Brad Warthen's Blog

The Energy Party Manifesto: Feb. 4, 2007

Since, I'm on my Energy Party kick again, it occurs to me to provide you with something never previously published on the blog: My original Energy Party column from the paper. Since it was based on a blog post to start with, I didn't post it here. Consequently, when I do my obligatory "Energy Party" link, it's always to the incomplete, rough draft version of the party manifesto.

So, if only to give myself something more complete to link to in the future, is the full column version, published in The State on Feb. 4, 2007. Here's a PDF of the original page, and here's the column itself:

THE STATE
JOIN MY PARTY, AND YOUR WILDEST DREAMS WILL COME TRUE. REALLY.
By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
EVERYBODY talks about the weather, which is as boring and pointless as the cliche suggests. So let's do something about it.
    And while we're at it, let's win the war on terror, undermine tyrants around the globe, repair our trade imbalance, make our air more breathable, drastically reduce highway deaths and just generally make the whole world a safer, cleaner place.
    It'll be easy, once we make up our minds to do it. But first, you Democrats and Republicans must throw off the ideological chains that bind you, and we independents must get off the sidelines and into the game.
    In other words, join my new party. No, not the Unparty I've written about in the past. You might say that one lacked focus.
    This one will be the Energy Party. Or the "Responsible Party," "Pragmatic Party" or "Grownup Party." Any will do as far as I'm concerned, but for the sake of convenience, I'm going with "Energy" for now.
    Like weather, everybody talks about Energy, but nobody proposes a comprehensive, hardnosed plan to git 'er done. So let's change that, go all the way, get real, make like we actually know there's a war going on. Do the stuff that neither the GOP nor the Dems would ever do.
    I've made a start on the plan (and mind, I'm not speaking for the editorial board here). Join me, and we'll refine it as we go along:
-- * Jack up CAFE standards. No messing around with Detroit on this one. It's possible to make cars that go 50 miles to the gallon. OK, so maybe your family won't fit in a Prius. Let's play nice and compromise: Set a fleet average of 40 mph within five years.
-- * Raise the price of gasoline permanently to $4. When the price of gas is $2, slap on a $2 tax. When demand slacks off and forces the price down to $1.50, jack the tax up to $2.50. If somebody nukes some oil fields we depend upon, raising the price to $3, the tax drops to $1. Sure, you'll be paying more, but only as long as you keep consuming as much of it as you have been. Which you won't. Or if you do, we'll go to $5.
-- * You say the poor will have trouble with the tax? So will I. Good thing we're going to have public transportation for a change (including my favorite, light rail). That's one thing we'll spend that new tax money on.
-- * Another is a Manhattan project (or Apollo Project, or insert your favorite 20th century Herculean national initiative name) to develop clean, alternative energy. South Carolina can do hydrogen, Iowa can do bio, and the politicians who will freak out about all this can supply the wind power.
-- * Reduce speed limits everywhere to no more than 55 mph. (This must be credited to Samuel Tenenbaum, who bends my ear about it almost daily. He apparently does the same to every presidential wannabe who calls his house looking for him or Inez, bless him.) This will drastically reduce our transportation-related fuel consumption, and have the happy side benefit of saving thousands of lives on our highways. And yes, you can drive 55.
-- * Enforce the blasted speed limits. If states say they can't (and right now, given our shortage of troopers, South Carolina can't), give them the resources out of the gas tax money. No excuses.
-- * Build nuclear power plants as fast as we can (safely, of course). It makes me tired to hear people who are stuck in the 1970s talk about all the dangerous waste from nuke plants. Nuclear waste is compact and containable. Coal waste (just to cite one "safe" alternative) disperses into the atmosphere, contaminates all our lungs and melts the polar ice caps. Yeah, I know; it would be keen if everyone went back to the land and stopped using electricity, but give it up -- it ain't happening.
-- * Either ban SUVs for everyone who can't demonstrate a life-ordeath need to drive one, or tax them at 100 percent of the sales price and throw that into the winthe- war kitty.
-- * If we don't ban SUVs outright, aside from taxing them, launch a huge propaganda campaign along the lines of "Loose Lips Sink Ships." Say, "Hummers are Osama's Panzer Corps." (OK, hot shot, come to my blog and post your own slogan.) Make wasting fuel the next smoking or DUI -- absolutely socially unacceptable.
-- * Because it will be a few years before we can be completely free of petrol, drill the ever-lovin' slush out of the ANWR, explore for oil off Myrtle Beach, and build refinery capacity. But to keep us focused, limit all of these activities to no more than 20 years. Put the limit into the Constitution.
    You get the idea. Respect no one's sacred cows, left or right. Yeah, I know some of this is, um, provocative. But that's what we need. We have to wake up, go allout to win the war and, in the long run, save the Earth. Pretty soon, tyrants from Tehran to Moscow to Caracas will be tumbling down without our saying so much as "boo" to them, and global warming will slow within our lifetimes.
    Then, once we've done all that, we can start insisting upon some common sense on entitlements, and health care. Whatever works, whatever is practical, whatever solves our problems -- no matter whose ox gets gored, or how hard you think it is to do what needs doing. Stop whining and grow up. Leave the ideologues in the dust, while we solve the problems.
    How's that sound? Can any of y'all get behind that? Let me know, because we need to get going on this stuff.

Join the party at my -- I mean, our-- Web Headquarters:  http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/.

Tom Friedman's back, and he's going to bat for the Energy Party!

Tom Friedman is finally back after a four-month, book-writing sabbatical. The NYT said he'd be back in April, and he just barely made it! (Now I can stop fielding those phone calls from readers wanting to know what happened to him. Here's a recording of one of those. )

And he's coming out swinging... and best of all, he's coming out swinging on behalf of the Energy Party (whether he knows it or not). His first column is headlined, "Dumb as We Wanna Be," and you'll see it on our op-ed page tomorrow. An excerpt:

    It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away. Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer’s travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.
    When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit...

Go get 'em, Tom! That's a very fine leadoff hit. Coming up to bat next, on the same op-ed page, will be Robert Samuelson, and he'll bring Friedman around to score. His piece, succinctly headlined "Start Drilling," is the rhetorical equivalent of a hard line drive down the opposite-field line:

    What to do about oil? First it went from $60 to $80 a barrel, then from $80 to $100 and now to $120. Perhaps we can persuade OPEC to raise production, as some senators suggest; but this seems unlikely. The truth is that we're almost powerless to influence today's prices. We are because we didn't take sensible actions 10 or 20 years ago. If we persist, we will be even worse off in a decade or two. The first thing to do: Start drilling.
    It may surprise Americans to discover that the United States is the third-largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. We could be producing more, but Congress has put large areas of potential supply off-limits. These include the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and parts of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. By government estimates, these areas may contain 25 billion to 30 billion barrels of oil (against about 30 billion barrels of proven U.S. reserves today) and 80 trillion cubic feet or more of natural gas (compared with about 200 tcf of proven reserves)....

Not start drilling as a substitute for conservation or the search for new fuels (as the ideologues of the right would have it, and the ideologues of the left deplore), but in addition to. Like I said, this is straight out of the Energy Party playbook (yeah, I know this started as a baseball metaphor, not football, but bear with me).

To reduce dependence on tyrannical foreign sources, to help out Mother Nature, to keep our economy healthy, to stoke innovation, to win the War on Terror, and make us healthier, wealthier and wiser, we should adopt the entire Energy Party platform. We should, among other things I'm forgetting at the moment:

• Increase CAFE standards further -- much further.
• Raise the tax on gasoline, NOT reduce it, so that we'll suppress demand, which will reduce upward pressure on prices, and we'll be paying the higher amounts to ourselves rather than America-haters in Russia, Iran, Venezuela and yes, Saudi Arabia.
• Use the proceeds for a Manhattan Project or Apollo Project (or whatever else kind of project we choose, as long as we understand that it's the moral equivalent of war) to develop new technologies -- hydrogen, solar, wind, geothermal, what have you -- and shifting the mass of the resources to the most promising ones as they emerge.
• Reduce highway speed limits to 55 mph, to conserve fuel and save lives (OK, Samuel? I mentioned it.) And oh, yeah -- enforce the speed limits. The fines will pay for the additional cops.
• Drill in ANWR, off the coasts, and anywhere else we can do so in reasonable safety. (Yes, we can.)
• Increase the availability of mass transit (and if you can swing it, I'd appreciate some light rail; I love the stuff).
• Fine, jail or ostracize anyone who drives an SUV without a compelling reason to do so. Possible propaganda poster: ""Hummers are Osama's Panzer Corps."

And so forth and so on.

My point is, no more fooling around. It's way past time to get serious about this stuff, and stop playing little pandering games. Let's show a little hustle out there. And no dumb mistakes running the bases out there, fellas...

P.S. -- The name of the book Mr. Friedman's been writing, which will come out in August, is Hot, Flat and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution -- and How It Can Renew America. So yeah, he's got an economic stake in these concepts. Well, more power to him. There's money to be made in doing the smart thing, and to the extent he can persuade us to move in that direction, he deserves to get his taste.Just to help him out, here's video of him talking about these ideas. Here's a link to his recent magazine piece on the subject.

A Grownup Party forum

As I mentioned back here, sometimes I call the UnParty the Energy Party (depending on the subject at hand), and once or twice I've referred to the Grownup Party. That kicked off a discussion that I think has a certain relevance to some of the philosophical friction that vexes us these days. Here's the discussion:

Doug, I give you credit for being a consistent anarchist...but don't you support parental "authority"?

Posted by: Randy E | Apr 30, 2008 9:17:05 AM

Not coercive authority... I should be able to influence my children through my words and actions, not by threats or intimidation.

I want a government based on ethics, productivity, and fairness.   We have a government based on lies, inefficiency, and
greed.   

Posted by: Doug Ross | Apr 30, 2008 9:48:46 AM

Actually, whenever I have disputes with libertarians, I do so as a parent. I'm in my 32nd year of being a parent. I have five kids and three grandchildren, and my worldview is that of a parent. Whenever I hear people standing up for their "right" to do something stupid -- such as not wear motorcycle helmets on the public roads -- I hear the voice of a child. By now, it's sort of hard-wired into me.

Lots of people look at laws in terms of "what this means to me" in terms of "what I get to do" or "what gets done to me." I tend to look at society as a whole and think, Is this a good idea overall? or Does this make society safer, or healthier, or wealthier? or Is this the logical way for society to function?

I don't think, Do I want to pay this tax? or Do I think I should have to buckle my seat belt? To me, those are unacceptably self-centered questions. This makes for profound disagreements, because the basic cognitive processes, the entire perspective going in, is very, very different.

Posted by: Brad Warthen | Apr 30, 2008 9:52:30 AM

Brad,

You may not understand this but my view on society is the same as yours: Is this a good idea overall? Does this make society safer, or healthier, or wealthier? Is this the logical way for society to function?

And then I examine the issue using my own personal experience as reference. Take taxes for example... I look at the issue logically based on the taxes I pay and conclude that a) the system is illogical b) the use of tax dollars is inefficient and c) the tax burden is unfairly applied.
I don't want MY taxes to be lower, I want EVERYONE's taxes to be lower... because I believe our economy would be far better off for EVERYONE if we had less government. The same logic applies to my views on Social Security, healthcare, education, etc.

Your world view is what gives us the government we have today. One where we citizens pay people to sit around making crucial decisions like: when can we sell beer and wine on Sunday? what time does a store need to open on Sunday? what tax breaks does a newspaper deserve that other companies do not? should we give people age 785 and over a 1/2% sales tax break? how much of the taxpayers' money should we give to the Okra Strut? and on and on it goes. Completely wasted effort... I want to see that abolished for EVERYONE's benefit, not my own.

Big government types are worse than selfish - they take what isn't theirs.

Posted by: Doug Ross | Apr 30, 2008 10:52:03 AM

And I see those as unrelated questions, not in terms of some sort of overriding conflict between "government" and... what -- "ungovernment?" But you're right in that government in one sense or another is involved in all those decisions. What I wonder about is what you see as the alternative.

Basically, we have this thing called a civilization. But even in the most chaotic, anarchic situations, certain arrangements arise among human beings that determine how they are going to live together (or NOT live together). Such things seem unavoidable in a group of any sort of social animals. With gorillas, you have a whole network of decisions and arrangements that tend to be built around the overriding question of, "Who gets to be the alpha male?"

Things get more complicated with humans because we are a verbalizing race, and think in symbols and abstractions that can't be communicated without language. But everywhere that there are two or more humans together, some sort of arrangement or agreement has to be arrived at in terms of how to interact and arrange things, from the ownership of property to acceptable behavior.

In the closest thing to a state of nature -- a place where government has utterly collapsed, such as in Somalia; or a place where conventional government is not recognized as legitimate, such as Sicily over the centuries -- you have something closer to the "alpha male" model found among other creatures. In Somalia, it's warlords. In Sicily (and sometimes among transplanted communities of Sicilians) you have a system of bosses and underbosses who hold power through the most elemental system of violence-backed "respect."

Now THAT is a system in which somebody is, as you say, taking what isn't theirs.

Actually, through much of human history, the warlord model has held sway, in such disparate settings as pre-communist China and Europe during the middle ages. Europeans called it feudalism. Under such a system, wealth that is coerced from weaker members of the society is used in such capital projects as building fortresses for the warlords. What you don't see in a system such as that is a system of roads. For such infrastructure as that, which might economically benefit the society more broadly, there has to be a different governing system. For well over 1,000 years, Europeans continued to use roads the Romans had built because that was the last time there was a broad government with an overarching concept of acting on behalf of something broader -- in that case, an empire in which the rule of law was only helpful if you were a Roman.

You saw some city-states rise up in Italy, and bands of city states along the Baltic and in other regions, in which councils and other decision-making bodies created infrastructure and regulations that facilitated commerce that created wealth for a somewhat larger group.

Anyway, to speed ahead... in this country we came up with representative democracy as a means for a free people to work out questions of how they would arrange themselves socially and make the decisions that WILL BE MADE one way or another among any group of humans. Once everyone gets a voice like that, all sorts of questions will come up: Do we need a new road? OK, how will we pay for it? Some people will not want to see alcohol sold at all, others will have an opposite view. Perhaps for a time, the community will strike a compromise: OK, we'll allow alcohol to be sold in our community, but not on Sunday, because there is a critical mass in the community that finds such activities on a Sunday beyond the pale, and those who don't feel that way go along to get what they want on the other six days.

Of course, laws governing alcohol get far more complicated than that, with debates over where to draw the lines in terms of operating a car on the PUBLIC roads after drinking, whether minors can drink or even hang out in drinking establishments, and so forth. And all of these are legitimate areas for regulation as long as we, acting through this system of representative democracy, decide they ARE legitimate areas for such.

Government, and politics, are in our system the proper place for deciding where all those lines are.

In our constitutional system, we have in writing certain guarantees to prevent a government answering to a majority doesn't trample certain fundamental rights (life, liberty, and such) of any individuals, including those in political minorities. This does not, of course, mean that individuals can blow off the more general will. You can't commit murder just because it's in keeping with your personal value system. Nor can you take your neighbor's car without his permission, or poison his cat, or engage in insider trading, or sell beer in a community that has legitimately (acting through the proper processes) decided to make that illegal.

This is a great system; it beats the hell out of doing things according to the whim of the local warlord. And everyone -- libertarians, authoritarians, Christians, Wiccans, what have you -- get to make their case in the public square.

Some libertarians, unfortunately, seem to regard the political and governmental decisions that THEY DISAGREE WITH -- a tax they don't want to pay, for instance -- as being illegitimate. But they aren't.

Each and every one of us accepts losing political arguments, and submitting to the resulting regulations or laws or lack thereof -- as the price of living in this (I would argue) highly enlightened system of making social decisions. We accept it rather than go live in a place where only brute force counts.

That doesn't mean we don't make our case for the next election, and so forth.

Is anything I'm saying here making sense to you?

Posted by: Brad Warthen | Apr 30, 2008 11:51:33 AM

Also, Brad, your view of government is what gets us things like rebate checks to stimulate the economy and gas tax holidays.   

McCain claims both of those are great ideas designed to help everybody out when, in reality, he supports them for purely selfish reasons - to dupe voters so he can get elected President. He hasn't got the guts to tell the truth. His own personal ambition means more to him than the truth. Guess he'd make a good libertarian, huh?

Posted by: Doug Ross | Apr 30, 2008 11:56:27 AM

You can't commit murder just because it's in keeping with your personal value system. Nor can you take your neighbor's car without his permission, or poison his cat, or engage in insider trading, or sell beer in a community that has legitimately (acting through the proper processes) decided to make that illegal.
-Brad

Murder or killing the neighbor's cat are issues not in dispute by anyone, libertarians or otherwise. Those are acts that clearly affect other people and clearly must involve intervention by the government. Doug nor anyone else has suggested the legalization of murder. Clearly that is the mother of all non-sequetors.

But selling or buying beer on Sunday is completely different. That is a decision which rightly belongs in a class of activities that can and should best be handled by individuals without interference from the government because it has no affect on others. That is true regardless of who has their say in the public square. If I want to buy beer on Sunday that is a decision that should be made on the basis of my own conscience, religious views and other factors that only I can evaluate. It's no one else's business if I buy beer on Sunday. Same with video poker, pot smoking, what I do with my own body - including who I sleep with. It's no one's damn business, period.

Let's try another example that perhaps Brad can understand. What if some religious extremist came to power and, with the help of Congress, decided that only their religion could be exercised. The majority of the people agree. The folks from the banned religions had their say in the public square but were overruled. Brad could no longer attend the Catholic Church he's been a member of for decades.

Or, let's say that all movies that depict the political process in an unflattering light must now be banned. The Manchurian Candidate can not be shown any longer as a result.

Or, perhaps hitting close to home, what if the only newspaper allowed is the one run by the government. Even though The State has run editorials oppossing this the law passes anyway. The day after the law passes the government troops occupy The State paper's operation and begin publishing their own spin on the world.

According to Brad's world view all of these events are a legitimate intrusion into the way people conduct their lives. 

Posted by: bud | Apr 30, 2008 12:51:57 PM

Right, Bud. I don't want all government abolished, just some of it. I don't want to abolish all taxes, just some of them. I don't want to repeal all laws, just those that intrude on personal rights.

The whole drug issue is a perfect example. Nobody should ever go to jail for using drugs unless they end up doing some harm to another person. We have a society filled with people popping anti-depressants and sleeping pills, abusing alcohol, etc. and yet we have law enforcement people spending time and resources making sure adults don't smoke a joint. This is a case where the moral minority in power feels a need to enforce its will upon people.

Posted by: Doug Ross | Apr 30, 2008 1:27:26 PM

Actually, bud, what you just said is completely inconsistent with what I wrote. So this is a non-argument.

And Doug, come on: When a majority wants cocaine to be legal (again), it will be. I direct you to the Volstead Act and the Eighteenth Amendment, which were followed by the 21st Amendment...

A lot of people (primarily libertarians) point to Prohibition as evidence that such things "don't work." Nonsense. Prohibition went away for the same reason it came in-- the prevailing political will of the time, acting with sufficient force to change the constitution (which is what would be necessary for bud's farcical scenario to work, and good luck that that one, by the way).

In other words, "Prohibition doesn't work" only makes sense when you say, "Prohibition doesn't work if we don't want it."

Doug is using the reasoning of the child -- someone OUT THERE is imposing something on my in contradiction of my sovereign will. With the child, it's the parent; with Doug, it's this alleged "minority in power."

I don't look at the world that way, because I am not alienated from the American political system. Therefore I can say WE decide something, whether it was my idea or not. I don't see the decision-making apparatus as being something OUT THERE.

Posted by: Brad Warthen | Apr 30, 2008 1:43:56 PM

Why do people compress files -- or use PDFs?

Here's a pet peeve. I needed to share with a colleague a handful of Word files that had been sent to me. Unfortunately, they had been e-mailed to me as a compressed folder attachment, and my colleague didn't have the unzip software.

So I had to unzip the things, save them to a folder, and then e-mail them to her.

My question is, why do people do that -- create unnecessary barriers that just make work on both ends? The total size of all these files was less than a 72 dpi photo, so there was no need whatsoever. The e-mail went out in the blink of an eye.

I can only conclude that such items are generated by people who don't know much about computers, or whose knowledge is 10 years out of date.

And another thing -- why are so many things on the Web in PDF format, which takes my browser SO much longer than HTML, and can't be searched as easily, and all sorts of other mean, nasty, ugly things? I can understand when it's an image of a document that only exists in hard copy form -- say, a 30-year-old newspaper page. But most documents these days start out in electronic form. Why not keep things simple, and keep the interaction smooth?

The usual culprits in this instance are academics.

A Brad's Blog primer

Noticing that this recent post had attracted some first-time-readers, I thought I'd greet them and give them a quick orientation. And the message I wrote sort of said some stuff that it might be good to remind everybody of occasionally. So I hereby elevate that quick primer to separate-post status:

Marie, Joshua, thanks for joining us. Sorry you're disappointed, Joshua, but bear with us. And Marie, what part of Tampa are you from? I went to high school for two years there. Robinson High. A long, long time ago.

It occurs to me to give y'all a quick primer on what we're about here. I'm the editorial page editor of South Carolina's largest newspaper. We (the newspaper's editorial board) endorsed John McCain in the GOP primary, and Barack Obama in the Democratic -- and had the happy satisfaction of seeing both of our candidates win.

I think the possibility of an Obama-McCain contest in the fall will be the closest thing to a no-lose situation that I've seen in my adult lifetime -- and I first voted in 1972.

This doesn't mean being blind to either candidate's faults. I'm turned off by McCain's pandering on gas taxes, and Obama has a problem with Mr. Wright -- no wishing that away.

Sometime folks come here and have trouble getting their bearings, trying to decide whether this blog goes to the right or the left. Neither. I'm the founder of the UnParty, sometimes also known as the Energy Party -- depending on the subject at hand. I've also been known to call it the Grownup Party. I'm basically fed up with both the Democrats and the Republicans, although I like some individuals in both parties.

Anyway, welcome.

I should add this: I try, I really try, to encourage a certain level of civility around here. I also try to discourage pointless, cliche-ridden partisan back-and-forth slogan-chanting of the sort you can get out on your ordinary, run-of-the-mill blogs.

But I've been pretty laissez-faire about it lately, and it seemed like time to crack heads. So I deleted a couple of, shall we way, less-than-constructive comments back on this post, and banned the posters. Just so y'all know. One was obviously beyond the pale (both the "N" word and the "F" word crowded into a surprisingly short, and distressingly unoriginal, composition), and the other was someone who had demonstrated time and again that he was not here in good faith.

The great thing is that I haven't had to do that in awhile. I'm not sure whether that's because y'all have all become so profound and high-minded, or I've just gotten more callous. Anyway, thanks for what most of y'all do.

One last thing -- to get full value out of the blog, you've gotta follow the links...

Did Obama get the job done in denouncing Wright?

There was no question, as this day dawned, that Barack Obama was going to have to denounce his ex-pastor in unequivocal terms -- no more of that, Well, you just have to understand about the black church stuff.

Right now, I'm trying to decide rather urgently -- did he go far enough in what he said today? I don't mean "far enough" to satisfy me, or even you, necessarily. I just mean, did he do what he had to to save his candidacy? Because there's no question in my mind that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's statements of the last two days put the Obama campaign below water.

After failing with white middle-class voters in Pennsylvania -- and not least of all because of what we'd already heard from the Wright pulpit -- this latest stuff could not be allowed to stand.

Normally, I'd allow myself a little time to decide whether what Sen. Obama said today was enough. But at the moment, I've trying to decide whether it makes the Bob Herbert column I just put on tomorrow's op-ed page too outdated.

We have this problem with The New York Times. While The Washington Post, for instance, gives us its opinion columnists in plenty of time for us to run them the same day that the Post does, The Times takes a far more self-centered approach, not moving its copy until it's damned well good and ready -- which is generally hours after our next day's pages are done. Consequently, when we run columns by Herbert, Dowd, Brooks, et al., it's generally a day later. Which is not usually a problem. A good opinion is a good opinion a day later.

Anyway, Bob Herbert had a strong column on the Wright situation this morning, and I picked it for tomorrow over -- well, over a lot of things, but in the end, it was down to that or a Samuelson piece that's embargoed until Wednesday. I chose the Herbert. But his column says, in part:

    For Senator Obama, the re-emergence of Rev. Wright has been devastating. The senator has been trying desperately to bolster his standing with skeptical and even hostile white working-class voters. When the story line of the campaign shifts almost entirely to the race-in-your-face antics of someone like Mr. Wright, Mr. Obama’s chances can only suffer.
    Beyond that, the apparent helplessness of the Obama campaign in the face of the Wright onslaught contributes to the growing perception of the candidate as weak, as someone who is unwilling or unable to fight aggressively on his own behalf.
    Hillary Clinton is taunting Mr. Obama about his unwillingness to participate in another debate. Rev. Wright is roaming the country with the press corps in tow, happily promoting the one issue Mr. Obama had tried to avoid: race.
    Mr. Obama seems more and more like someone buffeted by events, rather than in charge of them. Very little has changed in the superdelegate count, but a number of those delegates have expressed concern in private over Mr. Obama’s inability to do better among white working-class voters and Catholics.

Then today, Obama comes out swinging on the issue...

So right this moment, I'm trying to decide whether to run Herbert because he still makes good points, or ditch him because Obama has at least tried to do something Herbert says he needed to do.

Right now, I'm at the coin-toss stage...

Hillary joins McCain in pandering on gas tax; Obama stands up to them both

This has been a busy day and I'm just getting around to some basic things now. But I couldn't let the day pass without noting how right Obama is about this:

Obama says rivals Clinton, McCain pandering on gas tax
By MIKE GLOVER and BETH FOUHY
Associated Press Writers
WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. -- Democrat Barack Obama dismissed his rivals' calls for national gas tax holiday as a political ploy that won't help struggling consumers. Hillary Rodham Clinton said his stance shows he's out of touch with the economic realities faced by ordinary citizens.
    Clinton and certain Republican presidential nominee John McCain are calling for a holiday on collecting the federal gas tax "to get them through an election," Obama said at a campaign rally before more than 2,000 cheering backers a week before crucial primaries in Indiana and North Carolina. "The easiest thing in the world for a politician to do is tell you exactly what you want to hear."
    Clinton, who toured the Miller Veneers wood manufacturing company in Indianapolis, said "there are a lot of people in Indiana who would really benefit from a gas tax holiday.
    "That might not mean much to my opponent, but I think it means a lot to people who are struggling here, people who commute a long way to work, farmers and truckers," Clinton said. She has called for a windfall tax on oil companies to pay for a gas tax holiday.
    "Senator Obama won't provide relief, while Senator McCain won't pay for it," Clinton said. "I'm the only candidate who will provide immediate relief at the pump, with a plan."
    With his comments, Obama continued a running dispute over whether ending collection of the gas tax is the quickest and best way to help consumers. Leading in delegates and the popular vote, Obama in recent days has focused on McCain, but he broadened that criticism Tuesday to include Democrat Clinton.
    "Now the two Washington candidates in the race have decided to do something different," said Obama. "John McCain started it, he made the proposal, and then Hillary Clinton said 'me too.'"
    The plan would suspend collecting the 18.4 cent federal gas tax 24.4 cent diesel tax for the summer.
    He said drying up gas tax collections would batter highway construction, costing North Carolina up to 7,000 jobs, while saving consumers little.
    "We're arguing over a gimmick that would save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say they did something," said Obama.
    "Well, let me tell you, this isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's designed to get them through an election," said Obama. He said his call for middle-class tax cuts would be far more beneficial than suspending gas tax collections.
    Obama took a different view on the issue when he was an Illinois legislator, voting at least three times in favor of temporarily lifting the state's 5 percent sales tax on gasoline.
    The tax holiday was finally approved during a special session in June of 2000, when Illinois motorists were furious that gas prices had just topped $2 a gallon in Chicago.
    During one debate, he joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps in his district to say, "Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices."
    But the impact of the tax holiday was never clear. A government study could not determine how much of the savings was passed on to motorists. Many lawmakers said their constituents didn't seem to have benefited. They also worried the tax break was pushing the state budget out of balance.
    When legislation was introduced to eliminate the tax permanently, Obama voted "no." The effort failed, and the sales tax was allowed to take effect again.
    Responding to Obama's criticism, McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said the Illinois senator "does not understand the effect of gas prices on the economy. Senator Obama voted for a gas tax reduction before he opposed it."
    Bounds was deliberately echoing one of Democrat John Kerry's most troublesome missteps of the 2004 presidential campaign. Kerry said of funding for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
    Obama and Clinton both opened their campaign day in North Carolina. Clinton toured a research facility and collected the prized endorsement of Gov. Mike Easley.
    "It's time for somebody to be in the White House who understands the challenges we face in this country," said Easley, in announcing his backing of Clinton. She then promptly headed for a string of events in Indiana.
    "The governor and I have something in common - we think results matter," said Clinton.
    Easley is popular with white, working-class voters that have formed the base for Clinton's success in recent primaries.
    Clinton also collected an endorsement from Democratic Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, who praised "her support in rural America, her commitment to national security and her dedication to our men and women in uniform."
    Skelton, a conservative Democrat who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, was among a half-dozen Democratic House members called to meet with Clinton after she won the Pennsylvania primary last week.
    While Obama is favored in North Carolina, the race in Indiana is very tight, and Obama was heading there Wednesday.
    Obama collected endorsements of his own during the day: In Kentucky, Rep. Ben Chandler, son of former Gov. A.B. "Happy" Chandler, gave Obama his backing ahead of that state's May 20 primary, and in Iowa, Democratic National Committee member Richard Machacek - a supporter of former Sen. John Edwards before he dropped out of the presidential race - switched his support to Obama.
    Interest in the two primaries next week has been high. Officials in Indiana said nearly 90,000 people have cast early ballots, far outpacing absentee turnout in 2004.
    At stake Tuesday are 115 delegates in North Carolina, and 72 in Indiana.
Beth Fouhy reported from Indianapolis. Associated Press writers Christopher Wills in Springfield, Ill., and Sam Hananel in Washington contributed to this report.

Obama's the only one acting like a responsible grownup here. He's also the only one speaking up for Energy Party values.

What McCain and Clinton are both doing on this is appalling. They're treating us like two-year-olds, and proposing to act in direct opposition to the nation's interests.

Rev. Wright still fails to clarify

Just in case anyone was still confused, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright emerged over the last day or so to explain (I think) what I've already said about his sermons: He meant what he said the first time.

It seems he was being "descriptive," not "divisive."

Asked whether he thought some of the things he said might be less than "patriotic," he changed the subject -- he mentioned his service in the Marine Corps in his youth, and mentioned that Dick Cheney never served. To which I say, "Huh?" To elaborate, thank you for your service, Reverend -- I stand in awe of anyone who has been a Marine. But did you mean "God Damn America" or not? Were you being ironic, or stating a wish that was not your own, or was that "descriptive?" And how does that message square with Semper Fidelis?

I should mention that he also explained that if you take exception to his message, you're a racist. Just so you know.

He also made the same argument that has been made in his behalf by others, that his remarks have been taken out of context -- mere "soundbites." I'm still waiting to hear the context that makes "God Damn America" mean something else. Sadly, I've not heard it yet.

Poor Obama. With friends like this one...

Payday lenders reduced to quoting McGovern

This release came in today from the Community Financial Services Association (Tommy Moore's employers), which among other things cited the organization's Quote of the Month:

“Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.�

George McGovern
Former South Dakota Senator
1972 Democratic Presidential Candidate
Wall Street Journal

... which of course reminds me of something I didn't like about McGovern, and which I had forgotten until I read that piece in the WSJ recently. Actually, it's a problem I had with the Left of those days -- they were way anti-government. We have a letter on tomorrow's edit page from one of those people who considers motorcycle helmet laws to be the first step to totalitarianism (I am not making this up). Such folks would have been at home in the Left in 1972.

And such people are not considered to be liberals any more -- in fact, some of the most fiercely anti-government types now actually claim to be "conservatives" -- which of course is one of the many reasons why I insist that the "liberal" and "conservative" labels haven't made sense for some time.

That aside, I find myself wondering -- whom is this quotation intended to persuade? Certainly not the GOP majority over at the State House. Maybe Tommy and the gang thought sending this out to the "liberal" media might have a salutary (from CFSA's point of view) effect.

If so, it didn't work in my case. But maybe I'm not typical.

Somebody's Big, Stupid Second Cousin

There was an intriguing piece today in the WSJ applying the principles of The Wisdom of Crowds to predicting the outcome of the 2008 presidential election. The logic of it was persuasive when it invoked Wikipedia, which I find to be far more useful and reliable than detractors claim (when people say it's inaccurate, I want to know, Compared to what source of such breadth and depth?)

It was less persuasive in the preceding sentence, when it said,

This collective intelligence also accounts for why Google results, determined by an algorithm reflecting the popularity of Web results matching a search, are so relevant....

Today, wearing my vice president hat, I heard a presentation on new vistas of user-specific smart online advertising that the presenter described more than once in "Big Brother" terms -- not as a bad thing, but in terms of Big Brother's storied effectiveness and, I suppose, intrusiveness into private thinking patterns.

But you know what? So far, I've been hugely unimpressed by the effectiveness of software that is supposed to get to know me well enough that it can predict what I want. Take Netflix, for instance. I have freely given Netflix more than its share of info on my preferences. I have, for instance -- and I'm embarrassed to admit this -- rated 1,872 movies on the one-through-five-star system. Yes, that's one thousand, eight hundred and seventy-two. Any time Netflix has said I need to "rate more movies" -- and it seems to have an insatiable appetite in this regard -- I have taken a few moments (in the evenings, of course) to oblige.

I have done this in a vain attempt to give Netflix enough info to at least make a wild guess as to what sort of movies I like. It still doesn't seem any deeper or more intuitive than what a clerk at an '80s-style video store might have guess after less than a dozen rentals. Or so it seems to me.

For instance, Netflix is convinced I've got a fierce hankering to watch "Classics" -- you know, movies with Clark Gable or Myrna Loy or whatever. Apparently, this is based on the fact that I've given high ratings to, for instance, "It Happened One Night" and "The Thin Man." But of course I give those high ratings! Any literate movie fan would! That doesn't mean I want to see them again, or that I want to see lesser films with the same actors in them! I don't have a black-and-white jones here, people. I just acknowledge quality, and I think my judgments along those lines are fairly conventional, really. What I need you to do is extrapolate what I might like among films I haven't seen or heard about...

Whatever. Anyway, this sort of software hasn't figured me out, even when I've wanted it to. It's more like somebody's stupid second cousin than Big Brother.

The latest COLA outrage

Recalling that many readers were understandably appalled at the recent move by lawmakers to sweeten their own pension deal, which was already sweeter than Aunt Joy's Cakes, I thought you might want to discuss today's editorial.

It's about something that is, if anything, even more outrageous than what Cindi brought to your attention several weeks back. Last week, after the embarrassing glare of publicity had caused them to drop their own pension cost-of-living increase, they killed the underlying legislation to give a COLA to state retirees just because it didn't have their sweetener in it anymore.

Or, as we described it in today's editorial:

IT WAS NO BIG surprise when legislative leaders tried to sneak through a generous perk for themselves on the back of an important bill to stabilize the State Retirement System and protect tens of thousands of state retirees. Sweetening up their own pension system is something lawmakers try to do periodically, and they always do it quietly.
    But what happened last week, after the House had reversed course and rejected the new legislative perk, reached a new low, at least in terms of what lawmakers have done out in the open: The Ways and Means Committee voted 13-11 to kill the underlying proposal, which guarantees 2 percent annual cost of living adjustments for state retirees. Representatives didn’t kill the bill because they thought it was a bad idea. They killed it because they weren’t going to get their perk.

Anyway, I thought I'd provide this space for y'all to discuss this...

Aunt Joy's Cakes

Here's another excellent example of the places you can go when you combine an attention deficit problem with the magic of hypertext links.

I was reading the comments on this post, and decided to answer some points Peter brought up. In particular, I took issue with this assertion:

From the problems at Corrections, Health and Human Services, Commerce and others, the blame ALWAYS stays at the agency and never seems to rise to the governor....

In part, I said:

As for Corrections, please tell me what problems you think there are that stem from the administrative side. The problem with Corrections is deep, profound, fundamental, and lies with the Legislature. It is this: That our lawmakers embrace locking people up when it is unnecessary, and refuse to fund Corrections sufficiently to imprison that many people effectively and safely, much less do anything in the way of rehabilitation.

It's an enormous waste of money to lock up nonviolent offenders, people who pose no physical threat to the citizenry. In their own perverse way, lawmakers agree with this equation. So they lock them up anyway (because of some atavistic urge they have to do so), and just don't appropriate the money. The results are predictable.

Or were you suggesting there is something wrong with what Ozmint and Sanford have done with the situation handed them? Personally, I don't see any failings on their parts that pose even a measurable fraction of the systemic problem our laws create. (Ozmint's greatest sin is refusing to criticize the underlying situation more forcefully and on the record, although he has recently begun to crawl out of that shell.) Here's a column I wrote about that problem , back in 2005. Things have not changed since then...

There's more, but I won't bore you further, but will move on to the fun, ADD stuff.

Looking for links to support my assertions without having to go into even greater detail (yes, my comment was, unfortunately, much, much longer than that -- as was Peter's let me hasten to add), I ran across this old post.

I found myself rather frustrated in reading the comments on that one, because ... well, for the usual reason that I get frustrated. I had simply noted that something Jon Ozmint had said was like something the Captain had said in "Cool Hand Luke." I thought that was cool in and of itself. For me the connection is the thing. It releases dopamine in my brain or whatever.

But to some of my correspondents, to whom everything has to be this big black-vs.-white argument, preferably of the ideological variety, my pointing that out was some kind of huge, bleeding-heart whine for the poor criminals or something. Such people ascribe to me an affinity for relevance that I don't possess.

So, to prove to them that it WAS like what the Captain said (yes, we're talking Strother Martin here), I went looking for the appropriate clip, and here it is. Now this next part is not my fault, because the YouTube page suggested it under "Related videos." It's the scene in which the girl whom Dragline dubs "Lucille" washes the car. I had to go ahead and look at it for research purposes.

And then I got to wondering about the um, actress who portrayed "Lucille" with such compelling force. Turns out her name was "Joy Harmon," and she also portrayed a 30-foot-tall woman in "Village of the Giants," which is not to be confused with the 50-foot-woman Maureen Dowd recently referred to.

Now here's the icing, as it were. Turns out that Wikipedia refers to Joy Patricia Harmon as "a baker and former American actress." It also says she wore a bikini in the famous "Cool Hand Luke" scene, which we know she did NOT do, but then everybody says Wikipedia gets things wrong. (Come on, safety pin -- Pop!)

A baker?, you're thinking. Exactly. So I had to read a little further, and I discovered that after she retired from washing cars and being abnormally tall, Ms. Harmon started a business in beautiful downtown Burbank, and it's called "Aunt Joy's Cakes." Really. She started the business because "The demand for her delicious treats became too great for her to do alone in her kitchen." (You hush now; Dragline doesn't want you talking that way about his Lucille.)

So now you know. And now you see how pointless it is to argue against government restructuring.

SNL parodies of media and Obama

Charles Krauthammers' column on our Sunday op-ed page makes reference to the Saturday Night Live skits mocking the media's fawning over Barack Obama. An excerpt:

    Real change has never been easy. . . . The status quo in Washington will fight. They will fight harder than ever to divide us and distract us with ads and attacks from now until November.
                -- Barack Obama,
                    Pennsylvania primary
                    night speech

With that, Obama identified the new public enemy: the "distractions" foisted upon a pliable electorate by the malevolent forces of the status quo, i.e., those who might wish to see someone else become president next January. "It's easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit for tat that consumes our politics" and "trivializes the profound issues" that face our country, he warned sternly. These must be resisted.
    Why? Because Obama understands that the real threat to his candidacy is less Hillary Clinton and John McCain than his own character and cultural attitudes. He came out of nowhere with his autobiography already written, then saw it embellished daily by the hagiographic coverage and kid-gloves questioning of a supine press. (Which is why those "Saturday Night Live" parodies were so devastatingly effective.)...

That prompted me to search for and find the skits, which I had not seen. They are funny. Not Akroyd-Belushi funny or anything, but amusing by the standards of latter-day casts. The funnier (and longer) one is the second one, at the bottom of this post.

Of course, the mockery isn't one-sided. There's also a funny send-up of Hillary Clinton being petulant about how Obama is treated and received. If you think that's over-the-top, here's a link to a real-life video in which, ironically enough, Hillary invokes the SNL skits, but only after whining in a particularly passive-aggressive manner about always having to answer the first question -- acting a lot like her mimic in the skit. And I don't think she's kidding...

Preview: Cindi's column Sunday explaining restructuring

Something John Rust -- a candidate for the Republican nomination in S.C. House Dist. 77 -- said during his endorsement interview earlier this week was very familiar. It's something we hear all the time as to why some people oppose restructuring South Carolina government to put the elected chief executive in charge of the executive branch.

Cindi Scoppe explores this common misconception in her column coming up on Sunday. An excerpt:

    When I finally managed to claw my way through my over-stuffed in-box, a reprise of the Rust message was waiting for me:
    “I saw, again, in your column, a push for enhanced gubernatorial power in South Carolina. You made reference to a leader with bold ideas that don’t get watered down by the timid legislature. Were you implying that this would protect education from unwise budget cuts? If our present governor’s bold ideas were unchecked, a good portion of our education dollar would be paying private school tuition, even bright kids who read at age five would be getting systematic phonics instruction until they were nine, and Barbara Nielson (sic) would likely be State Superintendent. At least 25% of the income tax burden would have been shifted from upper-incomes to middle and lower incomes.â€?
    Wow.
    When you put it that way, no one in his right mind would want to “restructureâ€? government...

You may be able to see where she's going with that. If you can't, you need to read the column on Sunday.

And before that, I'll be putting video of the relevant part of the Rust interview on our new Saturday Opinion Extra...

In fact, you know what? Since y'all are like my extra-special friends and all, I'm going to go ahead and give y'all the video right now:

In Hillary's defense, it DOES work...

When it comes to my preference for Barack Obama in the contest for the Democratic nomination, I refuse to take a back seat to those worthies on the editorial board of The New York Times. However, I must protest that their urgent yearning for Hope and Change caused them to ignore rather obvious realities earlier this week:

    The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
    Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

When you say "Voters are getting tired of it," you mean you are getting tired of it, as am I. (Sure, you can say Obama still leads nationally poll, but "national" doesn't count until November, and even then it's state by state.) And yes, it's demeaning, but this is politics, ya know.

And you've gotta hand it to the lady: It does work. It certainly did on Tuesday, anyway.

And I get this pooge WHY exactly?

Most people get a lot of e-mail that they delete immediately, and I am surely no exception. In fact, I get so much that I have several accounts, as a way of sorting and triaging -- a published one for the world (which I get to as soon as I can, and race through as quickly as possible, which involves a LOT of instantaneous deletion), an internal one for gotta-know-this-to-get-the-paper-out-today-type business, a couple of private ones (one of them for e-bills, which I do my best to ignore) and so forth.

But sometimes I pause with my finger over the "delete" key, just long enough to think "Why did I get this?" Some of the messages in this category are cool. For instance, I've somehow gotten on a lot of e-mail lists for commercial artists and photographers, which I forward to my daughter who's majoring in graphic arts. Still don't know why I get them, though.

Then there's the stuff that's kind of work-related, but I still don't know how I got on the list. For instance, this one today (from a source I get messages from daily):

***MEDIA ADVISORY***
RNC Chairman Mike Duncan to Speak at Fayette County Republican Party Reagan Day Dinner

WASHINGTON – Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Robert M. “Mikeâ€? Duncan will deliver the keynote address to the Fayette County Republican Party Reagan Day Dinner.  The dinner will be held on April 26 at 6:00 p.m. in the Griffin Gate Marriott’s Paddock Tent to benefit the Republican Party of Fayette County.  Details are available on the party’s website: www.fayettegop.com.

WHO:                RNC Chairman Mike Duncan
WHAT:              2008 Fayette County Republican Party Reagan Day Dinner
WHEN:              Saturday, April 26, 2008 6:00 p.m. EDT

And all the way down, I'm thinking, Fayette County where? What state is this even in? Only at the very end to I get my answer:

WHERE:            Griffin Gate Marriott
                         Paddock Tent
                         1800 Newtown Pike
                         Lexington, KY 40511

Admittedly this comes from the Republican NATIONAL Committee, so I can see why I'm on their list. But what kind of doofus sends out a release nationally that doesn't tell editors in the 49 other states that there is no way that they will EVER be interested in this. I mean, you know, I'm assuming that the purpose is that you would want editors to pay SOME attention to your releases at some point in the future, right? If not, why send out the damn' things?

Yeah, I know, y'all don't care about this. And even for me, it's just one of a hundred or so petty irritations that I'll endure today in my never-ending quest to inform and entertain thousands of Kansans. I mean, South Carolinians.

We'd KILL a guy for passing intel to Israel?

Somehow I just caught up with this news, and I've got to ask, We're talking about killing a guy for passing intel to the Israelis?

That's what the NYT reported this morning:

On Wednesday, one day after Mr. Kadish, 84, was charged with slipping secret military documents to the Israeli government during the 1980s, they were trying to square the gruff, kindly man they knew as so honorable as never to cheat at cards with a criminal suspect who could face the death penalty if convicted.

You're kidding, right?

I mean, look at the sweet old guy (above): So this is James Bond all of a sudden? Or perhaps I should say, Kim Philby (whom we didn't kill, by the way, even though he was working for the real bad guys)?

For one thing, what secrets do we think we could possibly have that the Mossad didn't know already?

Second, we're talking the Israelis here, people! Don't we tell them stuff anyway? And don't they tell us stuff? I mean, am I expected to believe that George W. Bush and the boys figured out the whole North Korea-Syria nuke thing all by their lonesome?

Sure, there are certain lines one doesn't cross (unless invited to) even with your best friends, but come on -- this would be like whacking a guy for passing info to the Brits (speaking of Mr. Philby).

And when's the last time we did that? Major André? Speaking of which -- and I hope this isn't going to get me into a lot of trouble -- I recently crossed paths with Major André. Really.

You know that column I had Sunday about my conversation with the Pennsylvania waitress? Immediately after that conversation, I walked up the street and ran into the historical marker at right (which tells you which diner, if you're really, really good at central PA geography).

In fact, I took the picture on my phone -- and then promptly forgot about it, until I happened to read about Mr. Kadish, and got to thinking about executing spies, and the Israelis, and the British, which led to Major André, which led to "Hey, I think I shot a picture of that."

And now that I think further about it, it occurs to me that the compact device I used to capture that image would probably have been described as a "spy camera" back in the early '80s, which is when Mr. Kadish was allegedly letting an Israeli "diplomat" take pictures in his basement of stuff he brought home from work. Makes ya think, huh?

Danger is my middle name.

Yeah, the press likes Obama, too. So?

Here we go: Our pals on The Wall Street Journal editorial board -- the same crowd that's trying to make Mark Sanford a veep contender, when he isn't, just by using its bully pulpit to say its so, over and over -- are now telling us that the media like Obama (or at least, one of them is).

So what -- we knew that, right? Just as we know the press likes John McCain, too. The two have a lot in common. The press likes them both because we get overexposed to politicos, and these two stand out above the herd. And beside, they're nicer to us than certain other people are.

But Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Journal's editorial board is preparing for the fall campaign by casting the press as being in partisan thrall to Obama:

    The uproar is the latest confirmation of the special place Mr. Obama holds in the hearts of a good part of the media, a status ensured by their shared political sympathies and his star power. That status has in turn given rise to a tendency to provide generous explanations, and put the best possible gloss on missteps and utterances seriously embarrassing to Mr. Obama.

Just to set the record straight on some assumption Ms. Rabinowitz leaps to with regard to Obama's fan club:

• I like McCain every bit as much as I like Obama.
• I, too, thought Stephanopoulos and company went overboard last week.
• I have said there are no excuses for the Rev. Wright's outrages.
• I believe Obama meant what he said with the "bitter" comment.
• I am utterly convinced that the guy can't bowl, which disturbs me.

You see, one can like a guy and still see him clearly, even though Ms. Rabinowitz doesn't think so. I just thought somebody should point it out.

Trying to keep up with candidate interviews

Not that y'all are likely to care, but I thought I'd clarify something. I'm backdating some posts -- specifically, the ones that I'm doing on our state primary endorsement interviews -- just to try to keep them in the order in which we conducted them.

For instance, I just posted this item about Michael Koska, a Republican running in S.C. House Dist. 77. I dated it as Tuesday, because that's when the interview happened. I have one more to do from that day -- Republican Mike Miller, who's running against Kit Spires in District 96.

Since I did those, we've had two more -- Republican John Rust and Democrat Joe McEachern, who are both running in District 77, like both Mr. Koska and Benjamin Byrd, whom we interviewed last week. Messrs. Rust and McEachern were today.

This is a classic illustration of the principle I've often cited about blogs -- you can either have experiences worth blogging about, or you can blog. It's often impossible to get them both done in the same day.

I'm gonna try to get one more of these done before Mamanem send out a posse and drag me home for the night. But I know I'm not going to get done with all these before I have two more interviews tomorrow.

Sigh.

He DID wag his finger -- he actually DID!

You folks who watch TV probably already knew this, but Bill Clinton actually did wag his finger at us in an attempt at morally-superior, above-the-fray admonishment. Here's the video.

My mistake was in thinking the Times' "finger-wagging" reference was to the radio interview, which means I read it too fast the first time. This was in response to the radio interview. Or in response to the response -- whatever.

Yeah, you can miss stuff, not watching TV. But it's usually not anything worth seeing... it's mostly just tit-for-tat, tat-for-tit, nonsense feeding upon itself.

You know, if Bill keeps this up, I'm going to have to give him his own category here on the blog...

No, but he's got time for THIS

If you read Elizabeth Holmes' recent story in The Wall Street Journal, you know that the reason Mark Sanford couldn't endorse John McCain back before the S.C. primary -- and he was asked not once, but three times -- was that his schedule was just so darned tight:

    Mr. Sanford says the time commitment needed to fully support a presidential campaign was too great, given his responsibilities as governor and as a father. "If you hop in, it's not like you can just sorta hop in halfway," Mr. Sanford said in an interview. "If you gotta do it, you really gotta do it."
    ... "You do not have an unlimited number of hours," he said.
    ...Even though the time commitment to campaign with Sen. McCain would be minimal -- maybe a week -- Mr. Sanford still refused.

I wonder what McCain -- or any of the other GOP candidates who could have used a kind word from the gov back in those days -- would think of this release I just got:

              Contact: Danielle Frangos
              For Immediate Release – April 23, 2008                                             

KATRINA SHEALY ENDORSED BY GOVERNOR MARK SANFORD
LEXINGTON, SC – Governor Mark Sanford today endorsed Katrina Shealy in her campaign for State Senate.
    “I’m supporting Katrina in this race quite simply because I believe she’s committed to the conservative ideals of lower taxes and limited government that people I talk to in Lexington County believe in very strongly,â€? Gov. Sanford said. “I believe Katrina will be a real leader in terms of working to make South Carolina a better place to do business, work, and raise a family, and to that end I’m pleased to endorse her.â€?
    Katrina Shealy thanked the Governor for his endorsement, saying, “I am so pleased to receive Governor Sanford’s endorsement.  The Governor’s support is truly a validation of my pro-business and pro-taxpayer message of fiscal responsibility.  I look forward to working with the Governor to improve our state’s business climate and help create new jobs and opportunities for our hard working families. I believe the Governor’s support is a major step towards the Republican nomination for the State Senate.â€?
    Katrina Shealy is the former Lexington County Republican Party Chair running for State Senate in District 23. Katrina resides with her husband Jimmy in the Red Bank area of Lexington County.
                # # #

Well, I guess that we should all feel glad that the infamous "list" never materialized. If the governor's just going after Jake Knotts, that's way better than trying to remake the whole Legislature in his image.

One thing I will say for Jake, though -- he did manage to find a few minutes in his busy Sanford-baiting schedule to endorse Sen. McCain, well before the primary.

Is Bill Clinton wagging his finger at us AGAIN?

Speaking of The New York Times this morning, did you see how it described Bill Clinton's reaction at being reminded of his attempt to ghetto-ize Obama back here in S.C.?

More Finger Wagging From a Miffed Bill Clinton
By KATE PHILLIPS
Published: April 23, 2008
WASHINGTON — Wagging his finger once again, former President Bill Clinton chided a reporter on Tuesday for what he deemed a misinterpretation of his remarks during a radio interview in which he said the Obama campaign “played the race card on me.�
    Mr. Clinton confronted the issue of race again on Monday when he was asked by an interviewer for WHYY radio in Philadelphia about his remarks earlier this year on the results of the South Carolina Democratic primary. At the time, he likened the victory of Senator Barack Obama to that of the Rev. Jesse Jackson in 1998; Mr. Clinton’s comparison was denounced widely by black officials who believed he was marginalizing Mr. Obama’s victory with a racially tinged allusion to Mr. Jackson’s failed presidential bids...

What I'd like to know is, was he literally wagging his finger -- you know, the way he did before? And if you don't remember, the video is below.

Unfortunately, I have no video on the latest incident, so I'll just have to assume the wagging was figurative this time. But we do have some nice, clear audio. Be sure to turn up your volume at the end so you can hear him say, "I don’t think I can take any s..t from anybody on that, do you?" (Some listeners hear it as "don't think I should take any s..t," but I think it's "can"...)

Now, having listened to that, do you feel chastened? Do you feel guilty for having thought less of our former president, even for a moment? Are you gonna stop giving him s--t now? Are you listening, you Obama supporters? Shame on anyone who would dare question Bill Clinton, as he makes clear in this other video...

I'm not the only one tired of the Hillary-Obama battle

Some of y'all jumped to disagree when I said yesterday I dreaded the inevitable Clinton win in PA -- which, to add insult to injury, ended up being by exactly the margin everyone said she had to have to continue, not one percentage point more or less -- but I'm not the only one.

As The New York Times said today,

For better or worse — and many Democrats fear it is for worse — the race goes on.

Of course, the Democrats have a different reason from mine for wanting the punishment to stop. For them, it hurts their electoral goal of beating John McCain. Me, I'm just sick of watching and listening -- which unfortunately I can't stop doing, not entirely. Trench warfare is an ugly thing, and can get monotonous. Isn't this the time of year when should be turning our attention to more pleasant things?

Among my correspondents (that's y'all, not counting you lurkers out there) there seems to be a correlation between those who want this mess to continue, and those who don't intend to vote for either Clinton or Obama. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

But if you want the bruising to go on because you lean Republican, what's Hillary's excuse?

Seriously, what does she think she's accomplishing? Does she really still think she'll win? I've seen nothing lately -- including the PA result -- to indicate that that's likely. Or has she decided that if her party's not going to pick her, she's gonna make it pay? That makes as much sense as anything at this point.

There's an irony here that's just striking me. Hillary Clinton is demonstrating that she has just the sort of Churchillian "never surrender" attitude that will be necessary for us to have a good outcome in Iraq. And yet she, who voted for the invasion to start with, and has resisted expressing regret for that, has been forced to compete with Obama and other Democrats to see who could be the most convincing about wanting to get out.

As stubborn and determined as John McCain is about Iraq -- no substitute for victory, and all that -- if Hillary Clinton were to adopt his attitude toward our involvement there, no one could ever doubt her sticktoitiveness...

Michael Koska, H77, Republican

10:31 a.m. -- Michael Koska, a professional photographer, is an interesting candidate in a number of ways.

First, he's a white Republican running in the district that has been represented by John Scott since 1990. That's often a sign of someone making a purely symbolic, quixotic gesture. But he's quite serious.

More than that, for someone running for office for the first time, he's unusually well-informed and thoughtful about issues. His knowledge is born of experience.

He got interested in serving his community after hearing about a school teacher dying on a road he travels every day -- Hard Scrabble. He found out that local government didn't plan to fix the road for another 20 years. So he started a campaign to do something about it. He collected 10,000 signatures on a petition, and went to Sen. Joel Lourie and Rep. Bill Cotty for help. He got $400,000 to fix a problem right in front of the school, which he calls a "very small victory," as a true fix for Hard Scrabble will run $70 million. And, as he just discovered, that's just the beginning of local road needs that we haven't figured out how to pay for. (He said he almost ran two years ago after he heard Mr. Scott offer light rail as as answer to our transportation woes -- but he discovered the filing deadline had just passed.) He's for borrowing the money now to fix these problems, as it will only be more expensive later.

He's also, as a small business owner, very interested in the state finding a way to provide affordable health coverage. He's had to pay an exorbitant amount for insurance that doesn't meet his needs -- he was charged $20,000 for his wife to go through a perfectly normal, healthy childbirth. But he doesn't dare try to switch policies because it took him so long to get this one.

And he recognizes the issue as one that goes far beyond his own case. He sees how small businesses in general are held back, which is a millstone around the state's neck economically. He speaks of all the people who are trapped in jobs they can't quit, because they can't do without the insurance.

The video below shows the knowledgeable way in which Mr. Koska speaks of these issues.

On other matters:

• He favors a move to a Cabinet system of state government.
• Unlike me he may not love light rail, but he's all for the state doing what it can (since the federal government has failed so miserably) to move us toward energy independence. "We're financing both sides in the War on Terror." He's for going nuclear (in terms of peaceful use, that is), and promoting electric cars.
• In general, as a Ronald Reagan Republican, "I think taxes should stay as low as they can." But he refused to sign Grover's pledge, bless him.

So you're thinking I've gotta love this guy, right? Well, nobody's perfect. He's for private school vouchers. He thinks it would mean we'd have fewer public schools to build, and help with overcrowding.

Like I said, nobody's perfect. Here's the video (sorry about the wiggly picture -- it's the stripes on his shirt):

David Herndon, S.C. House Dist. 79

9:35 a.m. -- David Herndon turned 40 a few months ago, looked around, and decided it was time to get involved with politics. His business (trucking) was in good shape, and his kids at an age that he could free up the time.

First, he replaced Sherri Few as chair of the Kershaw County GOP. Then, when he heard Bill Cotty would not seek re-election, and Ms. Few was the only Republican contender for the seat (at that time), he filed for that.

He cites two main differences between him and Ms. Few, who as you may recall ran against Mr. Cotty last time:

1. She's the private-school voucher (or tax credit) candidate, and he stands in opposition to that. With three kids in public schools he says he feels like he's got too much investment in them to give up now. He says his opponent's support of private school "choice" isn't overt, but all you have to do is look at where her money comes from. The current holder of the seat, of course, has been a favorite whipping boy of the out-of-state interests that have financed the private school "choice" movement in S.C.
2. He's a businessman, who's made a payroll and knows what it's like to make his way in the real world. By contrast, Ms. Few's main experience is in the nonprofit world, with "most of the money coming out of Washington."

Beyond his opposition to vouchers, however, Mr. Herndon doesn't have much to propose in the area of education, beyond paying teachers better.

He does have other reforms he'd like to see. He's one of those all-too-few candidates who brings up government restructuring before we can ask him about it. He would get rid of the Budget and Control Board, and reduce the number of constitutional officers.

He says that "in general" he's against tax increases -- except for the cigarette tax. He wants to bring more of "a business approach" to government, but his emphasis is less on taxes than on spending. He's an advocate for setting priorities, and an opponent of such pork spending as the Green Bean Museum in Lake City.

He also wants to work to make health care coverage more accessible. He learned the hard way -- through having a child with cancer -- that health insurance "is one of the most important things a family can have."

Looking ahead to the general election, he said he sees himself as having an advantage over Democrat Anton Gunn, in terms of having lived in the district 30 years, and having his roots there.

The 'Fighter with the Hard Left Hook'

Sure, maybe Hillary can do shots with the guys in PA, but she'd better thank her stars she's not up against this guy in the primary.

Charlie Pope, former reporter at The State (and my former teammate on the Cosmic Ha-Has softball team), is now covering Washington for a paper in the Pacific Northwest. He brought my attention to this candidate from his neck of the woods, Steve Novick.

Sure, Obama overcame some hard times as a kid to go to Harvard Law (where they obviously don't teach bowling), but Steve graduated Harvard at the age of 21 after being a high school dropout. He also, aside from being born without a left hand (he calls himself the "Fighter with the Hard Left Hook"), is only 4'9" tall.

But he's a scrapper. And he's with me on Health Care Reform. You gotta like the guy.

And if you want more Steve, here's another one of his ads:

Bad news: Hillary likely to force war of attrition well beyond today

Remember how, in my Sunday column, I cited how undecided Pennsylvania voters were, according to Zogby? Specifically, I cited his figures as of last Thursday, which he said showed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "deadlocked." I wrote my column Thursday night.

On Friday, as I was editing the column and putting it on the Sunday page, I noticed that Mrs. Clinton had gained a little ("Clinton Edges Ahead"). But it was still within the margin of error, and could easily go the other way, so I didn't make too much of it. On Saturday, it was "Clinton Builds Lead by Inches."

Apparently, those were not just fluctuations, assuming Zogby's doing his sums right. The trend continued Sunday and Monday, and as of this morning, he announced that she had was she was looking for -- a 10-point lead.

That means at the very least that she's beyond the margin of error, and probably that she'll get the magic double-digit win today that "conventional wisdom" says she's got to have.

And that means this thing drags on. It's still highly unlikely that she could win, but she can keep drawing blood from Obama as the days and weeks drag on.

If you're a Democrat, this is awful news, because polls already show McCain tied with Obama (and beating Hillary, quite consistently, which continues to make me wonder what people who are voting for her are thinking). And if you're a Republican, you've still got to be tired of this, right?

I know this UnPartisan is.

AP says S.C. House poised to nix lawmakers' pension COLA

The Associated Press is reporting that a majority of the subcommittee in whose lap the legislator-pension increase was dumped are saying they want to kill the measure:

{By JIM DAVENPORT}=
{Associated Press Writer}=
   COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - South Carolina lawmakers are expected to scrap plans to sweeten pension checks for legislators when they meet Tuesday, according to members of the subcommittee debating the increases.
   "This year, we're not doing employees very good in their regular pay. I don't see this as a year to be raising ours," Rep. Herb Kirsh said Monday. Three other lawmakers on the five-member House Ways and Means Panel said they also want the pension boost nixed.
   Two weeks ago, the full House gave initial approval to legislation that would add a 2 percent cost of living adjustment for lawmakers' pensions. The vote came the same day the Senate's budget-writing committee scuttled raises for state workers in its $7 billion spending plan for next year because of slumping tax collections. The seemingly conflicting moves drew a rebuke from Gov. Mark Sanford and, in an unusual move, the pension boost was sent back to the House Ways and Means Committee the following day.
   Kirsh, who is one of 333 current and former legislators already drawing a retirement check from the system, said he estimated the proposed increase would have added about $6 monthly to the nearly $32,000 annually he gets from the system.
   "We've got a pretty good retirement now," said Kirsh, a 78-year-old Democrat from Clover.
   Republican Reps. Jay Lucas, of Hartsville; Chip Limehouse, of Charleston; and Brian White, of Anderson, all said they also opposed the pension boost. Limehouse said he first thought the legislation only offered state employee raises.
   "No matter how woefully underpaid we may be, it's easier just not to have all the controversy," Limehouse said.
   The pension proposal "sends a horrible message in a terrible budget year. I think the retirement the General Assembly gets is fair, to be honest with," Lucas said.
   Kirsh also said Rep. Denny Neilson, the subcommittee's chairwoman, also was backing him. She did not immediately return a message Monday.
   Eliminating the legislative retirement increase still won't address a key concern Sanford raised.
   Sanford said the cost of living adjustment for the rest of the state's retirees ignores serious problems with the retirement system because it is tied to changing assumptions about how much investments will grow in the state's retirement system.
   Sanford two weeks ago said he is "not willing to stake our retirees' benefits and our taxpayers' futures on the hope that this bill's predictions come true, and I'd urge the House not to either."

Here's hoping Dav has it right.

Not everyone at the Journal is clueless about McCain and Sanford

My earlier post reminded me of something -- a couple of weeks back, someone at the Journal was trying to reach me to talk about Sanford and McCain. Elizabeth Holmes and I traded phone messages, but never got in touch. Then I forgot about it.

Remembering that today, I sent Ms. Holmes a link to today's post on the subject. She wrote a quick line back asking whether I had ever read her story, which I had not. I just found it. It ran on Saturday, March 29. I don't know if this link will work for you or not, but essentially the piece drew the sharp contrast between 2000, when Sanford co-chaired McCain's S.C. campaign, and 2008, when he wouldn't give the McCain campaign the time of day:

    Mr. Sanford didn't endorse anyone during the primaries this year, after having co-chaired Sen. McCain's bitter battle in South Carolina during the 2000 race. He brushed off requests for support by the McCain team at least three times, according to people familiar with the matter, including a period last year when the campaign was at a low.
    The snub could cost him his chance at the vice presidency. "Loyalty is a big, big commodity in McCain-land," said a McCain aide familiar with Mr. Sanford's involvement...

As for why there's so much talk out there about Sanford in defiance of all reason... Ms. Holmes is hip to that as well. After the 2000 campaign, Mr. Sanford became governor, and as she notes, "As governor, he began speaking at conservative think tanks -- such as the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute -- and continues to do so."

Add to that the governor's most ardent cheerleaders at the Club for Growth. The Club was pushing Sanford for national office as early as the Republican National Convention in 2004. Here's an excerpt from a piece I wrote at the end of that week in New York:

    Even our own Sen. Lindsey Graham and Gov. Mark Sanford were being mentioned. As I wrote earlier in the week, Sen. Graham spent the convention going between interviews like a bee going from flower to flower.
    For his part, Mr. Sanford calls all the talk "the last thing in the world I'm looking at or thinking about." But that's about all he's got time to say about it because he's too busy participating in things like a "Four for the Future" panel over at the Club for Growth.
    On Wednesday, he invites the delegation to a soiree at a friend's home on the Upper East Side. He urges them to come see "how a real New Yorker lives. They live in small boxes." His host's home may be a little narrow, but if that's a box, it's from Tiffany's -- and it's gift-wrapped.
    At the reception itself, when the governor silences the assembled gathering to thank Howard Bellin for the use of his home, the host says, "I fully expect to be his guest at the White House in another four years."

One nice thing about the Club, though -- maybe nobody else reads my blog, but they certainly do. This appeared on the S.C. chapter's Web site roughly an hour (either 47 minutes or an hour and 47 minutes, depending on how their site treats time zones) after my last post went up.

So, let me close with a big shout-out to my pals at the Club, which believe it or not actually has a blog devoted to pushing Sanford as Veep.

McConnell spends 30 grand on big ol' gun

A colleague calls this story in the Charleston paper to my attention. Golly, maybe Mark Sanford's right; maybe our legislative leaders exercise no spending restraint whatsoever -- with their own money, that is...

    Some middle-aged men blow big bucks on a sports car, a bass boat or a nice set of golf clubs, but the man who some consider the most powerful in South Carolina government had something else in mind.
    Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell recently spent almost $30,000 on a reproduction of a bronze cannon, complete with a Palmetto engraving.
    "Anybody will tell you a bronze gun has just got a different sound to it," he said. "I knew this gun would make noise, and it does. It is a loud, talking gun. ... It really splits the air."...

If you can stand to read more, here's the link.

'Sanford as veep' AGAIN? Geez, would you people give it a rest?

Back when I did the editorial stating fairly succinctly why naming Mark Sanford as running mate would be stupid for John McCain, and disastrous for the country, I got a call from a reader who said I was manufacturing the whole thing, that nobody mentioned it but us, and if I'd just shut up, it would go away.

I wish.

Unfortunately, even though most Republicans see no reason for McCain to choose Sanford, and those Republicans who actually know both men (that would be S.C. Republicans) mostly think such a move would be insane, there is one subfaction in the GOP coalition that continues to push him, against all reason and all odds. That is the economic-libertarian faction represented by the Club for Growth and The Wall Street Journal, among a few others.

The Journal's latest effort along these lines was to devote the big "Weekend Interview" to Mr. Sanford on Saturday, and to promote it from the front page, complete with a front-page, full-color caricature of our gov. It's fascinating the way the Journal -- truly one of the best papers in the country -- continues to sully its reputation by taking Mr. Sanford more seriously than does any paper in South Carolina, with the possible exception of the Post and Courier.

The Journal apparently justifies continuing to float this idea on a basis that simply isn't true, that Mr. Sanford "is on nearly every Republican strategist's shortlist for vice president this year." To back that up, the piece names three people: "Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove and Sen. Lindsey Graham (a stalwart John McCain backer) have all floated Mr. Sanford's name for veep."

Sen. Graham is on that list because of the three, he's the only one that anyone might believe has Sen. McCain's ear. Well, I've shown you what Sen. Graham has to say about his old friend Mark's status as a veep candidate or as a party leader of any kind; you may want to watch the video again.

So I don't know where that's coming from.

Anyway, the "hour-long interview" with the governor is said to have taken place at the State House; one must sincerely doubt that the interviewer bothered to ask anyone else about the governor on the way in or out of the building. That would have been damaging to the Journal's premise that the governor would be an asset to a national ticket. Of course, if you buy into the premise that Mr. Sanford is involved in a lonely, "prolonged fight against the political status quo in South Carolina," then you wouldn't want to talk to any of those people, anyway.

But six years after he was elected, one has to be rather gullible to buy into that myth. The truth is that the State House is dominated by conservative Republicans who are much, much more representative of the national party and rank-and-file Republican voters (much less the independents that McCain must continue to appeal to) than Mr. Sanford ever has been or ever will be.

Yes, you can believe the myth if you don't actually know him, and if you read the quote that starts the piece:

"Our system was put in place in large part based on the fear that a black man would be elected governor. So traditional functions of the executive branch were diffused . . . to mean that if a black man was elected governor, it wouldn't matter anyway because he wouldn't have any responsibility . . . That is an insane operating model."

And if you like that, you can read the much more extended version, written by me in 1991 as part of our "Power Failure" series (you'll also learn that keeping the governor weak was not an innovation of the 1895 constitution, but the continuation of a 300-year South Carolina tradition). The governor read our reprint of that series back in 2002, and based much of his electoral platform on that. That's why we endorsed the guy. But ever since he was elected, he's put far more effort into his more marginal, anti-government libertarian proposals than he has into anything that would reform our system.

Several statements in this piece need to be addressed individually, to set the record straight (to the extent I can do such a thing, my pulpit being decidedly less bully than the Journal's):

• After noting the rather obvious fact that no South Carolinian could help the GOP ticket, the author protests, "But Mr. Sanford is popular on the right because he understands markets." No. The truth is that he is popular among economic libertarians because he agrees with them, right down the line, perfectly. Such people are not the same as "the right," although they overlap with that set. And no one can be said to understand markets when he believes that distributing vouchers to people in a thinly populated, poor community that can't attract a grocery store would lead to the spontaneous generation of an excellent private school.
• "Mr. Sanford's main governing problem is the state's constitution." As someone who has been pushing for 17 years for the same restructuring reforms that Mr. Sanford says he's for, I wish that were true. But Mr. Sanford's main governing problem is that he can't get along with other Republican leaders -- and that doesn't augur well for one who would lead his party nationally.
• "...the state has leaned left on spending..." Oh, Good Lord have mercy. That's so idiotic, so utterly marinated, rolled and deep-fried in fantasy, that it's astounding a bolt of lightning didn't strike the Journal's presses as they pushed that one out.
• "Over the past six years, he has helped shepherd through three big tax reforms: the state's first cut to its income tax; a grand tax swap that slashed property taxes and increased sales taxes; and the virtual elimination of grocery taxes. That last one is not the tax cut Mr. Sanford wanted to spur investment. But he took what he could get..." Our "left-leaning" Legislature loves nothing more than to cut taxes. A session seldom passes without a tax cut; and the only suspense is what kind of cut will tickle lawmakers' fancy that particular year. The governor can pretend that the Legislature keeps doing what comes naturally as some sort of response to him, but it's just not true. (The closest it comes to truth is that some lawmakers pointed to the income tax cut as being kinda, sorta like a cut the governor wanted, and they used that as an excuse to say they don't always ignore him. But even in that case, the cut what they wanted to cut, as they always do. But that's the only instance in which it made sense for him to say he "took what he could get.")

Aw, geez, I can't spend any more time on this, but if you're able to call up the piece, you'll find more absurd assertions than you can shake a stick at. Obviously, the only person this writer -- the Journal's assistant features editor, if you can wrap your head around that -- spoke to in South Carolina (or, perhaps, anywhere) for this piece was Mark Sanford.

And no matter what sort of goals it may have of bending the world to its ideological will, the Journal did its readers a disservice by publishing it.

Canadian snipers in Afghanistan?

Don't know whether this is legit or not, but it is interesting. A friend sent me (without comment) the above video, along with the forwarded text below:

Before you click on the attachment, scroll down on this series of e-mails to read the narrative about what is going on in he attachment.  It is incredible.                                    

Scroll down and read the narrative before you watch the video…

Canadian Snipers in Afghanistan

This footage is pretty graphic and is the antithesis of the "Global
Hawk"; one on one, enemy in sight, one at a time, etc. I guess the
"technology" is in the weapon and the ammo and the "wonder" is in the
personnel who use it.

They never saw, or heard it coming.

Canadian Sniper wiping out Taliban Snipers. In Afghanistan . These
video shots are not made through the shooter's telescopic sight... they
are made looking through the spotter's scope. The spotter lies right
next to the sniper and helps the sniper to find and home in on thetarget.

The sniper is using a 50 caliber rifle. A 50 cal. round is about 7-8
inches long and the casing is about an inch in diameter. The bullet
itself is one-half inch in diameter and roughly one and one-half inches long..

Pay close attention to the beginning of the video. A Taliban is laying
on top of the peak in front of you... when you hear the shot fired....
watch what happens. The sniper is also about a half mile away... or
more. A Canadian sniper in Afghanistan has been confirmed as hitting an
enemy soldier at a range of 2,310 meters, the longest recorded and
confirmed sniper shot in history. The previous record of 2,250 meters
was set by US Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam in 1967. The
Canadian sniper was at an altitude of 8,500 feet and the target, across
a valley, was at 9,000 feet. Canadian sniper units often operated in
support of US infantry units, which were grateful for their help.

The record lasted only one day, until a second Canadian sniper hit an
enemy soldier at 2,400 meters (8000 feet).

The Canadian snipers fire special.50-calibre McMillan tactical rifles,
which are bolt-action weapons with five-round magazines. The Canadian
snipers were the only Canadian troops operating without helmets or flak
jackets as they had too much other equipment to carry. Each three-man
team has one sniper rifle, three standard rifles (Canadian C7s), one of
them with a 203mm grenade launcher.

When you watch what appears to be debris see if it isn’t a body flying after being hit.

There's no original source cited, so I don't know that clip's provenance. Nor do I know whether my friend who sent it thought it was horrible, or cool, or what.

But I did have some questions watching it, such as:

• I knew that a .50-cal. sniper round packed a lot of energy, but can it really throw a human body that far?
• If this is really through a spotter's scope, why are the bodies or debris or whatever being thrown sharply to the left? Wouldn't the spotter be close to the shooter? The sound of the shot (assuming that's not dubbed) occurs far before the impact is seen, which suggests the shooter is right next to the camera. The movement of the target after impact makes it look like the shooter is far off to the right, maybe at the third angle of an equilateral triangle, which would mean we'd hear the sound AFTER seeing the impact.

And now you might have a question for ME, which is, if I have so many questions, why pass it on? Why, because it's interesting, and intriguing. Also, who knows -- y'all might have some answers to my questions.

FYI, here's another clip that purports to be about Canadian snipers:

Strange moments in cinema

This being Sunday, I'm not going to go to all the trouble of compiling a full Top Five List on this subject. But if I did, I think this one would make the list.

Have you seen the recent Will Smith vehicle, "I Am Legend?" I did, and I suppose it was OK. But having seen it, I recalled that I had not seen the 1971 flick of which it was a remake -- "The Omega Man," which in turn was a remake of Vincent Price's "The Last Man on Earth," which was based on the 1954 Richard Matheson sci-fi novel, I Am Legend.

So in honor of the recently departed Charlton Heston, I ordered "The Omega Man," and watched it last night. It was OK, although it's cheesy production values were approximately those of the average made-for-TV movie of the period. Overall, the Will Smith version was better, although more maudlin.

But in one respect, "Omega" beat the more recent version all hollow. In term of evoking sheer weirdness, Will Smith watching "Shrek" and maniacally reciting all the line along with the DVD doesn't accomplish much. To get that full, apocalyptic, world-has-already-come-to-an-end feeling, you have to see the scene in which Charlton Heston goes into a movie theater, cranks up the projector and watches "Woodstock," and recites the dialogue from that. You know at that point that everything that can happen in this world has happened, and then some.

You just haven't seen "out of character" until you've seen the man who was both Moses and head of the NRA channeling  a blissed-out flower child asking, "If we can't all live together and be happy... if you have to be afraid to smile at somebody... what kind of a way is that to go through this life?"

It's a grabber in the same league as the last scene of "Planet of the Apes." It will leave you muttering, "Charlton, we hardly knew ye."

And if you don't believe me, here's the video. You can skip the rest of the flick; this is the good part.

Next, I'm going to order "Touch of Evil."

Waiting for Pennsylvania to buckle down and decide

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
LATE ONE Monday morning several weeks ago in a small-town diner in central Pennsylvania, I looked up from my paper to see that I was the last customer at the counter. Just the one waitress, the coffee pot and me.
    Filling the silence, I asked for a refill. Then I asked for her thoughts on the upcoming titanic battle in which she and her fellow Pennsylvanians would get to choose the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.
    She didn’t have any. Yeah, she knew there was something like that going on, and that some people were really excited, but she had made no effort to follow it. She wasn’t dismissive, and she was willing to hear me talk about it, but to her it was neither here nor there. Some customers want coffee. Others don’t. Some want to talk politics. Whatever.
    This was disconcerting. I looked around the way you do when you’re thinking, somebody back me up here. But it was just her and me. And there was something about the moment — she was so matter-of-fact — that made me feel like I was the one who had to explain himself.
    So I did, at some length. I even confessed that I actually made my living caring about elections and such, thinking and talking and writing about them, which as I said it sounded ludicrous. She just nodded. Some collect stamps; others watch birds. This guy’s into politics. Whatever.
    She even encouraged me, in a noncommittal way. She asked who was still in it. I explained that John McCain had sewn up the Republican nomination, and that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were locked in a tight battle on the Democratic side — one primary going to her, the next to him, back and forth, the suspense building. I told her how folks had come out in huge numbers in South Carolina to support Obama.
    So who will win? she asked, and I said the smart money at that point was on Obama, with more and more Democrats deciding they couldn’t support Hillary.
    She asked: “Why? Because she’s a woman?â€?
    The question wasn’t a challenge; there was no feminist defiance in it. She was just asking, the way you might ask, “Do you think it’s going to rain?â€?
    Certainly not, I told her, and tried to explain about the Obama Appeal, about Hope and Change (capitalizing the key words with my voice), and how Sen. Clinton tended to appeal to folks who actually relished the partisan fight between left and right, and that many Democrats, and independents who had voted in Democratic primaries where (unlike Pennsylvania) that was allowed, were tired of the Bad Old Politics, so Obama was really catching on.
    There were, however, certain demographic tendencies to be noted, I said. For instance, quite a few white women over the age of 30 (realizing that I had just described the woman in front of me, I started talking faster to put that part behind us) did seem to support her because she was a woman, but the men and minorities and young people and women who favored Obama were, if they were turned off by Clinton, reacting more to the sort of campaign she had run....
    She nodded, and when I paused to take a breath, told me that the woman who owned the diner, and another waitress who wasn’t on duty that morning, were both Hillary supporters. Apparently, I had described them pretty well. Deciding I should quit while I was ahead, I paid my check, making sure to tip at least 20 percent, and headed back out into the cold March wind.
    And I thought about that woman, and how very normal she had been. She was no silly, apathetic fool, the sort that the passionately committed declare that Democracy Is Wasted Upon. She was intelligent — at least average, if not more than. She was sensible, and perfectly willing to care about things that should be cared about. She was earning a living; she was doing what needed to be done, and not wasting energy on anything that didn’t.
    Since that day, she has come to represent The Pennsylvania Voter in my mind. Down here in South Carolina we knocked ourselves out trying to make a difference, and we did — giving Sen. McCain the payback he had waited eight years for, giving Sen. Obama a big push forward.
    But it’s not over yet on the Democratic side, and it’s within the power of Pennsylvanians to make the final decision, and after the mad pace of having a high-stakes primary about every five minutes from the first of January through early March, nothing has happened for weeks and weeks while we all wait for Pennsylvania to do something, and the latest polls say it’s still a dead heat. Zogby reported Thursday that 45 percent were still for Clinton, 44 percent for Obama, 9 percent undecided, and 3 percent wanted someone else.
    Tied? Undecided? Someone else? They still haven’t decided up there! It’s like they haven’t been paying attention.
    The candidates haven’t helped much, what with Sen. Clinton making up Bosnia war stories (there I was, pinned down...) and Sen. Obama going all cold and detached (religion is the opium of the people...), to the point that you can see how a sensible person might be turned off.
    But I find I want to drive back up there before Tuesday, and go back into that diner, and convince that sensible woman that these are solid candidates, that one of them is likely to become president, that the rest of us took them seriously, so won’t you please just bear with us long enough to go out and vote, and settle this thing for the sake of the country?
    And then, once you do, we can all take a load off, order another cup of coffee, and think about something else until Labor Day.

Dayhawks

Today's column may seem a little weird, even by my standards. But it could have been weirder. I did, after all, resist the temptation to make this my second paragraph:

It was just like Edward Hopper's "Nighthawks." Except that it was in the daytime, and there was just one customer instead of three, and it was in a small town rather than an urban setting, and the counterman was a woman. Other than those things, it was just like "Nighthawks."

...not to be confused, of course, with the Gottfried Helnwein version.

Robert's rough day

Robert Ariail, despite appearances to the contrary, is actually a shy guy, who has trouble shrugging off criticism.

You'd think, being a satirist, that he'd have a tougher hide, but he really takes it to heart when people tear into his work.

But what really gets him, what really eat him up, is when the criticism is based in something he didn't intend at all. Such is the case with the minor uproar over his Thursday cartoon. As he wrote on his new Web page:

Given the number of comments on this cartoon I thought it would be constructive to offer my own. My intent was not to imply that Obama is a muslim terrorist- though now that it’s been pointed out to me, I can see how some would reach that conclusion. Basically, I was playing on the name [sounds like bomb] and the possibility that his words could blow up his campaign. A number of comments implied I have it in for Sen. Obama and favor Sen. Clinton, yet my first take on this was to point out the irony of Clinton calling Obama an elitist- see previous day’s cartoon.

I told him that the kind of people who assume he's the kind of person who would make Obama out to be a terrorist will never believe the truth -- that he simply never thought of it, that the gag really was so simple as to be playing on the fact that he was committing political suicide, and "Obama" sounds like "bomber" -- hence, "Suicide Obama." But he should state the truth anyway.

The awful thing is that once you think, "Oh, this is another of those Barack Hussein Obama things," it's hard to see anything else in it. But before publication, Robert didn't see it. Neither did I. The only discussion we had about it was when I questioned him as to whether the word balloon where he's saying, "Uh, let me rephrase that..." added anything to the gag. Robert thought he needed to be saying something, and that having him say that emphasized that Obama didn't really mean to sound all elitist and dismissive, and had been trying to correct that impression by explaining himself.

And now Robert's having to explain himself. Ironic, huh? Of course, the Web being the way it is, nobody's listening to him.

'Hillary-style attacks'

We at the UnParty continue to be fascinated at the ways in which party-line thinking warps perception...

You may have noticed that Democrats talk ominously and often about the coming "Republican attacks." There is much mumbling about "Swiftboating" and "Karl Rove," and other things that to bear no rational relationship to the fact that the Democratic nominee will be facing John McCain in the fall.

As is often the case with ideological mythology, almost anything is justified in the cause of warding off these dread calamities that lie ahead. Hillary Clinton uses the belief that such atrocities are on the way as an excuse to pound Barack Obama with various bludgeons that the wicked GOPpers will certainly hit him with sooner or later. The message here is that those monsters on the right have already thrown everything they have at HER ("having now gone through 16 years of being on the receiving end of what the Republican Party dishes out"), thereby giving her immunity or something. (I think you have to believe in the mythology to follow the reasoning.)

In the black-and-white world that gives rise to such thinking, there is no difference between Karl Rove and John McCain. Anyone who consents to be called a Republican is equally evil, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln. That McCain, who has been a victim of such excesses as the Democrats fear, might be different does not enter into the equation.

Will groups on the Right do unconscionable things against the Democratic nominee in the Fall? You betcha, just as MoveOn.org and its ilk will do to the Republican -- a fact that purveyors of the Coming Debacle seem to overlook. What each side will do in the name of ideology will be reprehensible, as always -- that's why I'm an UnParty man. Sadly, I don't expect much from Democrats and Republicans.

But sometimes, it just gets beyond ridiculous, such as when Joe Klein refers to "the Republican-style attacks that Hillary Clinton has been previewing..."

No, Joe. This is not a preview; this is real life, happening in real time. And it's Hillary doing it. These are, quite obviously and demonstrably, "Hillary-style" attacks. Or perhaps we should say, "Stephanopoulos-style attacks." Here's a sample, from Wednesday night's debate:

And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died. So it is -- you know, I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about. And I have no doubt -- I know Senator Obama's a good man and I respect him greatly but I think that this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising.

And it goes to this larger set of concerns about, you know, how we are going to run against John McCain. You know, I wish the Republicans would apologize for the disaster of the Bush-Cheney years and not run anybody, just say that it's time for the Democrats to go back into the White House. (Laughter, applause.)

Unfortunately, they don't seem to be willing to do that. So we know that they're going to be out there, full force. And you know, I've been in this arena for a long time. I have a lot of baggage, and everybody has rummaged through it for years. (Laughter.) And so therefore, I have, you know, an opportunity to come to this campaign with a very strong conviction and feeling that I will be able to withstand whatever the Republican sends our way.

Not the SHE would say such things about Obama, he being such a good man, but you just can't trust those damned Republicans. Folks, how simple do you have to be to miss the fact that SHE JUST SAID THESE THINGS?

What's really pathetic is that they've got Obama buying into this line, and I would expect him to know better. Klein quotes Obama as saying, "That [debate] was the rollout of the Republican campaign against me in November..."

No, it was the real thing, happening in April, and it was Democrats doing it. Can't you see that? Folks, this is why I trash parties all the time -- they turn our brains to oatmeal.

You want to see a "Republican-style attack?" OK, here's a real-life one that came in today:

Wednesday's Democratic debate provided insight into Barack Obama's positions on key foreign policy issues. As president he says he would immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq- even if he were strongly advised against this by our nation's top military commanders. He would also hold direct talks with the Iranian regime- a regime that does not recognize Israel and is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Iran's president has even called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." 

During the debate, Barack Obama once again refused to condemn former President Jimmy Carter- who publicly supports Obama- for holding talks with the Hamas terrorist group, a group supported financially, politically and military by Iran.

Barack Obama's foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders. Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America."

We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq and will hold unconditional talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

John McCain's foreign policy provides a stark contrast to the policies of Barack Obama. As president, John McCain will provide the leadership we need to win the war against Islamic extremists. We need your help today to reach out to Americans across the country to spread the message of John McCain's plan for your national security. Please follow this link to make a financial contribution to our campaign today.

Yep, it's another one of those McCain fund-raising e-mails I've been complaining about lately. It's pretty critical, all right, but you'll note that it's built around policy differences. Nothing about bitter xenophobia in Middle America, or Bill Ayres, or Jeremiah Wright. And you know, McCain had to go out of his way to find something in that debate to comment on other than those things, since most of the debate centered on them.

That doesn't mean McCain won't point to the fact that he doesn't see average Americans as bitter; in fact I think he already has. But now, he declines an obvious chance to join Hillary in piling on.

I just thought maybe somebody should point that out.

This time, 'The Nation' has a point

Having received a release about "a broad coalition of journalists" that had chosen to "speak out against ABC News in response to Wednesday night's 'gotcha' debate," I thought, Good. Stephanopoulos et al. were out of line with their obsessive pounding on Obama.

Then, I clicked on the link, and saw that this was something on The Nation's Web site, and that few of the undersigned writers were what you'd call MSM types. Yes, there was somebody from The Baltimore Sun, and Washington Monthly is reasonably close to the center, but mostly it was people from The  Nation, and Mother Jones and the like -- not the sorts of titles that bring "detached observer" to mind.

Which was a shame, I thought -- a real missed opportunity for mainstream professionals to decry something that was out of line. Sure, this was The Nation, but for the most part there was nothing left-fringe about the message. An excerpt:

For 53 minutes, we heard no question about public policy from either moderator. ABC seemed less interested in provoking serious discussion than in trying to generate cheap shot sound-bites for later rebroadcast. The questions asked by Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gibson were a disgrace, and the subsequent attempts to justify them by claiming that they reflect citizens' interest are an insult to the intelligence of those citizens and ABC's viewers. Many thousands of those viewers have already written to ABC to express their outrage.

OK, so maybe it was a little overwrought. And the next paragraph was obviously arguing on ideological grounds, suggesting there was something out of line about saying capital gains tax cuts could stimulate the economy.

But there was a sensible, mainstream point here. The debate I heard sounded like something that Stephanopoulos and the Clinton campaign could have cooked up and rehearsed in advance, as an ambush on Obama. Perhaps it fell short of a "disgrace," but it was most unseemly, because it was so one-sided.

Obama's remarks about "bitter" Middle Americans were a legitimate point of discussion. But when that was followed by Jeremiah Wright and the Weather Underground, I started thinking that I didn't need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blew.

So yeah, in this case, The Nation has a point.

McCain stoops to pander on gas prices

Now this is twice this week John McCain has ticked me off with one of his fund-raising e-mails:

My Friends,

This week, I laid out an economic plan aimed at providing immediate and long-term relief for all American families. One of the key components of this plan is a suspension of the federal gas tax on gasoline from Memorial Day to Labor Day of this year.

The effect of this "gas tax holiday" will be an immediate economic stimulus - taking a few dollars off the price of a tank of gas every time you fill up. And because the cost of gas affects the price of food, packaging and just about everything else, this immediate step will spread economic relief to every family in America.

My friends, this election will be shaped by the big issues we face as a nation, not the small ones. To effectively communicate our solutions to these issues, I will need a united base of support and financial resources to communicate my message to the American people. That's why I ask you to join my campaign by making a financial contribution by following this link right away.

Sure, any politician can pander over gasoline prices, and many do. What gets me is when a candidate who should know better does it.

So it was that I was highly offended when Al "Earth in the Balance" Gore asked Bill Clinton to open the tap on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve right before the 2000 election. Al knew better.

So should Sen. McCain, who's been working for years with his buddy Joe Lieberman to do something about global warming.

For elaboration on my point, I refer you to the Energy Party platform. The main problem with $4-a-gallon gas -- aside from the overall inflationary pressure it exerts -- is that too much of it goes to petrodictators. If more of it were in the form of tax, as smart folks from Tom Friedman to Charles Krauthammer to Jim Hoagland to Robert Samuelson have been saying for years, it might actually do the country some good. It would drive down demand, thereby driving down the price that the exporters can demand, undermine the bad guys from Iran to Sudan, and we could use the dough for research on hydrogen and other alternatives...

A black, Jewish Texan walks into a police station...

... and ends up cleaning up the whole town.

A reader sent me a link to this article that reminds us of the accomplishments of Reuben Greenberg, who had such a distinguished career as police chief in Charleston. As we mull over just how big a mess the Columbia police department is in these days, and view the latest Highway Patrol video, we might long for such a top cop:

Reuben Greenberg was undoubtedly the ultimate "man bites dog" story, for what could be more unlikely than a black, observant Jew from Texas transforming a city in the heart of the Confederacy from a crime-ridden center of corruption to a uniquely well-managed place that cracked down on crime at the same time it virtually eliminated police brutality -- and even rudeness? Greenberg told his cops that their job was not to punish (that was up to the courts), but to make arrests, and in order to do that they had to be on good terms with the citizens. Thus, he said early on in his memorable tenure, he would defend a policeman for using "excessive force" to make an arrest, but he would fire anyone who used abusive language with a citizen.

Phone message of the day: Analysis of an Ariail cartoon

OK, technically this message came in late yesterday, but I didn't hear it until this morning, so it qualifies as my Call of the Day.

If you click on the link here, you will hear the anonymous caller providing unique commentary on the Ariail cartoon below. Enjoy. And for more Ariail cartoons, go to his new Web site.

Forget Real ID; Big Brother's going private

While Gov. Mark Sanford and other opponents of Big Gummint are busily fighting that hyper-scary Threat to All We Hold Sacred, the Real ID program, Big Brother's turning to the private sector to get the dirty deed done.

The Financial Times reports that, under a program (that's "programme" to you Brits) run by Homeland Security, air travelers are voluntarily turning their most intimate identifying info over to private contractors:

    Until recently the only thing apart from love that money could not buy was a guaranteed place at the front of an airport security queue. That is changing, as an additional 500 US air passengers a day agree to hand over a $100 (£50) annual fee, plus their fingerprints and iris scans, for the right to become “registered travellersâ€? in private programmes supervised by the Department of Homeland Security.

    Once the authorities have run an applicant’s background checks to ensure he or she is not a threat to airline security, the successful RT receives a credit card-style pass containing biometric information and the privilege of joining specially designated fast lanes at a growing number of US airports. The market leader, Verified Identity Pass (VIP), has received about 100,000 applications, of which 75,000 have been approved.

I suppose the reader reaction to this news will serve as a sort of litmus test: Libertarians will say, "See? Told you the private sector can get the job done better than gummint!"

Others among us would far rather give up such information only to Uncle Sam, who is constrained by laws written by the representives we elect, than to someone with a profit motive, who might choose to do whatever he pleases with it. Different strokes.

First we outsource warfighting. Now this.

Just two shopping days left until Husband Appreciation Day

Get ready, ladies; the big day is coming up Saturday!

I was reminded of the advent of Husband Appreciation Day -- actually, informed of it for the first time ever -- by this promotional e-mail from a Fort Mill photographer named Stephen Hollis (and Stephen, if you don't want me sharing the photo at right, I'll take it down, but I figured you wanted folks to see it).

This is a real holiday, ladies! At least, I can find numerous references to it on the Web, as being the third Saturday (of course; what other day could it be?) in April. I've been unable to find out the origin of it so far, though. (Apparently, it dates back at least to 2003.)

The picture offers some lovely gift ideas for you ladies to consider, but don't be limited by it. There are plenty of other possibilities (many of which are way better than a lousy blog post about us). Surprise us.

OK, so I jumped to a conclusion

After years of Democratic and Republican seats being made safer and safer for their respective parties by way of increasingly sophisticated partisan (and incumbent-protective) gerrymandering, one forgets sometimes that members of underdog parties DO occasionally take a run at a seat in the opposing column -- particularly when the seat is open.

So it is that, without thinking about it, I made a mistake when I said that Joe McEachern would be the third candidate we'll talk to who is seeking to fill the seat John Scott is vacating. As a colleague corrected me:

Mr. Byrd is indeed the second candidate we've had in for H.77. But Joe McEachern is not the THIRD candidate we will meet with. He is the third DEMOCRAT we will meet with. The THIRD candidate for this seat whom we'll see is Michael Koska -- one of the two or three Republicans in the race. (I say two or three because there's one candidate whose district is listed as 77 on one GOP document and 79 on another -- and I haven't gotten a call back from him yet).

----------------------------------
Cindi Ross Scoppe

So now you know.

Now that I think about it, Republicans have taken a run at that seat before -- just unsuccessfully.

By the way, I was going to tell you HOW unsuccessfully (I was curious to see if the numbers indicated any sort of opening that would make a Republican candidacy anything other than purely quixotic), but the state election commission Web site isn't providing that information today -- which is inexcusable.

A working class hero is something to be, and golly I sure wish I could sound like one right about now...

Watching the Democratic debate in PA just now, I was really feeling for poor Barack Obama. They were, of course, asking him about the "religion and guns" thing, and he was trying to act like he welcomed the chance to explain what he meant to say, when obviously he welcomed it about as much as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. And who can blame him?

Meanwhile, Hillary was trying not to jump up and down and hug herself with ersatz proletarian glee. Of course, when her turn came, she starts in with, "Well, I am the granddaughter of a factory worker from Scranton..."

This is totally unfair -- who'd a thunk Mrs. Clinton would be anybody's working class heroine? -- but Mr. Obama did create the situation all by his lonesome.

Maybe he should make himself a note: In future, when running in a tight race in Pennsylvania, stay out of San Francisco...

Good for Nikki

Still catching up on the e-mail, and just now saw this one from yesterday:

For Immediate Release
Contact: State Rep. Nikki Haley

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

REPRESENTATIVE NIKKI HALEY INTRODUCES THE 2008 SPENDING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

COLUMBIA, S.C. – State Representative Nikki Haley today announced that she has introduced legislation that requires a roll call vote on any legislation that expends taxpayer dollars. Currently, the Legislature can appropriate funds with a simple voice vote.

“Taxpayers deserve the right to see the spending habits of their legislators,� said Haley. “Over the past three years alone, state government spending has grown by over 40%. I believe the 2008 Spending Accountability Act will encourage legislators, myself included, to take a long, hard look before committing to spending taxpayer dollars.�

Haley said roll call votes on taxpayer spending remove any confusion on where individual legislators stand.

“We should never have another incident like we did last week where something as important as cost of living adjustments for retirees and legislators is not clearly on the record. Voters have the fundamental right to know how their legislators are spending their hard-earned money, and when they do, we can expect to see wasteful spending take a dramatic downturn,� said Haley.

        ###

Good for you, Nikki.

Folks, paying your taxes isn't some kind of big, freaking deal. It just isn't

Trying before leaving tonight to get through all the pooge that came into my e-mail account over the last couple of days, and am struck by the releases from various ideologues, from libertarians to our current GOP Chairman, Katon Dawson, going on and on what they call "Tax Day," which normal people with a healthy sense of perspective call "April 15."

Let me tell you something, folks: First, paying your taxes is no big, freaking deal. It's a thing that grownups do without thinking much about it, understanding that it's just something you do because you live in a place that has more public, civilizing amenities than, say, Somalia.

Second, I don't know about you, but most of us pay our taxes through payroll deduction. And I've never had any trouble getting the bean-counters to take out a little more from my paycheck than necessary each payday, and so my tax return gets filed in January, and by this time of year, I get a nice little check back. It's kind of nice.

In other words, it's called a clue; look into it.

Dan Ross, father of S.C. GOP presidential primary, dies

Earlier in the day, I had received notice from a Republican source telling me that Dan Ross had died. Unfortunately, he was state GOP chairman -- apparently, the very prototype of a GOP chairman -- before I came back to S.C. to work, so I didn't fully realize the role he had played in Palmetto State politics.

A release from Henry McMaster set me straight:

STATEMENT BY SC ATTORNEY GENERAL HENRY MCMASTER ON PASSING OF FORMER SCGOP CHAIRMAN DAN ROSS

COLUMBIA, SC - South Carolina’s preeminent place in presidential politics was guaranteed by Dan Ross, whose leadership and vision resulted in the first GOP presidential primary in state history (1980).  He is the undisputed father of the “First in the Southâ€? South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary.
    Over the past fifty years, Dan worked tirelessly to build a two party system of state government, seeking nothing but good government in return. 
    Determined visionaries like Dan come along rarely and we will miss him.

            ###

When you think back on how our state was in the spotlight back in January, that's quite a legacy...

'I know you are but what am I?'

Being the sophisticated sort that I am, I had remained aloof from the "excitement" of having yet another motion picture being shot here in our fair city -- although I admit that perhaps even my pulse would speed up a bit if I were to run into that Jessica Biel person, assuming of course that I were half my current age (ahem). I believe I did see her in something once, and as I recall she was rather symmetrical and pneumatic and so forth.

But that hasn't happened. However, brother blogger Adam Fogle has experienced the next best thing (if you're willing to reach far afield) -- he bumped into 'Pee-Wee Herman' himself.

He wrote about the experience here. From his account, he's still holding out hope of encountering Ms. Biel, so the lad still has his priorities straight.

Presidential resonance: One of my pet peeves

Today, I received this release from the Obama campaign:

Obama Statement on the Anniversary of the Virginia Tech Tragedy

CHICAGO, IL - Today Senator Obama issued the following statement on the anniversary of the tragedy at Virginia Tech. 

"One year after the tragedy at Virginia Tech, families are still mourning, and our nation is still healing. As Americans gather today in vigils and 'lie-ins' – or pray silently alone – our thoughts are with those whose lives were forever changed by the shootings. But one year later, it’s also time to reflect on how violence – whether on campuses like Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University or on the streets of Chicago and cities across this nation – can be prevented. Clearly, our state and federal governments have to strengthen some laws and do a better job enforcing others. But we all have a responsibility to do what we can in our own lives and communities to end this kind of senseless violence. That is still our task one year later, and it will be our ongoing task in the years to come."

                ###

This statement brings to mind two objections. The first is, what is this national fascination with anniversaries? Just because something was news a year ago does not make it news now. It's not happening now. It was happening then. Aside from the entirely artificial connection of occurring on the same date on this artificial thing we call a calendar, today and that day have nothing to do with each other.

But that's just a minor peeve. Here's the major one: Why do we expect presidents to make statements about things that have nothing to do with the job of being president -- even to the extent that people applying for the job think that they have to make such statements?

This peeve is a very old peeve for me. Or maybe not all that old. I think it reached its peak during the Clinton years. Bill Clinton was really, really into resonating to the news, the more emotional the news the better.

Mind you, I'm not blaming Mr. Clinton himself for this. He just happened to be very good at it, and to come along at the moment in history when 24/7 TV "news" was coming into its own. Remember that the 1991 Gulf War was the first CNN war (as I recall, Saddam Hussein was a big fan of the network). That's when Wolf Blitzer became a household name. The next year, Mr. Clinton was elected, and the man matched the moment.

By the end of the decade, the assumption that the president would resonate with news that had nothing to do with him had become so assumed that by the start of the next decade, serious political observers upbraided Mr. Clinton's successor for failing to play along. That brings me to an interesting historical artifact -- a column I wrote in April 2001, at the very start of the current Bush administration.

It may for that reason seem anachronistic -- particularly where I speculate that Mr. Bush is "too isolationist for my taste." This was, of course, before 9/11, and before the Iraq invasion -- although I would submit that perhaps one reason Mr. Bush botched the Iraq intervention in so many ways is that he remains at heart an isolationist rather than an interventionist. (In other words, if he actually believed in nation-building, perhaps he'd be better at it.) But that's not my point here today.

My point is that this piece reminds me of one thing I did like about Mr. Bush (sometimes it can be hard to remember such things): The fact that he doesn't do the presidential resonance thing. Of course, this may be due to something in his character that is exactly what so many others hate about him -- and remember (in spite of current political commentary militating against your remembering it), Bush-haters hated him way before Iraq.

Anyway, here's the column:

 

The State

April 25, 2001, Wednesday

The president should do his own job, not everybody else's

BYLINE: By Brad Warthen

SECTION: COMMENTARY

LENGTH: 1133 words

Exactly two years ago as I write this, I found myself a captive audience for CNN's breaking coverage of the shootings at Columbine High School. I was on the stair-climber in the workout room, and somebody else had the remote. So I got a larger dose of television news than I would normally subject myself to.

    At the time, I did a column on the nature of the coverage, which was appallingly inaccurate and careless in the rush to tell everyone right now what had happened, even though no one really knew at the time.

    I left out of that column one of the things that bothered me most: Every few minutes, the announcer would cut in to say that the White House would have a statement from the president on the incident shortly. The tone and context implied that this was something everyone was anxiously awaiting. I got the impression that everyone involved thought the president would be derelict in his duty if he didn't hurry up and say something.

    And all I could think was: Why? Why would the president say anything about this, especially at this moment? The people on the scene, the people who know more than anybody, don't even know how many victims there are yet, much less how or why this happened. What in the world is the president going to be able to add that will be relevant or helpful? I wouldn't presume to say anything about it. Why would the president? It's not his job to do so any more than it's mine. More importantly, why does anyone expect him to say anything?

    The last part was what really got me. This was, after all, happening in Littleton, Colo., and was the responsibility of the local authorities there. No one had suggested that there was anything about this that bore upon the powers and duties of the federal government.

    Yet the nation was presumably breathless to hear what the president had to say about it. And you know what? Those announcers were probably right. The truth is, the nation has increasingly come to expect the president to weigh in on such things.

    If something happens somewhere in the nation that makes headlines, we expect the president to do something about it _ or at least to say something. If there's a flood or an earthquake, there's a demand for the president to drop everything and go fly over it, to let us know he cares.

    This makes no sense, but then, it's not supposed to. It's about emotion, not reason. But for my money, there are far too many actions and decisions taken in the public sphere on the basis of emotion already. We don't need any more of it.

    What provoked this rant? A David Broder column in The Washington Post. Mr. Broder doesn't usually set me off like this. He is, in fact, the columnist I admire most. He's calm, rational and knowledgeable. But when he argues that George W. Bush is falling short as president because he doesn't have something eloquent to say about every major news development across the nation, I just have to break with him.

    Dubya has a lot of faults. He's a mushmouth. He lacks what I consider to be an adequate respect for the environment. To the extent that he has an overarching foreign policy vision _ and I'm not sure yet whether he does _ I suspect that it is too isolationist for my taste. For these and other reasons, he was not my first choice to be president.

    But he has his virtues as well. He seems to be a pretty fair manager. He knows how to assemble a team and let it do its job. Vision or no, he seems to deal effectively with specific foreign policy issues as they arise _ the confrontation with China over our surveillance aircraft being an instance that Mr. Broder rightly cites.

    But my very favorite thing about President Bush is that he seems content to be the chief executive of the federal government, and feel absolutely no obligation to be the nation's Chief Empathizer. No urge at all to go on television every day and bite his lip, give a thumbs-up, shed a tear and let us know he feels our pain.

    I really, really appreciate that.

    And I'm not just saying this to put down Mr. Bush's predecessor. The greater problem lies with us _ the press and the public. We simply expect things of a president that are not a legitimate function of the job. After Hugo hit South Carolina in 1989, many complained indignantly that Bush pere failed to rush right down here. Mind you, he had immediately declared the state a disaster area.

    "This other stuff, like flying over the damaged area, is largely PR, although I admit good PR. But what does that accomplish?" one politico said in defending him. "What you're asking me is, why didn't Bush have a photo op?" Exactly. Bill Clinton's weakness in that regard was that he enjoyed the photo ops too much.

    If it weren't David Broder complaining about it, I'd say this was a case of a Washington journalist feeling a loss of his own power because the president refuses to use his bully pulpit to make everything that happens anywhere a federal case, thereby making Washington _ and its vast media army _ the center of attention. With the Cold War over, Washington has had to look in previously unexamined boxes to find issues to justify its continued paramount importance.

    But this is David Broder, and I know he seriously believes that these matters should be on the president's priority list. I just think he's wrong.

    Sure, there are national, non-Washington stories that are very much the president's business, and demand that he exercise leadership before the nation _ the Oklahoma City bombing, for instance. But that was a deliberate attack, not only upon a federal building and the people in it but upon the entire notion of the federal government. The Colorado shootings, as tragic and horrific as they were, lacked that feature.

    Similarly, the president's failure to step to the fore regarding the riots in Cincinnati is by no means a serious "leadership omission," as Mr. Broder characterized it. As he further writes, "The incident was local." He goes on to say that "the problem of police-minority relations is national and important."

    Indeed. But it is national mainly in the sense that it is a problem in local jurisdictions all over the country. If the riots were about what the FBI or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms had done, we'd be talking federal interest. But we're not in this case.

    At some point, there will be an issue that I, too, will want Mr. Bush to care about more than he does. But for now, I find his reticence a welcome relief.

Oh, and back to where I started -- I don't blame Mr. Obama for trying to resonate on the anniversary of the slaughter at Blacksburg. That's what presidential candidates are expected to do these days, especially if they are Democrats, and most especially if they are falling behind among women (yes, I think there's a gender gap in this issue somewhere). Maybe Hillary Clinton and even John McCain have put out similar releases, and I just haven't seen them yet.

I just don't think they should be expected to do it.