is required. But yet, you wanna dictate which foods we can buy with SNAP, a fully-funded federal program that doesn’t even require state funds?

The list of qualifying items that can be purchased with SNAP is very straight-forward. As with any program, there’s always room for improvement. But last time we checked, you were able to make nutritional decisions for your family without our intrusion or input. We’re just wondering why you think we need yours.

And since your cronies are traveling the state at our expense, trying to convince us that this is about obesity prevention, perhaps we’ll remember your “heartfelt” concern on our next nonemergency trip to the ER…if we can even find and get to a hospital that’s still open and accessible.

With all due respect, Governor, when it comes to obesity, it’s not the foods that we’re able to buy on SNAP that are making us fat. Perhaps it’s your empty rhetoric that’s making us sick.

If you really cared about this state’s obesity rates or us, you’d do what is well within your purview and power to ensure that we have access to quality, affordable health care, just like you do.

You’d realize that some of us would love to eat the same fresh and organic foods that your family enjoys, but because of “food deserts” across this state, many of us are without the means or access. If you’re genuinely concerned about addressing obesity, you could start by addressing that.

If only we could “SNAP” back from the regressive, debilitating tactics of centuries past, we’d all feel much better. So while South Carolina continues to reek of ignorance, intolerance and insanity, many of our best and brightest continue to leave this state in search of parity, inclusion and meaningful opportunities.

But unlike obesity and other chronic conditions, many never return. Neighboring states too often become the benefactors of our most creative minds and talented contributors. And we’re left with a weaker South Carolina.

So as you continue to cater to your political base by serving folks like us up on a party platter, the only thing that seems to be getting fatter is your reelection campaign account.

At some point, obesity may no longer be an issue for South Carolina. Under your “leadership,” our state is gradually becoming so malnourished on so many levels, it may not be strong enough to “SNAP” out of it.

But you still can, Governor, before it’s too late.

p.s. – South Carolina’s forgotten citizens (a.k.a. – your “other” constituents) may not be members of the Tea Party. But in number, we’re “the real majority.”

She really doesn’t like the idea, does she?

Well, I do. Still. So I guess I’m playing the “despicable role of Big Brother.”

Yes, there are reasons to be concerned about people who live in “food deserts.” I don’t dismiss that, and I can’t say for certain that the stores that now sell junk food in those communities would shift and sell healthier stuff if that’s all their poor patrons could buy. I think that might happen, but I don’t have the full faith in markets that some do.

So that should be thoroughly studied and taken into account before a final decision is made. But I most certainly do not agree with those who have a philosophical, rather than practical, objection to insisting that tax money not be used to buy foods that ruin the health of the poor.

The populists will call this patriarchal, but we are indeed in a position for taking responsibility for people when we undertake to feed them. We are culpable for providing people with the means of poisoning themselves when we could adopt a policy that prevents it.

When we discussed this previously, my old friend and respected colleague Burl Burlingame noted, “when the government wants to experiment, they do so first on the poor.” That may seem a particularly devastating argument against this change. But I submit that we have been running the experiment for half a century now, and the results are in: Paying for junk food kills poor people. It’s time we stop it, and do what we practically can to have a positive, rather than an actively negative, effect on people’s health.

Another anti-Sanford ad from “South Forward”

7 Replies

Actually, I don’t think I shared their previous ad with you. Here it is. It was also pretty hard-hitting, reminding us of things that GOP voters in the 1st District seem to have forgotten.

South Forward is a PAC dedicated to electing Democrats in the South…

Sheheen makes it official: He’s running for governor again

17 Replies

I’ve been in meetings all day and haven’t been able even to stop and think about this, but I thought I’d put up a post so y’all can start commenting on it if you choose. Here’s a news story, and below is the release in its entirety:

Sheheen Takes Steps to Form Gubernatorial Campaign

State Senator & 2010 gubernatorial nominee says South Carolinians deserve better than status quo of failed and dysfunctional government

Camden – Today, state Sen. Vincent Sheheen announced that he is taking the steps necessary to establish a campaign for governor and asked his fellow South Carolinians for their support.

Sen. Sheheen, an attorney and businessman, pledged to be a governor focused on putting the people of South Carolina ahead of personal and partisan agendas. He laid out his vision for moving South Carolina forward by promoting existing businesses within the state, focusing on public education, and restoring honesty in leadership to deliver results. He stressed the need for a change given the state’s high unemployment rate, challenged public-education system, sky-high tuition and the continued failures of the current leadership that have allowed corruption and incompetence in the administration and state government.

The full text of Sen. Sheheen’s email is below:

South Carolina is the greatest state in the union, with unlimited potential. But let’s face it, the status quo is not working.

I want what you want – a South Carolina that our families, and the families of our children and grandchildren, can be successful in. For South Carolina to succeed, we have to change. And we need change now!

That’s why today I’m taking steps to launch a campaign for governor.

Our state deserves better than the failed and dysfunctional government it has received from our current politicians. Now, we need leaders.

South Carolina has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, and has for the last 10 years. Under Governor Haley, more South Carolinians are having trouble finding work than people in other states, and our small businesses have been ignored.

South Carolina families pay the highest college tuition rates in the southeast and our families have a harder time achieving the American Dream than in almost any other state. Yet our current governor almost never talks about public education.

This administration’s dysfunction allowed hackers to steal the most personal and private information that more than three million of us have and the Governor has refused to apologize or take responsibility for it.

There’s a better way.

In the coming months, we’ll build our organization and officially launch the campaign this summer. Three years ago, we came so very close to changing South Carolina for the better. Now we can finish the job together. I hope you will join us.

Together we can create stronger schools for all of our children, help small businesses grow and create jobs, and restore honesty to our state’s government. We need a governor whose top priority is the people of South Carolina and not the politics of ideology and ambition. I pledge to you that I will be the kind of governor we so desperately need.

We will get there together. You can help us start today by contributing $500, $250, $100, $50, or whatever you can afford.

Today we start our journey to change South Carolina’s tomorrow.

I couldn’t be more excited, and I hope you are too!

Let’s believe again,

Vincent

Vincent Sheheen was the democratic nominee for governor in 2010 and came within 4 points of winning South Carolina in a Tea Party wave election. He was born and raised in rural Camden, South Carolina, where he still lives with his wife Amy and their sons Austin, Joseph and Anthony.

###

I’ll only add this for now: I appreciate Vincent stepping up to offer the voters of South Carolina a choice. Here’s hope that our people actually make a wise decision this time — something they haven’t done in quite a few years.

Democrats quote Republicans about Sanford

4 Replies

I thought this release I got from SC Democrats sort of interesting. After saying,

As the general election begins in the First Congressional District, let’s all remember some of what Mark Sanford’s fellow Republicans had to say about the former governor:

… the release then quoted what some prominent Republicans said, mostly back in 2009. Here are some samples:

From a letter signed by 60 House Republicans: “After much thought, consideration and discussion, the Republican Caucus of the South Carolina House of Representatives feels obligated to send you this letter requesting your resignation as the Governor of South Carolina.”
Then-Sen. Jim DeMint: “He’s dropped the flag…”
Then- Rep. Nikki Haley, after praising Sanford’s ideology: “However, another component is behaving in a manner that allows people to trust in their public officials and feel good about their government. Obviously, the governor has fallen far short in that regard and that is extremely unfortunate…”
Sen. Harvey Peeler: “We cannot let the Governor’s personal life overshadow his public responsibility, or in this case, his negligence of gubernatorial authority.”

There was one thing from 2013 — a piece by Ann Coulter, that really ripped the ex-gov:

The Republican Party owes Sanford nothing. He had a chance and he blew it. National Review wasted five years of cover stories on how awesome he was, but he never accomplished anything of substance.

He showed off about getting his hair done at Super Cuts, sleeping in his office in Congress and not turning on the air conditioning in the governor’s mansion. He wore the same pair of shoes for 30 years — they’ve been re-soled 70 times!

Big deal. He saved taxpayers $300 in petty cash, but he didn’t implement any lasting reforms.

The most memorable thing Sanford did in his entire life was to make himself a laughingstock as governor by running off with his Argentine honey and then going on TV to announce — in front of his wife and children — “I’ve fallen in love!”

Republicans need to be like Luca Brasi and tell Sanford: “You screwed up; we didn’t do anything to you. Have fun, I’m sure Maria’s fantastic, but you can’t run for Congress.”…

Those Dems are getting diabolically clever…

Smith: Anti-Obamacare witness transported on state plane

24 Replies

Here’s an interesting release that just came in:

Rep. James Smith Responds to Use of State Plane by Right-Wing Radio Host

Today, some members of the South Carolina General Assembly learned that one of only two people to testify in favor of H.3101, otherwise known as the Obamacare Nullification Bill, at today’s subcommittee hearing, was given special travel arrangements by being flown to Columbia from Washington, DC on Palmetto 2, a state airplane. Dr. Walter Williams, a professor at George Mason University and popular right-wing radio host, gave testimony in favor of H.3101 today in Columbia after his taxpayer funded flight was authorized by Spartanburg State Representative, and lead sponsor of H.3101, Bill Chumley. The other person testifying in favor of the bill was a prominent Tea Party activist Kent Masterson Brown, who admitted he was paid $7500 to testify.

Representative James Smith, a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Laws, released the following statement in response:

“This is the height of hypocrisy and politics at its worst. For taxpayers to be forced to foot the bill so that an out-of-state political zealot can push his extreme agenda is not only a dereliction of his duties as a public servant, it is just fundamentally wrong. During his testimony, Dr. Walter Williams espoused the abuses of government spending and intrusion while engaging in precisely the same behavior. While we work to make health care more affordable and accessible to our citizens, Representative Bill Chumley, would rather frivolously spend tax dollars to fly Tea Party ideologues down to South Carolina on the state airplane. I call on Representative Chumley to immediately reimburse the taxpayers for his reckless and irresponsible decision to spend tax dollars to promote his own extreme Tea party agenda.”

####

Gee, I didn’t even know that a single member of the Legislature could authorize something like that…

Mia McLeod on Medicaid expansion in SC

9 Replies

Speaking of people who sort of seem like they’re running for higher office, here’s the latest missive from Mia McLeod:

Well…ladies & gentlemen, it’s time to “weigh-in.” And unlike her Republican counterparts in New Jersey, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Ohio, New Mexico, North Dakota and Michigan, your Governor is once again “flexing” her Tea Party muscles and refusing to support healthcare coverage for uninsured South Carolinians.

So what separates her from a growing list of anti-Obama Governors who have recently decided to expand Medicaid in other states? Common sense and compassion, for starters.
And if South Carolina refuses to expand healthcare coverage, here’s a glimpse of the impact on hard-working folks like you:

Higher medical costs – as the uninsured forego preventive care and are forced to seek medical care in the emergency room, hospitals will be forced to shift those costs to insured individuals and employers.
Less independence – as our seniors, veterans and disabled citizens forfeit access to home health and other medical care, it’ll be extremely difficult for them to lead independent lives.
Fewer options – as our state refuses federal funding to the tune of 100% for the first 3 years, neighboring states will gladly accept and use our federal tax dollars to cover their uninsured.
Poor quality of life – as hard-working folks forfeit medical care they need to live longer, healthier lives, our state misses opportunities to be more proactive, productive and economically sound.

But this is South Carolina. Obviously, expanding Medicaid makes sense, but don’t take my word for it. Here’s what Republican Governors (in other states, of course) are saying…

“No mother or father should despair over whether or not they can afford — or access — the health care their child needs. Quality health care services must be accessible and affordable for all — not just those in certain zip codes or tax brackets,” said outspoken Obamacare critic and Florida Governor, Rick Scott, as he reflected on the death of his mother and her struggle to raise five children with little money, while worrying constantly about having family health coverage.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer also made national headlines when she supported Medicaid expansion, acknowledging that it would lessen the impact of uncompensated care that drives up medical costs to hospitals and taxpayers.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has said, “Let me be clear, I’m no fan of the Affordable Care Act…” but it’s “now the law of the land,” acknowledging that rejecting it would mean that New Jersey’s tax dollars will be spent elsewhere.

While Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval was the first Republican governor to officially embrace Medicaid expansion, his decision seemed to be based primarily upon the recognition that it wouldn’t be wise to forego an infusion of federal dollars into his state’s economy.

The same is true for South Carolina. Are you listening, Governor Haley? (Oops! rhetorical question…)

Expanding healthcare coverage to people who can’t otherwise afford it should be a no-brainer. States can opt-in or out at anytime, “risk-free” for the first 3 years. That’s an offer Republican Governors across the nation believe is too good to refuse, because while expanding healthcare coverage is voluntary, picking up the tab for the uninsured, isn’t.

Our Governor has said that SC can’t afford to expand Medicaid. With 100% federal funding for the first 3 years and 90% thereafter, how can we afford not to? It creates over 40,000 jobs, covers over 250,000 uninsured South Carolinians, infuses our state’s economy and improves our quality of life and health.

So while she focuses on restricting foods purchased using federally funded programs like WIC and SNAP (in the name of obesity prevention) or “disease” designations for obesity, here’s an idea…

Let’s expand healthcare coverage so that South Carolinians who struggle with obesity and other medical conditions can get quality, affordable healthcare that focuses on prevention and treatment to help them live longer, healthier, more productive lives.

This isn’t a partisan issue. We all want the strongest military, the best schools, quality, affordable health care, meaningful job opportunities and the ability to live, work and age with dignity. Part of government’s role is to help ensure that every citizen has access to healthcare because a healthier population is a huge, proactive step towards a stronger workforce and business community, improved quality of life and more vibrant economy.

South Carolina is only as strong as its weakest. If our state’s leaders lack the collective compassion and courage to expand healthcare coverage to “the least of these,” the biggest losers won’t just be the uninsured. South Carolinians, insured and uninsured, will pay the ultimate price. Our state will be the biggest loser. But wait…isn’t that what we’ve been since we elected her 3 years ago?

Governor Haley was elected to represent all of us. The sooner she and her party’s leaders “swallow that pill,” the healthier we’ll all be…

SC Dems and Medicaid expansion: Why is common sense a minority position in SC?

51 Replies

You may have read Adam Beam’s story in The State over the weekend about SC House Democrat’s proposal to at least take the three years of free Medicaid expansion that the Feds are offering:

COLUMBIA — Imagine someone offered to give you $4.1 billion over three years, and if you did not take it, your neighbors would get the money instead.

That is the situation South Carolina is in with the federal government, according to S.C. House Democrats who are pushing for the state to expand Medicaid – the joint federal-state health insurance program for the poor and disabled.

The money is not really free, Republicans counter. After three years, South Carolina would have to start paying part of the cost of expanding Medicaid – anywhere from $613 million to $1.9 billion by 2020 – depending on a number of variables.

That’s why Monday, the day that the S.C. House begins debating the state’s $22.7 billion budget, Democratic lawmakers are going to propose an amendment that would accept federal money for the first three years of the Medicaid expansion – when the feds would pay 100 percent of the cost – and, then, automatically end the expanded program…

Well, today, the House Dems held a press conference to talk further about their proposal. The reasons were the usual: It makes no sense to turn down something that won’t cost the state anything for three years, especially when it addresses a critical need. It makes no sense for those of us who have insurance to be paying more to underwrite the most expensive kind of care for people who don’t have coverage. And of course, they hit the angle that it’s the decent, moral, compassionate thing to do.

As for the claim that expansion will cost a couple of billion by 2020, the Dems expressed polite contempt for journalists who would pass that on without investigating its veracity. Gilda Cobb-Hunter called the claim “specious at best.”

I’ll let the number-crunchers sort that out. My point in writing about this is to say that everything the Democrats said today not only made perfect sense, but should be perfectly obvious.

And I have to wonder — why has such a common-sense proposal become a minority position in South Carolina? Because don’t fool yourselves — SC Democrats have little chance of having their way.

Four years ago, the Republican leadership in the General Assembly thought Mark Sanford had lost his mind when he wanted to let stimulus money that was going to be spent anyway be spent elsewhere instead of in South Carolina. And they were right.

Now, the standard GOP position is to turn down this program, just because it has the name “Obama” attached to it.

What’s wrong with us in South Carolina?

Vincent Sheheen kicks off 2014 campaign, apparently…

23 Replies

This came in about an hour ago:

Sheheen Kicks Off “Back on Track” Tour

State Senator will discuss ideas for moving South Carolina forward and his new book “The Right Way” in three-week statewide tour

Rock Hill, SC. – Today, state Sen. Vincent Sheheen kicks off the Palmetto State “Back on Track” tour at Sun City in Rock Hill to rollout his new book “The Right Way” and discuss his ideas for how to move South Carolina forward with local residents and leaders around the state.

“This short book is not meant to propose solutions to all of our state’s problems. It’s a revolt against the status quo. This book proposes ideas for us to consider and debate to try to get our state back on the right footing and shed the inanities of the past few years,” said Sen. Vincent Sheheen. “More than anything, this book of ideas is an attempt to promote more rational political discussion and policy making. Ultimately, we will still need committed citizens and leadership on many fronts to make it so. I look forward to meeting these leaders in the coming weeks and discussing how we will all move forward together.”

The Back on Track Tour will run from March 11^th through March 30^th holding lectures at universities, listening sessions with local families and leaders, and press conferences and discussions with media about the vision laid out in his book for creating jobs, improving education, restructuring the government, and creating a more prosperous future for the people and businesses of the Palmetto state. The tour kicks off today at noon in Rock Hill, before making stops in Conway, Myrtle Beach, Florence, Columbia, Aiken, Charleston, Fairfield, Beaufort, Greenville, and Spartanburg throughout the next three weeks.

Sen. Sheheen’s book is free and available online at http://vincentsheheen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/The-Right-Way-by-Vincent-Sheheen-for-Web.pdf , or as a hard copy at each of the event stops on the Back on Track tour.

Below is a selection of key quotes from Sen. Sheheen’s book, “The Right Way: Getting the Palmetto State Back on Track.”

We must do better for South Carolina… the right way

“This book is not about me. It’s about our South Carolina—a South Carolina we know can exist if we join together in a common vision with leaders who actually care about our state. We are better than what our government has looked like in recent history. We have been better before. We deserve better now. It’s up to us to engage and change. We must do it again…the right way.” — p. 110

“Somehow, however, we have let the naysayers gain the upper hand over the last couple of decades in South Carolina. You know who I am talking about—the people who tell us what we can’t do instead of what we can do. These are folks who believe nothing will ever get better and that things just are what they are. I am not one of these people. I do not believe that the South Carolina I know is made up of people like that either. From Camden to Charleston, Aiken to Horry and Due West to Denmark, the people I know and meet in South Carolina believe we can do better than what we have experienced in South Carolina’s recent government. In fact, we must.” — p. 108

“But we also need more than just ideas. We need ACTION—action that turns the status quo of the negativists on their heads. It is almost too late. But together, we still have time. If we don’t quickly get South Carolina moving again, our children and grandchildren will pay the price for decades to come.” — p. 109

Total change needed

“We have suffered embarrassment after embarrassment caused by our leaders’ unethical behavior and boneheaded statements and we have become the butt of late night television jokes all too frequently. This downward spiral in our government should surprise no one. Why? Because we have elected leaders who proclaim a belief that government is always part of the problem. Once elected, they prove their theory correct by making our state’s government a dysfunctional embarrassment that is incapable of efficiently meeting the demands of core government functions.” — pp. 1-2

“Future success for South Carolina’s workers—as well as the entire state—requires more education, not less. Unfortunately, South Carolina’s recent leaders don’t have a good record in making smart investments in education to ensure that our children will have the training they need to get the better-paying jobs of the future. I believe it’s time we turn that abysmal record on its head. Simply put: How can the students of today expect to hold the jobs of tomorrow if they don’t have enough knowledge? — p. 8

“Accountability in South Carolina’s government has been missing for more than a decade. In the end, a government can be successful and accountable regardless of deficiencies in its structure if it has strong, responsible and effective leaders. However in South Carolina, a combination of ineffective leaders and confusing structure has led to our government being ranked one of the most dysfunctional and unaccountable in the nation.” — p. 27

“I am not opposed to healing our government incrementally. I am, however, skeptical that our current leaders will finish the job with that approach. I believe that when a government has reached such a level of dysfunction and disintegration as South Carolina’s, it is time to return the power to the people.” — p. 48

“Through weak leadership in recent times and a governmental system confusing to virtually everyone, South Carolina’s government has arrived at a low point. We have a choice: To continue with the same poor leadership and same poor system, or break with the past and make dramatic change. We can’t afford to wait on current crop of political leaders to make the changes our state needs and deserves. We must take things into our own hands and force change. Either through incremental or dramatic change, we must alter the trajectory of South Carolina’s future. My children and yours deserve our best efforts.” — p. 50

Forward, to a path to prosperity

“One of the greatest obstacles to robust economic growth in South Carolina is our state’s broken and dysfunctional tax system. Furthermore, a special-interest-controlled tax code means that general taxpayers will end up with fewer core services that they say they want. Sure, in good times of budget surpluses, politicians will spread the wealth to make all appear rosy. But all they’ll be doing is bandaging a broken system, which will unravel once again when they cut what they recently added during downturns. It’s a seesaw system of government that leaves us all up in the air.” — p. 54

“The goal of tax reform should not be to raise taxes. To achieve true economic success, our state must reform how it taxes goods so that it can reduce the rate for everyone. That’s something we should all be for.” — p. 67

“Like most South Carolinians, I believe in hard work. I believe we should expect everyone who is physically able to have a job. I don’t believe in handouts. But I also expect that our state government will do all it can to ensure that opportunities exist for our citizens to find a job. It’s in all of our interests for the state to provide a hand-up in the form of job training, economic development, good education and support for small businesses.” — p. 85

“What is excluded from most local economic development offices’ services is support to startup companies and entrepreneurs. This reflects, in part, a lack of expertise in the area but also recognition that the failure rate of these types of companies is high. A handful of groups around the state provide services to startups and entrepreneurs, but they are the exception rather than the rule. The S.C. Department of Commerce has a department that provides access to resources for small businesses, but there is little affirmative effort by the state to assist small business.” — p. 98

“Our state needs a multipronged approach to saving our rural areas and small towns. Failure to meet this challenge will doom many communities to a low standard of living and even non-existence. North Carolina has met this challenge head-on and invested heavily in the strategies and infrastructure for its rural areas. We should do the same.” — p. 102

“Our leaders are pricing the middle class out of a college education. The alternative has become hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt incurred by our future workforce. This is a dumb policy. We should dedicate a decent portion of future budget growth to stabilizing college tuition. And when the state funds higher education in a reasonable manner, colleges and universities should be required to keep tuition increases low.” — p. 106

###

From SCDP: A roundup of objections to Haley’s Medicaid stance

1 Reply

There seems to be a new communications director over at the SC Democratic Party – Kristin Sosanie — and she put out a release today that is somewhat more substantive and detailed than the emotional, nyah-nyah stuff we usually get from political parties.

I found it interesting, and relevant, enough to pass on in its entirety:

March 7, 2013

To: Interested Parties

From: Kristin Sosanie, SCDP Communications Director

RE: Governor Haley at odds with rising tide of public opinion on Medicaid expansion

As the debate over Medicaid expansion continues, support for bringing tax dollars back home is echoing around South Carolina and Governor Haley is on the defensive trying desperately to explain her choice to put partisanship ahead of the best interests of the people of the state.

Let’s review: In the past week alone, members of the public, hospital leaders, businesses, state leaders and editorial boards have all spoken out in support of the expansion:

Survey finds majority in SC support Medicaid expansion. “More than half of older adults in the state disagree with Gov. Nikki Haley’s plan to turn down Medicaid expansion, according to a survey by the AARP. The survey found that 54 percent of the respondents support expanding Medicaid to cover low-income adults.” [The State, 03/06/13]

Head of S.C. hospital group says politics blocking Medicaid expansion. “There is a lot of ideology and politics in this debate — it is not just a financial question,” said Thornton Kirby, the state hospital association’s president and chief executive officer. He said South Carolina and other Republican-leaning states “don’t want anything to do” with a federal health-care reform initiative championed by President Barack Obama. [Independent Mail, 03/04/13]

Charleston Chamber to Gov. Haley: accept Medicaid expansion. “There are two options,” said Bryan Derreberry, president and CEO of the local Chamber. “South Carolina can accept the Medicaid expansion and receive 90 percent of costs from the federal government, or reject the plan and absorb 100 percent of the costs and lose revenue from Washington, D.C.” [The Examiner, 03/07/13]

Editorial: Expanding Medicaid in SC. “The only conceivable reason to reject the expansion of Medicaid would be to make a hollow political statement in opposition to Obamacare. But that is political grandstanding at the cost of losing billions of federal dollars to other states and denying health care coverage to hundreds of thousands of uninsured South Carolinians. And that, we think, would be impossible to justify.” [Rock Hill Herald, 03/02/13]

Sheheen: SC lawmakers should put ideology aside, accept Medicaid expansion money. “I call on Gov. (Nikki) Haley and every Democrat and every Republican to heed the example of other states and provide leadership that will mean more tax dollars in South Carolina that belong to South Carolinians,” the Camden Democrat said. [Associated Press, 03/07/13]

Also remember: Governor Haley is out on a ledge as Republican governors around the country (many of whom have been staunch opponents of Obamacare) have put partisanship aside and decided to act in the best interests of the people of their states by opting-in:

Florida Governor Rick Scott: “I Cannot In Good Conscience Deny Floridians That Needed Access To Health Care.” “‘While the federal government is committed to paying 100 percent of the cost, I cannot in good conscience deny Floridians that needed access to health care,’ Mr. Scott said at a news conference. ‘We will support a three-year expansion of the Medicaid program under the new health care law as long as the federal government meets their commitment to pay 100 percent of the cost during that time.’” [New York Times, 2/20/13]

Ohio Governor John Kasich: “Ohio Taxpayer Dollars Are Coming Back To Ohio.” “Kasich has said his proposed Medicaid expansion would save the state $235 million over the next two years, free about $100 million in local funds for mental-health and addiction services, and ‘Ohio taxpayer dollars are coming back to Ohio to support a significant need we have which is the insurance, the health coverage of poor, working Ohioans.’” [Columbus Dispatch, 2/12/13]

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie: “We Are Putting People First” – Not Expanding Medicaid Would Send Taxpayer Dollars Elsewhere. “‘[R]efusing these federal dollars would not mean that they wouldn’t be spent. It just means that they will be used to expand health-care access in New York, Connecticut, Ohio or somewhere else. … It’s simple. We’re putting people first.’” [NPR, Political Junkie, 3/4/13]

Finally: Governor Haley’s chief points of opposition have been debunked by researchers at the University of South Carolina’s Moore School of Business, who found that the economic benefit of bringing taxpayers’ dollars back in-state would create 44,000 jobs in South Carolina.

Medicaid Expansion in South Carolina: The economic impact of the ACA. “By 2020, the total annual economic impact of the increase in federal funding due to the ACA Medicaid expansion on the state of South Carolina will total approximately $3.3 billion in economic output, $1.5 billion in labor income, and support nearly 44,000 new jobs for South Carolinians. Approximately one – third of these jobs (15,000) are projected to occur outside of the health care industry due to the economic multiplier effect.” [USC Moore School of Business Report December 2012, accessed 03/07/13]

So, in the face of such widespread support, two questions remain: How long will Governor Haley continue to make decisions based on ideology? And what will she say to South Carolinians who lose their jobs because of her Tea Party allegiance?

Legislative view from a House Democrat

10 Replies

The other day I gave y’all the Senate GOP’s report on last week’s activities. For another view, here is what one House Democrat, Beth Bernstein, sent out to her constitutuents:

Dear Friends and Neighbors:

Here is my Legislative Update for the month of February. The House made progress on a number of important issues this month. Here are some highlights. As always, I am interested in hearing your thoughts and concerns on the issues.

Thank you for the honor and privilege of serving you in the South Carolina House of Representatives.

Best regards,
Beth

HOUSE WEEK IN REVIEW
February 8, 2013

Investing in Cyber-Security
A bill, H.3528, was introduced that would establish a new state agency, the Department of Information Security, to provide a comprehensive framework for ensuring the effectiveness of information security controls over information resources that support state operations and assets. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Shortening Legislative Session
A bill, H.3340, that shortens the South Carolina General Assembly’s legislative session passed the House. Under this law, instead of beginning the second Tuesday in January, session would begin the second Tuesday in February. It would also require the General Assembly to adjourn Sine Die no later than the first Thursday in May. The bill was sent to the Senate.

Clarifying Role of Solicitors
A bill, H.3247, clarifies the role of the circuit solicitors in the administration of the General Sessions court docket and provides that this ability to administer the docket shall not interfere with the court’s ability to protect a litigant’s rights. The bill passed the House and was sent to the Senate.

Protecting a Child’s Due Process Rights
A bill, H.3520, was introduced that prohibits a child’s parent or guardian from waiving the child’s right to counsel when the Family Court proceeding may result in the detention or confinement of the child. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

HOUSE WEEK IN REVIEW
February 11, 2013 - FURLOUGH

HOUSE WEEK IN REVIEW
February 22, 2013

Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of the Mentally Ill
A bill, H.3560, was introduced to require South Carolina to report people adjudicated by the courts for mental illness to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System in order to prohibit them from obtaining a firearm legally. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Privatizing the State Lottery
A bill, H.3555, was introduced to streamline state government and save taxpayer dollars by hiring a private contractor to organize and conduct the South Carolina Education Lottery. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Government Restructuring
A bill, H.3541, was introduced to amend the South Carolina Constitution in order to make the office of Adjutant General an appointed position by the Governor, instead of being popularly elected by the voters. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Hate Crimes Legislation
A bill, H.3589, was introduced that provides a penalty for anyone convicted of a crime with the intent to assault, intimidate, or threaten a person based on their race, gender, religion, age, national origin, or sexual orientation. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

HOUSE WEEK IN REVIEW
February 25, 2013

The business of the House continued during this week with a few noteworthy events, and a great deal of committee and subcommittee work.

Closing out Black History Month with Activism:
On the State House grounds Tuesday, The South Carolina NAACP held its 2013 Legislative Day, including a press conference voicing support for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires any changes in voting laws in certain states to be pre-cleared by the United States Justice Department. The Voting Rights Act is currently being reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.

Increasing Flexibility in the Budget:
This week, the House approved and sent the Senate H.3501, a joint resolution that suspends the statutory requirement for including 4.5% of the previous year’s state General Fund in the Local Government Fund for the next two budget years. Under this measure, counties would be authorized to transfer among appropriated state revenues, as needed, to ensure the delivery of services. Democrats opposed the measure due to the fact that it would shift a revenue burden onto local governments and municipalities.

Making Infrastructure Investments:
A bill, H.3412, that requires all revenue produced by car taxes in South Carolina must be credited to the state non-federal aid highway fund for road projects, passed the House.

Restructuring the Department of Insurance:
A bill, H.3642, was introduced to popularly elect the Director of the Department on Insurance in South Carolina. Currently, the Governor appoints the Director. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Ensuring Healthy School Lunches:
A bill, H.3726, was introduced to ban certain junk foods from public school lunch programs and vending machines. The bill was referred to the Education and Public Works Committee.

Congratulations to Sen. Lindsey Graham for civility award

24 Replies

Congratulations to Lindsey Graham — and Dianne Feinstein, too — for receiving the Allegheny College Prize for Civility in Public Life.

It’s certainly well-deserved in Graham’s case (yes, there’s the occasional lapse, but we’re all human, right?).

From the release about the prize:

“As they join in accepting the Allegheny Prize, they stand opposed on one of the most significant and polarizing issues of our time – that of gun control,” said [Allegheny College] President [James H.] Mullen. “And yet, they stand together, not only in receiving this Prize, but in their shared commitment to engage that issue with passion, deep conviction and respect for each other.”

“The one thing about being civil is, it doesn’t mean you don’t have passion,” said Graham. “But I never hesitate about calling Dianne because she is a problem solver by nature.”

“Do Americans want a United States Senate and a House of Representatives that can really do their business or do they want one that is so full of themselves, so polarized and so twisted with partisanship, that their ratings are in single digits?” asked Feinstein. “We have a big job on our hands to be able to restore civility.”…

As y’all know, I regard the lack of civility in public life today as serious threat to our project of self-government — this blog is one place where I try, however feebly, to combat the trend. So I’m proud that a South Carolinian was singled out for this honor.

The State quoted Graham as saying, in response to protestations by Sen. Feinstein that she didn’t deserve the award, “Dianne, I don’t deserve it either, but I don’t deserve most of the crap I get, either, so I’ll take it.”

Stephen Colbert, promoting his sister’s candidacy

House of Cards: A political fantasy in which a South Carolina congressional district is represented by a white Democrat

5 Replies

That — what I said in my headline — is what struck me first about the American version of “House of Cards.” Kevin Spacey’s character is a powerful congressman who represents South Carolina’s 5th District. At least, he’s from Gaffney, and that’s in the 5th District. (The Peachoid features prominently in episode 3.)

Indeed, that district was represented by a senior white Democrat, John Spratt, just a couple of years back. But that was before the Tea Party, before the Republican Party cemented its hold on the entire delegation — except for Jim Clyburn, whose district is secure because the GOP doesn’t want those black voters in their six districts.

Have you seen the series? It’s the first original series on Netflix, and in keeping with the new national watching habit that that service helped foster, they’ve given us the entire first series all at once. I appreciate that. That is, I would appreciate it if the series had proven to be as addictive as “Breaking Bad,” or “Homeland,” or “The Walking Dead.”

But it didn’t. Netflix had hoped it would, that the series would give it the kind of cred as a content producer (because it is such a hassle negotiating with others to use their content) that “The Sopranos” gave HBO. But this is no “Sopranos.” Nor is it a “Mad Men.”

First, it’s not original. It’s based on the 22-year-old British series of the same name, starring Ian Richardson, whom I will always think of as Bill Haydon in the original BBC production of le Carre’s “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.” The first season co-stars the lovely Susannah Harker, who five years later played Miss Jane Bennet in the definitive production of “Pride and Prejudice” (the one with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. (Hey, did y’all recognize her in “Zero Dark Thirty”? Jennifer Ehle, I mean. I knew I knew her, but I didn’t realize who she was, with her hair down and all, until the credits. And can you tell my caffeine is starting to kick in? I’m writing this at Barnes and Noble, with a cuppa the black stuff from the Starbucks across the parking lot — I prefer it to the “proudly served” version served here — and since I don’t drink it much since my ear thing started, I’m feeling it. Sorry about the digressions…)

Let’s focus in on Ms. Harker’s character, because I think it will help define why I don’t like the new American series as much. Oh, the production values are better; you can tell more money was probably spent making it look good, and the technology’s just better now than it was in 1990. But it’s not as engaging. My wife and I watched two episodes a night for two nights, then stopped. Last night, I proposed going back to it, and my wife OK, but as I called it up, said with disappointment, “Oh, you mean the American one…?” So we watched the last of the first season of the original.

But back to Ms. Harker’s character. She’s much, much more engaging than the extremely irritating little girl (which I mean both literally, in the sense of stature, and in the sense that our governor uses the phrase) played by Kate Mara in the Netflix version. She’s also more believable. It is far more credible that this is a person who would be able to keep a job. OK, so she eventually gets fired, but she kept the job for awhile.

Yeah, I get it. Mara’s supposed to be the brash “new wave” of electronic journalism, sweeping aside the conventions established by the old-timey ink-stained wretches. And maybe that offends me because I’m pretty sure I’m as adept at blogging and social media as her character is, and even if I’m not a grownup, I know how to act like one. Obnoxious is obnoxious. Then there’s the fact that we’re asked to believe that Spacey’s character — who has Robin Wright waiting at home, and no end of young lovelies walking the halls of Congress — would be attracted to her. She was cute in “Shooter” several years ago, in a waiflike sort of way, but both physically and in terms of personality, is about as cuddly as a hedgehog in this.

By contrast, Susanna Harker’s character in the original series, which debuted when she was 25, draws you in. Even though, or perhaps because, her tragic fascination with Richardson’s character makes me think of the refrain of Elvis Costello’s “You Little Fool,” you can’t help caring about her. You see why, for instance, her editor loves her hopelessly. Oh, and for any young people who think, “Well that was made in the olden days before women were set free and allowed to have sharp edges,” I’ll point out that it was 20 years after the leading edge of the movement that produced today’s allegedly liberated generation. (Sorry, but y’all didn’t invent independence and assertiveness.) Harker made her soft and vulnerable, but she also made her real. I found myself wishing she were a little more cynical and tough-minded, to keep her out of trouble, but at least she doesn’t come across as cheesy and contrived.

Why is this difference important? Well, because the main problem with the new American series is the utter lack of a sympathetic character. Everyone is horrible. It doesn’t have to be a soft, vulnerable young woman — any sympathetic character would do. This sort of thing doesn’t bother everyone. And indeed, a really excellent series can get overcome that flaw, as I think “Breaking Bad” does — I keep watching in horrified fascination. But normally, the lack of a likable character will ruin any work of fiction for me. As much as I enjoy Tom Wolfe’s old New Journalism — especially Acid Test and The Right Stuff (his only book in which one could detect a hint of admiration of his subjects) — I hated Bonfire of the Vanities. Brilliant writing, interesting Tory social commentary, but everyone in it was so contemptible, like loathsome little bugs being fried under Wolfe’s magnifying glass.

Eventually, I’ll watch the rest of the new version, if only to see if it ever does anything interesting with the supposed South Carolina connection. But so far, I’ll have to say that it doesn’t live up to the ambitions that Netflix had for it.

One thing Graham definitely is NOT is dumb…

15 Replies

Say what you want about the increasingly ubiquitous Lindsey Graham, Salon was way off the mark today when its header featured an unflattering photo of our senior senator next to the teaser hed, “Hagel’s dumbest enemies.”

Of course, as is often the case with such hyperbolic come-ons, the actual headline that the teaser linked to took it down a notch: “The increasingly ridiculous Hagel opposition.” The subhed, situated atop huge mugs of Graham and John McCain, begins, “Republicans block a vote for no reason…”

The very first paragraph of the body copy then refutes that (boldface added):

Sen. Graham and his best friend John McCain have been blocking the confirmation of Chuck Hagel as Defense secretary, because they want to know whether President Obama called the president of Libya the night of the Benghazi attack. While that’s not a very good reason to filibuster a Cabinet nominee, it is at least “a reason.” The White House has complied, giving Graham and McCain what they want. Graham’s response: Now he is just going to pointlessly delay the Hagel vote, because it will make him feel good. As always, with Lindsey Graham, being a senator is all about feelings.

Disagree with Graham — and McCain — all you want, but making him the poster boy of the “dumbest” is, well, pretty stupid.

I find a lot of the indignation on the left about delaying the Hagel nomination a few days a little on the disingenuous, even absurd, side. My least favorite manifestation of this is when I hear a Democrat express absolute mystification that these Republicans could possibly be objecting to Hagel, since he’s a Republican. There is no mystery as to why this is a Republican Democrats love. and Republicans have problems with him for the same reasons.

There are actual substantive reasons to question this nomination. We could start with his having been completely wrong on the Iraq surge. Which is kinda relevant in a candidate for SecDef. But then, of course, we’d have a whole other argument that we’ve had too many times before…

So never mind all that. I don’t call the president “dumb” for wanting a guy who looked at Iraq the way he did. I have more respect for the president than that.

But there’s a bigger reason I wouldn’t call Barack Obama dumb: I’ve heard him speak. And the same goes for Lindsey Graham.

I was speaking to a class at Lexington High School yesterday, and I let slip a comment that always makes me sound arrogant when I say it, but it’s true: It’s pretty unusual for me to interview a political officeholder in South Carolina who makes me think to myself, “This guy’s smarter than I am.” But I’ve had that thought more than once when talking with Lindsey Graham.

And I may have a host of faults — correction, I do have a host of faults — but being dumb isn’t one of them.

Brad Warthen

All The News That Gives You Fits