Sums it up

(you can click to enlarge... distribute widely!)

The Resurrection of Mark Sanford, and other scary tales

I did not blog about the special District 1 congressional election between our embarrassing former Governor (and Nikki-Haley-discoverer) Mark Sanford, and Elizabeth Colbert-Busch, because I found the subject distressing and depressing. And of course, I already knew Sanford would win the reddest of red districts in the reddest of red states.

I found it depressing (but oh so predictable) that the best the Democrats could do was present a comedian's inexperienced sister and her Hollywood-fundraisers. Without question, the most entertaining events in the race (besides our fabulous radio shows making fun of Appalachian Trail Marky) were 1) when Larry Flynt endorsed Sanford, which was a genuine hoot, and 2) when Colbert-Busch got mouthy during the debate (or at least what passes for mouthy in the low-country).


At left: Our Green Party candidate for District 1, Eugene Platt, a photo I took at the Green Party convention in 2010.


Eugene Platt, the only US military veteran in the race, was not even allowed to participate in the congressional debate at (infamous military college) The Citadel. So much for all that military-solidarity crap they preach down there.

My redoubtable radio co-host, producer and consigliere, Gregg Jocoy, wrote a great article about Platt and the empty-suits offered by the two major parties. The title of the article sums up the whole dilemma-- The Hidden Candidate: South Carolina Voters Chose Between Inexperience and Disgrace.

Platt, an elected member of the James Island Public Service District Commission, was also a special guest on our show, OCCUPY THE MICROPHONE.

~*~

We have also been discussing other horror stories on our show, such as the recent nightmare up in Cleveland featuring Ariel Castro, that has captured the attention of the nation. Undoubtedly, this horrific crime will be one that most news outlets will be revisiting multiple times, since it seems too unbelievably awful to be true.

I also hope to blog in depth about the trial of now-convicted murderer Jodi Arias, later in the week...I am especially interested in whether she is sentenced to death. I can't think of the last time a young, thin, pretty, smart, middle class white woman actually received the death penalty; I challenged my radio-listeners to come up with an example, and no one has been able to do so. Karla Fay Tucker might qualify, but she was not middle-class, and the uniquely-grisly nature of her crime seemed to guarantee that she would be an exception. (Speaking of horror stories, people are always particularly freaked out by ax-murderers.)

I do think it is fascinating that Arias' designated defense witness, domestic-violence-expert Alyce LaViolette, was internet-mobbed on Amazon (of all places), where they were peddling her book. This was enough to cause LaViolette to take an emergency break from the trial due to a 'panic attack' brought on by all the online viciousness. This event was then the subject of a hand-wringing post on HuffPo, by an anthropologist who reduced the whole thing to 'bullying'... um, no. Leave it to another expert to get it wrong.

The outrage over LaViolette's rather embarrassing fawning over Arias (while providing multiple excuses for inexcusable behavior) was a symptom of the public's ongoing disgust with 'experts' who explain away evil and try to make it palatable and understandable, when it simply isn't. If LaViolette is going to do that shit on the taxpayer's dime (and attempt to sell a book in the process!), she has to be ready to face the consequences. No sympathy from this quarter.

More on Jodi to come, I promise.

~*~

And keeping with our general horror story theme: Yesterday was Confederate Memorial Day!



Above, the door to the offices of SC Works, which is in McAlister Square (also the location of WOLI studio, where we broadcast our show). I commented on this 'holiday' at length on the air, and read THIS POST about my Confederate ancestor, Thomas Hatcher.

He deserted the Confederate army, and I am so proud of him.

Haley Watch 3-2-11

Eager to prove that she is not a big-spending politician in the traditional GOP mold, Governor Nikki Haley skipped the National Governors Association meeting at the end of February. She has claimed a savings of $100,000 on annual dues to the organization. (This will undoubtedly put heat on other governors to do likewise.) Haley also claims that she has saved taxpayers all kinds of money in hotel and travel costs, etc.

Well, that's true as far as it goes. But Haley's action was widely regarded as a snub of bipartisanship, rather than as a strictly cost-cutting measure. Particularly since she attended a Republican Governors conference instead, which she claimed was "privately funded" and not paid for by taxpayers.

Am I the only one who wonders--privately funded by WHOM, exactly?

From the Charleston Post and Courier:

WASHINGTON — While most other governors huddle with their counterparts in Washington this weekend regardless of party affiliation, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley planned to meet only with Republican state executives.

Haley is skipping the winter meeting of the bipartisan National Governors Association because of her decision not to pay $100,000 for South Carolina’s annual dues to the main policy and lobbying group for the 50 state chiefs.

...

Haley will meet with the other 28 GOP state heads in concurrent sessions of the Republican Governors Association, a partisan group previously led by former Gov. Mark Sanford and whose members use campaign funds and other private contributions to finance its activities.

“The RGA is covering the costs of the governor’s lodging,” Godfrey said. “A donor has been generous enough to provide transportation, which we will disclose via the governor’s voluntary plane log.”

"A donor" has been generous. Well isn't that NICE?!?

Who is the donor, and what do they expect to get out of this?

The Columbia State newspaper has given me some ideas, though. It's probably the usual suspects:

$900,000 spent on Haley
Most of the money from GOP governors bought advertising during S.C. gubernatorial race
By JOHN O’CONNOR

A national Republican group spent $900,000 to ensure Gov. Nikki Haley’s election, soliciting donations from tobacco manufacturers, oil companies, health care and pharmaceutical businesses, construction firms and trade groups.

The money was spent by two S.C. political action committees set up by the Republican Governors Association.

The State newspaper and others previously have reported the GOP group was running ads on Haley’s behalf. But campaign reports filed last month, which include donors, show the group spent more than previously thought.

The state-based PACs are part of a new strategy of the Republican Governors Association to influence governors’ races across the country.

Most of the money was spent on advertising during the contest’s final weeks, according to campaign finance reports, including a television ad that declared Democratic opponent Vincent Sheheen to be an “Obama liberal in our own backyard.”

The Republican Governors group prominently has featured Haley, and other newly minted Republican winners, in Web advertising.

Haley’s office declined to comment for this story. However, a Greenville-based Republican political consultant said the ad was the GOP’s way of supporting a possible future star.

“They certainly see her as a rising star,” said Chip Felkel, of Haley’s possible national profile. “They see she has a lot of potential.”

This translates to: At some point, she will be foisted on the rest of you. Be advised.

And finally, a bright-eyed young fella at USC, writes an optimistically titled editorial in the DAILY GAMECOCK: Haley must consider others’ views to solve problems. Funny title! (Clearly, this well-meaning student does not yet understand that the definition of conservative rules out such activities.)

Michael Ulmer writes:

Former Gov. Mark Sanford, Haley’s notoriously frugal predecessor, regularly attended the association’s meetings during his time in office and was even open to heading policy panel discussions during his trips to the meetings in Washington. According to an article by James Rosen in The State, Sanford viewed the organization as a very useful group that represented states’ interests to members of Congress and provided in-depth research for governors.

During her Washington trip, Gov. Haley did step away from her Republican cronies and chat with TV host Jake Tapper on “This Week,” ABC’s national political show. During her visit to the program, she joined a round table of fellow governors to talk about issues facing the states. She used most of her time to criticize Wisconsin Democrats for avoiding a vote on a budget bill aimed at stripping labor union bargaining rights for public employees. We need our governor to be looking out for the people of the Palmetto State and leave Wisconsin politics to the people of Wisconsin.

Boo-yah governor! Excellent shot, Michael.

~*~

And the Haley reign revs up... stay tuned for our next installment.

Disabled sue South Carolina over Medicaid cuts

Because my local newspaper is attempting to make me pay for news (((laughs ruefully!))), it has been far more difficult than usual to get the required information to blog decently about this sordid state of affairs, but hopefully, this is complete enough for now.

I got this from the Myrtle Beach Sun--although it was originally published in the Greenville News. (cheapskates! greedheads!)

Disabled sue state over Medicaid cuts
By Eric Connor
The Greenville News

Lawyers for a group of disabled people are suing the state over its move to cut benefits for those who rely on government-funded home care, a decision they say violates the patients' civil rights and threatens to force people into institutions who don't belong in them.

On Tuesday, lawyers for the group and for the state will argue in U.S. District Court in Greenville over whether a preliminary injunction should be granted preventing state agencies from limiting the federal Medicaid funding the patients receive for community-based care.

The agencies responsible for administering the care - the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Disabilities and Special Needs - argue that tough economic times require cuts in services and that other options to prevent institutionalization are available.

Several Upstate residents with mental disabilities have sued the governor and two state agencies in Greenville federal court over controversial cuts to their in-home care, claiming the devastating reductions are forcing people into institutions in violation of federal law.

The residents, identified by first name and last initial, allege in the suit that Gov. Mark Sanford and the state Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, as well as the agency that administers its Medicaid programs, have discriminated against them by cutting off their social life and causing their isolation in residential facilities that will ultimately cost more taxpayer money.
DDSN spokeswoman Lois Park Mole and Sanford spokesman Ben Fox said they couldn't comment on pending litigation.

A North Carolina advocacy group argues a state agency's plans with personal care service benefits would violate the rights of patients and discourage them from independent living.

Disability Rights North Carolina wrote to federal Medicaid regulators asking them to reject proposals by the state Department of Health and Human Services and to the U.S. Justice Department asking it ensure the state complies with federal law.

A plan approved by the Legislature directs health officials to replace programs that give recipients living at home help bathing, cooking and other needs. Group executive director Vicki Smith wrote last week more than 20,000 patients could lose their services without appeals

Families of the disabled across South Carolina are carrying an added burden, facing with considerable fear the prospect that lifelines they have come to depend on will be cut in state government's deep reduction in services.

And they are concerned about government secrecy and that the agency largely responsible for controlling how they live their lives goes through an open process of deliberation with full transparency.

"There are a lot of us that are going to be right on top of them constantly to make sure that these things get out in public," said Greenville resident Leanne Hopkins, who has a son with cerebral palsy.

Scores of people convicted of crimes such as rape, elder abuse and assault with a deadly weapon are permitted to care for some of California's most vulnerable residents as part of the government's home health aide program.

Data provided by state officials show that at least 210 workers and applicants flagged by investigators as unsuitable to work in the program will nonetheless be allowed to keep their jobs or begin employment.

State and county investigators have not reported many whose backgrounds include violent crimes because the rules of the program, as interpreted by a judge earlier this year, permit felons to work as home care aides. Thousands of current workers have had no background checks.

The state's troubled mental health system faced another setback Monday when an advocate for the mentally ill named last week to run the agency withdrew from the post due to a flap over some tax problems at the group he ran.

John Tote, who until recently was the executive director of the Mental Health Association in North Carolina, and Health and Human Services Secretary Lanier Cansler announced that he won't become the next state mental health director. Tote's departure came on the same day he was slated to report to work for the state. Cansler and Tote said public discussion about payroll tax issues was too distracting at a time when the focus needs to be on helping patients and their families.

Gov. Mark Sanford has also been sued, but he has argued that he doesn't have direct control over the allocation of funds.

In court filings, the three Upstate plaintiffs allege that the DDSN claimed to suffer budget shortfalls but in fact had a $7.8 million "excess funds" account and used $2.6 million to buy real estate for support agencies in West Columbia and in Beaufort and Horry counties.

In addition, plaintiffs' attorney Patricia Harrison argues in court filings that talks about cutting services first occurred in 2008, when a budget crisis existed.

However, the federal government in February 2009 provided more than $195 million in stimulus funding to prop up Medicaid services, Harrison wrote, and when the decision to cut home-care services was made the DDSN was holding $34 million in stimulus funds and paid $30 million of it into a "rainy day" fund."

Also, Harrison wrote, the cost of providing home care to disabled people costs less than putting their care in the hands of an institution - $320 per day in an institution, $138 per day for home care.

The cuts - which are manifested in the form of a cap on the number of hours of home care a person can receive - will result in four times the amount of home-care patients being admitted into institutions, she wrote.

A lawyer for the state agencies, Kenneth Woodington, told a judge in court filings that lawyers didn't intend to file a response to the plaintiffs' "vast majority of new claims" but would do so if the judge wanted in relation to the injunction.

U.S. Magistrate Bruce Hendricks ordered that the hearing should particularly focus on whether the plaintiffs could suffer irreparable harm if services are cut.

One man in the original complaint against the agencies suffers from cerebral palsy and can only move by way of a wheelchair operated by his mouth, according to court filings.

On a given day, it can take from 8 a.m. until noon to get him out of bed, groomed and prepared to move, according to court filings.

The federal government's Medicaid program allows for a waiver so that funds that would have been used to care for a disabled person in an institution can be applied to caring for the person in a home or community setting, according to court filings.

The state is responsible for determining, through medical professionals, whether a person would benefit more from being cared for from home, according to filings.

A cut in services, Harrison wrote in her motion, would likely have the man leave behind a life as a productive member of the community and instead have him "forced to sit in an assigned seat around a table in a SCDDSN workshop with persons who have mental retardation, where the revenue from his labor will be paid to SCDDSN."

The man "lives in absolute terror of his worst nightmare coming true - being forced out of his home and moved into a congregate residence in order to receive the care he requires," Harrison wrote.

The services the man has been receiving during 2010 cost about $39,424, Harrison wrote, while institution-based services would cost about $116,000 a year.

In another case, a woman suffering from severe mental retardation is unable to speak and is subject to outbursts that put pressure on caregivers who aren't accustomed to her behavior, Harrison wrote.

The woman was once housed in an institution in Laurens County but was removed after she received unexplainable physical injuries, Harrison wrote.

The federal government's American with Disabilities Act requires that disabled people not be discriminated against and segregated from society, Harrison wrote.

"The right of persons who have mental retardation and related disabilities to live, work and play alongside their non-disabled neighbors, friends and family is no less important a civil right than the right of children of all races to attend integrated public schools," she wrote.

Attorneys for the agencies argue that the plaintiffs haven't proven that they would have to enter institutions with some cuts in their home services and in fact have other options they haven't explored.

"These plaintiffs argue that if they are not offered the richest items on the menu, they will starve," Woodington wrote. "In fact, however, there are many other possible services that could fill any gaps left by the reductions in their services, which are relatively minor in any event."

In court filings, Woodington argues that states are in compliance with the ADA if individual considerations could hurt the care of a larger population.

"The immediate relief for the plaintiffs would be inequitable," he wrote, "given the responsibility the state has undertaken for the care and treatment of a large and diverse population of persons with mental disabilities."

This is a pretty shoddy situation and I am curious what our new Wonder-Gal, the Governor-in-Waiting, Nikki Haley, has to say about it.

(Never mind, I can guess.)

South Carolina Republican Primary: Racism and Sexism on parade

At left: Is Nikki Haley our next governor? Photo by Renée Ittner-McManus, for the Haley campaign.




Since Mark Sanford is history, the Republican gubernatorial race has been a total free-for-all. I haven't wanted to write about it because I find it far more unpleasant than usual, knowing that ONE of these clowns WILL be the governor in this reddest of all red states. ((heavy sighs for emphasis))

It all started some time ago, when I was late for work in bumper-to-bumper traffic, and what do I see right in front of me? Andre Bauer's personalized Winnebago (or some enormous vehicle like that), with a gargantuan picture of Himself grinning manically on either side. Well, damn, there is no escape.

He parked, I parked, and I followed him inside. He's a very dapper dresser, like some dude out of GQ magazine. The enormous vehicle took up more than one spot. (As I've mentioned here before, Bauer likes to grab a bite at the cafe in the store where I work.) That's when I realized how much money was behind Bauer, if they could bankroll his daily usage of a gas-guzzling vehicle like that. Who bought it?-- I wondered. Several employees craned their necks from behind the juice bar and asked (voices full of dread) if that was a SCHOOL BUS FULL OF KIDS?!? Is that some daycare expedition? No, it's only Andre Bauer, I answered.

They looked equally nonplussed. He usually drove a black, sporty, GQ-appropriate vehicle, not one the size of Arkansas with his face plastered thereon.

The race is on, I thought, and Andre means to BRING IT.

I got scared, and I've pretty much stayed that way.

~*~

The rise of this Christian fascism, a rise we ignore at our peril, is being fueled by an ineffectual and bankrupt liberal class that has proved to be unable to roll back surging unemployment, protect us from speculators on Wall Street, or save our dispossessed working class from foreclosures, bankruptcies and misery. The liberal class has proved useless in combating the largest environmental disaster in our history, ending costly and futile imperial wars or stopping the corporate plundering of the nation. And the gutlessness of the liberal class has left it, and the values it represents, reviled and hated...

Those who remain in a reality-based world often dismiss these malcontents as buffoons and simpletons. They do not take seriously those, like [Glenn] Beck, who pander to the primitive yearnings for vengeance, new glory and moral renewal. Critics of the movement continue to employ the tools of reason, research and fact to challenge the absurdities propagated by creationists who think they will float naked into the heavens when Jesus returns to Earth. The magical thinking, the flagrant distortion in interpreting the Bible, the contradictions that abound within the movement’s belief system and the laughable pseudoscience, however, are impervious to reason. We cannot convince those in the movement to wake up. It is we who are asleep.

--Chris Hedges, The Christian Fascists Are Growing Stronger


Lt. Governor Andre Bauer, wearing his GQ-duds and burning up more gas than the space shuttle, has already compared poor people to dogs. In his well-worn TV campaign ad featuring a friendly bunch of "just folks" extolling his 'true conservative' virtues, it is notable that the only person of color featured in the ad, claims they like him because he doesn't believe in government handouts.

The Republican race is filled with similar crackpots. Although I was critical of Sanford, we can't doubt that he was intelligent (particularly after reading his well-written love chronicle). Whether Bauer is intelligent or not, he panders to the those who are not, the lowest common denominator.

State Representative Nikki Haley, the conservative woman in the Republican race, appears to have taken the lead. She would be better than Andre, but not by much. The idea of a woman governor appeals to me, despite my common sense. She looks so refreshing, vital, and new, particularly amid the old-bubba's network of South Carolina electioneering. Unfortunately, her politics are more or less identical to the rest of the tea-party fellow-travelers. (Example: She is the only candidate who believes Sanford was correct in refusing the federal economic stimulus package.)

Nonetheless, the attacks on Haley (hyper-conservative or not), have been openly racist and sexist. During the gubernatorial debate (of all places) Bauer accused her of having an extramarital affair, a charge she has vigorously denied. What infuriated me about this charge was the fact that Bauer should know better, since he has been repeatedly gay-baited himself.

South Carolina Lt. Gov Andre Bauer, photo from The Palmetto Scoop.



Bauer even challenged Haley to take a polygraph! (Do you believe?!?!) My initial reaction was that Haley should challenge him right back: "Andre, why haven't you gotten married by age 40?" and make him take one, too. But Haley isn't a guttersnipe (like your humble narrator), and has deliberately taken the high road, and as a result, the charge appears to have backfired. Here in South Carolina, after the nationwide, embarrassing Mark Sanford debacle, even Republicans (maybe especially Republicans) are heartily SICK of hearing about politicians rollicking in the sack. Oh please!--seems to be the collective, eye-rolling response. And this overall disgust with personal attacks has indeed impacted the race. Character counts, and folks seem to prefer a nice conservative to one that peddles sordid adultery-tales to the Columbia State newspaper.

But Daisy remains pissed. The NERVE of that guy. Are we expected to believe that a man who dresses like Andre Bauer is a 40-year-old virgin? Why is HIS sex life off limits for discussion? (Straight or gay, and as I stated in the above-linked post, I have seen him engage in public displays of affection several times, whether "staged" or not.) Oh, right, he's a MAN and it's understood that he will "date"... should we demand a polygraph to test Bauer's virginity? He does know that unmarried men fornicating is considered adultery by his trusty King James Version, doesn't he?!?

I daresay, this might be Bauer's undoing, and it can't come fast enough for me.

From the Washington Post:

Haley leads Republican governor's race in South Carolina despite sex allegations
By Philip Rucker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 7, 2010

CONWAY, S.C. -- Even in a state that's accustomed to two-fisted politics, this year's Republican race for governor stands out. As the contenders barreled across South Carolina in a mad frenzy before Tuesday's primary, they confronted at every turn the salacious accusations of adultery swirling around Nikki Haley, the woman who has rocketed to the lead.

Lt. Gov. André Bauer, carrying a backpack stuffed with trinkets to give to children, arrived at a diner in rural Union County to offer hope of replacing the shuttered Disney factory down the road. Yet he faced, and deflected, questions about his ex-campaign consultant who alleged an affair with Haley. Then, climbing into an RV shrink-wrapped with his likeness, he was off to the next county and more questions.

Attorney General Henry McMaster, stumping with a former governor at a brunch spot in Greenville, cast himself as the only adult in a field of adolescents. He asked Susan Bailey and her girlfriends for their votes, but moments later they confessed to a reporter that they had recently decided, over prayer, to go with Haley. "Not because she's a she," said Bailey, 55, a homemaker. "She hasn't bowed down. She hasn't gotten angry. She can handle it like a gentleman, but she's a lady."

And when Rep. J. Gresham Barrett strode into Tommy's Country Ham House in Greenville for red-meat politicking, ready to talk about his Arizona-style immigration plan, a man at the first table asked the question that has sucked up so much oxygen here.

"Do you believe she's been, what is it, unfaithful?" he asked.

"No, sir, I don't," Barrett said, shaking the man's hand and quickly moving on.

From the Bible-thumping Upcountry to the breezy beaches, Palmetto State Republicans have become transfixed by allegations in a campaign that has devolved into perhaps the nastiest brawl in a generation. Haley has fended off unsubstantiated claims from two political operatives that she had extramarital affairs with them. She has swatted away remarks from a state senator who called her a "raghead." And Haley, every bit as scrappy as she is steely, has been running circles around her opponents -- all while propped up in stiletto heels.

The other candidates have bigger names and longer résumés, but Haley, the only woman among them, built a sizable lead by making sport of busting the old-boy fraternity that she says dominates, even corrupts, South Carolina politics.

"When you turn around and threaten their power and you threaten their money, they turn around and push back," Haley, a fast-talking and polished campaigner, told a crowd here on Saturday night. "But what they don't understand is I have a strong faith, I have a strong spine, and I have a strong husband that puts on a military uniform every day."

The couple of hundred Republicans huddled outside an old barn along the railroad tracks in downtown Conway erupted, just as her supporters did after she delivered the same line 230 miles west at a hot-wing bar in Greenville the night before, leaving political observers to wonder whether all the mudslinging is only cementing Haley's popularity.

Haley's campaign says internal polls suggest she has maintained, if not widened, her lead. A few weeks ago, languishing in fourth place, she hoped to just make the expected June 22 runoff. But now she is talking about winning outright with more than 50 percent.

And guess who showed up to do ads for Nikki?

Yup.

She was elevated by an endorsement from former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. Herself no stranger to scandal, Palin -- who has taken to calling herself the "mama grizzly" -- has defended Haley, chalking it all up in robo-calls to "made-up nonsense."

"She is like Sarah Palin," Trudy Martin, 71, a retired nurse, said of Haley. "Sarah told them to take a hike -- the oil companies, the crooked Republicans. Nikki can do the same."

Impressed in spite of myself, at this unexpected show of sisterhood. The Palin-ads are surprisingly plucky, and have an appreciable fuck-you sound to them. (Conservatives love that shit.)

And then, just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, they called Nikki Haley a RAGHEAD.

Yes, you read that right. RAGHEAD:

Now enter Jake Knotts, a rabble-rousing Republican state senator, who ruminated Thursday on Haley's Indian heritage on a talk show and concluded: "We already got one raghead in the White House. We don't need another in the governor's mansion." He later apologized and said his remark was only in jest.

I'm sure he's telling the truth about that. Such a joke would be Jake Knotts' idea of humor.

This is a spectacle rarely seen in politics -- even here in bare-knuckled South Carolina, where in the 2000 presidential primary John McCain fell victim to a whisper campaign alleging falsely that he had fathered an out-of-wedlock multiracial child.

"Southern politics are always colorful, but I haven't seen in a long time, maybe in my lifetime, it so visceral, so nasty, so embarrassing," said former governor David Beasley.

The other night in Conway, it was lost on few that Haley was speaking from a stage named after the legendary senator Strom Thurmond, a onetime segregationist who might have been shocked to see this daughter of Indian immigrants as the favorite to become South Carolina's first female governor.

When Barrett campaigned at the Ham House, Bill Moore said that he would never consider voting for Haley. "I don't know any woman that I'd vote for governor," Moore, 85, a retired textile worker, said as he cleaned his plate of grits and biscuits.

Haley, asked in an interview whether this state is ready for her kind of change, said: "South Carolina is ready for Nikki Haley. . . . It's not about gender. It's not about ethnicity. It's about wanting somebody that's going to fight for the people, and I'm that person."

A group of upright, conservative suburban soccer moms came into my workplace for a quick dinner, and they were plastered with "Haley for governor" stickers and buttons. That's when I knew. She can win, I thought.

I can't hide the fact that I'd love to see a woman governor, but I also can't hide the fact that she scares me almost as much as Bauer. "Bauer with integrity" might be a far more effective Bauer, if you catch my meaning.

Either way, I know it will be pretty interesting. Let's just hope they don't bankrupt the state and lock up the progressives in Gitmo-style prison camps.

Stay tuned, sports fans.

Staying True by Jenny Sanford

South Carolina's First Lady's book is out today! If the weather was better, we'd probably have LINES snaking around the bookstores.

Everyone agrees that it promises to be loads of fun!

Excerpt from one early review from the Los Angeles Times:

"Staying True," [is] Jenny Sanford's memoir of a marriage that only can be described as the Contract With America meets Southern gothic.

Sanford's husband, Mark -- the governor of South Carolina -- was once a rising star in the national Republican firmament. Then, last June, he disappeared from office for nearly a week, ostensibly to go "hiking on the Appalachian Trail." As it turned out, he was in South America for a tryst with his Argentine mistress.

After that, things went from bad to worse, personally and politically. Gov. Sanford's long, incoherently confessional television interviews didn't do much to help matters, and this book, for all its more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone, clearly seems intended as the last nail in the coffin.

The former first lady, a one-time investment banker with Lazard Frères, is smart, focused and very angry. For all the pious references to forgiveness stitched throughout the narrative, revenge is a barely concealed subtext.

And revenge she gets, but there's a good bit of collateral damage in what's just as obviously unintended self-revelation. In fact, by the time we get to the affair late in the book, it's a bit of a relief, since this is about the first normative impulse either of the Sanfords seems to have had during their marriage.

Take, for example, the future governor's haggling over their wedding vows, because he was reluctant to promise to be faithful. Now, why do we think somebody might have that sort of reservation?

Sanford spends a great deal of time describing her heroic efforts to accommodate what she repeatedly calls her husband's "frugality." Frugality! If this guy is frugal, the unreformed Ebenezer Scrooge was thrifty.

Consider this anecdote: Never good about presents -- early in their marriage he gave her "half" a used bicycle -- and momentarily remorseful for all the time he was spending away from his family while serving in Washington as a congressman, he had an aide buy a diamond necklace and hide it in the family home.

On the morning of his wife's birthday, he faxed clues so she could have "a treasure hunt." She was overjoyed when she found the necklace and wore it to dinner when he returned home. "That is what I spent all that money on?" he said. "I hope you kept the box."

According to Sanford's account, "He returned the necklace the next day, thinking it was not worth the money he had spent. He could see I was disappointed. . . . In truth, once I knew he thought he had overspent, I also knew it would pain him to see me wear the necklace had I insisted on keeping it. I wouldn't have felt comfortable wearing it in his presence, so what was the point?"

The unintentional point, of course, has to do with the power of martyrdom. As Sanford informs us elsewhere in the book, "Women were made for sacrifice."

And boy does she sacrifice . . . over and over and over. What's never clear from her extended exercise in score-settling is why? The man she describes is driven, self-absorbed, pathologically cheap and 360-degrees weird. She runs his political campaigns, puts up with his habitual absences and bears him four sons.

She even believes him, she tells us here, when late in their marriage he explains an unexpected trip alone to New York by saying he needs respite from the extra stress he is feeling because the hair on the top of his head is thinning.

Gimme a break.

If you believe that, you'll also believe Sanford really was looking for family property records when she ransacked her husband's desk while he was away on one of many hunting trips and found the file with his love letters.

On the other hand, this guy's self-absorption appears so complete that he demanded his wife's permission to continue seeing his mistress because it was the first thing he'd ever done for himself. (This is the same man who voted for Bill Clinton's impeachment and called the former president "reprehensible.") It was then that Sanford realized "reconciliation" was impossible.

This is the Southern Lady personified; continuously behaving herself, greeting guests and praying to Jesus, all while the husband is carousing. And yeah, the acute martyrdom brought on by Advanced Southern Lady syndrome can be stultifyingly horrible... and smothering. For a man like Sanford, there is no escape, except to really escape, like to Argentina.

But this is the logical end-result of the Republican-approved family, in which the wife dutifully takes the husband's lead and obeys his orders. What other power does she have, except simpering and martyrdom and inducing the hubby's guilt to get what she wants? Us loud gals here in the south who dare to ask men questions, are the "bad" girls, against which women like Sanford are judged. WE demand answers of men, so in contrast, they do not. See? They are the nice girls.

And we see what being nice gets you, hm?

Speaking of which, I finally finished the utterly-fascinating book GAME CHANGE and was pretty shocked at the behavior of Senator (and former VP-candidate) John Edwards, whom I had once admired. And now, his campaign aide, Andrew Young, has written HIS tell-all memoir, titled The Politician.

For those unaware, Edwards impregnated world-class flake Rielle Hunter, a maker of mediocre videos who momentarily convinced Edwards he was the Second Coming, while Edwards' wife Elizabeth struggled with incurable cancer. After Hunter's pregnancy was confirmed, Edwards ordered Young to claim HE had fathered the baby. Do you believe?!?

From the LA Times review:

Got a chief aide? Don't abandon him for your mistress. That's the lesson of "The Politician" by Andrew Young. For all its salacious finger-pointing, Young's tell-all is really about a bromance gone bad.

"Where he once called several times a day, he now never dialed my number," he writes. "When I got through to him, he kept the calls brief and guarded what he said."

"He," of course, is John Edwards; when his affair with Rielle Hunter -- and Hunter's pregnancy -- hit the press, he persuaded Young to say the child was his. Then Young, his family and Hunter trundled off to a series of houses until the baby was born.

Young was an important player in Edwards' 2004 race for the Democratic presidential nomination, and he was a close friend. The Edwards and Young families were on vacation together at Disney World when Edwards learned that Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry had picked him as his vice presidential running mate.

According to Young, Edwards and Hunter -- who produced webisodes for the campaign -- carried on their affair for months before a story appeared in the National Enquirer.

Young details the affair from behind the scenes: He carried a special phone for Edwards to use when talking to Hunter; he was there during a visit she made to North Carolina when Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, was away on a book tour; and he caroused with Edwards, Hunter and others on the road during a night of rowdy drinking.

In 2008, Edwards had given up his second attempt at the Democratic nomination but was angling again to be the running mate. Elizabeth Edwards' cancer had gotten worse and Hunter had a baby daughter. In one of the more incredible details here, Young claims Edwards asked him to steal a diaper so he could do a DNA test; Young never did.

But as he was packing up a house that Hunter had briefly shared with his family, he found a box of her things, among them "a number of videotapes, including one marked 'special,' which had the tape pulled out and seemed intentionally broken. . . . I couldn't resist. With scissors, a pen, and some scotch tape, I fixed the cassette. . . . As I pressed play, we saw an image of a man -- John Edwards -- and a naked pregnant woman, photographed from the navel down, engaged in a sexual encounter."

Young is critical of everyone around him but never takes responsibility for his decisions. Edwards' women get particularly harsh treatment. Hunter is portrayed as a sex-crazed loose cannon. Elizabeth Edwards fares no better; in Young's telling, she's a controlling, vindictive harpy who leaves cruel phone messages for those who incur her wrath.

Indeed, one unexpected result of GAME CHANGE is how both Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards come out looking as ruthless as any male politicians. Most disturbing finding: Clinton was extremely eager to find the legendary videotape of Michelle Obama saying "whitey"--and exhorted her aides to find it so that she could use it against Barack Obama. (If it exists, no one successfully located it.) Like Elizabeth, Hillary also specializes in dumping all over her underlings. Sarah Palin actually comes off as more likable by contrast, if amazingly stupid and clueless, requiring several crash courses in world history.

~*~

One thing I like about the speed of our modern era: we used to have to wait YEARS to get these fabulous scandal-mongering books about presidential campaigns. Now, the campaign workers are racing to their laptops to type them out before the concession speeches have even been given...

SC Lt Gov Andre Bauer compares poor to stray dogs

Photo of Lt Gov Andre Bauer from 67 Degrees.

~*~


Those of you who wondered why we weren't so all-fired anxious to get rid of our wayward governor, Mark Sanford, down here in South Carolina... well, this should solve the enduring political puzzle at long last. Next in line for the job would be Lt. Governor Andre Bauer, whom I have written about quite a bit here at DEAD AIR.

And Bauer has just distinguished himself in his inimitable fashion, at a town hall meeting in Fountain Inn, comparing poor people to stray dogs.

I could never make this stuff up:

Bauer equates 'stray animals' to people in speech on aid to needy
Lieutenant governor says those receiving help 'owe something back'
By Nathaniel Cary • Staff Writer • January 23, 2010

Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer drew a comparison to “feeding stray animals” during a speech about people on government assistance, “babies having babies,” and parents whose children are on free and reduced-price lunch.

Bauer, who's running for the Republican nomination for governor, made his remarks during a town hall meeting in Fountain Inn that included state lawmakers and about 115 residents.

“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better,” Bauer said.

In South Carolina, 58 percent of students participate in the free and reduced-price lunch program, 45.5 percent in Greenville County.

Bauer's remarks came during a speech in which he said government should take away assistance if those receiving help didn't pass drug tests or attend parent-teacher conferences or PTA meetings if their children were receiving free and reduced-price lunches.

Bauer later told The Greenville News on Friday that he wasn't saying people on government assistance “were animals or anything else.”

In his speech to the group, Bauer said people have to become more engaged with government.

“You see, for the first time in the history of this country, we've got more people voting for a living than we do working for a living,” he said.

What the hell is he talking about, Daisy interrupts to ask indignantly. Jesus H. Christ.

And of course, it just gets worse.

Later in his speech, he said, “I can show you a bar graph where free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina,” adding, “You show me the school that has the highest free and reduced lunch and I'll show you the worst test scores, folks. It's there, period. So how do you fix it? Well you say, ‘Look, if you receive goods or services from the government then you owe something back.'”

Bauer said during the speech that there are no “repercussions” from accepting government assistance.

“We don't make you take a drug test. We ought to. We don't even make you show up to your child's parent-teacher conference meeting or to the PTA meeting,” Bauer said.

“You go to a school where there's an active participation of parents and guess what? They have the highest test scores. So what do you do? You say, ‘Look folks, if you receive goods or services from the government and you don't attend a parent-teacher conference, bam, you lose your benefits.' We're going to have to do things like that. We can't afford to keep just giving money away.”

And he said it was time to confront “babies having babies, somebody's got to talk about. Politicians don't want to talk about it anymore because it's politically incorrect.”

Later, Bauer told The Greenville News that “people in society have certain responsibilities, just like if you don't pay your taxes, there are certain repercussions.”

He said government hasn't made requirements to make those receiving aid be more responsible.

“They can continue to have more and more kids and the reward is there's more and more money in it for them.”

Instead, he said the government should place incentives in its welfare programs such as providing child care so parents can work or receive education so they can break the welfare cycle.

Government continues to reward bad behavior by giving money to people who “don't have to do a thing,” he said.

Does this include corporate welfare, such as subsidizing Boeing's expensive move to South Carolina--to the tune of a 60% tax break? (And how many millions does that eventually work out to? Never was too good at math!) I agree, that kind of welfare sucks! Not to mention the bloodsuckers who keep running for office and pandering to the lowest element in our society. What are THEY giving back? Are these party hacks good for South Carolina, or do they just contribute to the continuing stereotype of us as a bunch of stupid, xenophobic rednecks?

Is Bauer proposing we take away free lunches from the kids with bad parents--the ones who test positive for drugs and won't attend school conferences, et. al.? Punish the kids for the parents' behavior, isn't that what he is advocating?

Interestingly (and hypocritically), Andre Bauer is a major pro-lifer, and takes the OPPOSITE line when the subject is abortion: Why punish the baby for the behavior of the parents? Like Mike Huckabee, whom he supported for president, Bauer does not believe in any legal exceptions for abortion in the cases of rape or incest; and this is the moral defense he and Huckabee repeatedly offer. So, apparently, it's okay to punish kids for what their parents do, as long as they are already born! Just not in the womb! The womb is sacrosanct, but once they are born? Fuck them and their free lunches!

(((blood boils)))

Anyway, now you know why Sanford is still the governor. Everyone here in SC already knows.

Mark Sanford to mention affair in state-of-state speech

At left: Mark Sanford in Greer, South Carolina back in July, 2009. (Photo by Owen Riley Jr of the Greenville News.)



I have no time to address this right now, but simply couldn't let it pass without comment. And besides, what can you say? I think I've said most of it by now!

Do you believe?!?

Mark Sanford to mention affair in state-of-state speech
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS • January 20, 2010
Greenville News

COLUMBIA -- South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford will address his affair with an Argentine woman and offer a slimmed-down policy agenda for the Legislature in his final state-of-the-state address.

“What we are asking for is I think a streamlined, specific, limited and achievable list of legislative priorities for the year,” Sanford said in a briefing for reporters ahead of the speech.

The affair launched ethics investigations and a failed impeachment effort. Last week Sanford was formally rebuked by legislators.

“I'll certainly at some point address it — not at length,” Sanford said of the affair. Some have told him to move on, but “I don't know that I'm capable of that” particularly since its his first address since news of the affair broke.

The policy agenda boils down to three themes Sanford has pushed in the past: a state Employment Security Commission overhaul; bureaucratic function reorganization and constitutional changes to reduce the number of statewide elected offices; and new limits on state spending growth.

The items are closer to reality than ever before and working their way through the Legislature.

Sanford told civic groups around the state as he pleaded to stay in office to support his policy agenda. He said it had been held back by people who didn't want to hand him political victories, but that's not a factor now because he's done with politics after he leaves office following his second, term-limited stint in 51 weeks.

Sanford will mention other accomplishments since he took office in January 2003, because “they are real and they are meaningful.” Still, “I would not describe it as a victory lap by any stretch of the imagination,” Sanford said.

Sanford's agenda rises or falls with a Legislature he's sparred with regularly since he took office. He famously carried pooping piglets to the House's doors to protest budget veto overrides and repeatedly challenged legislators in state and federal court, including last year's effort to bar use of federal stimulus cash.

While he has 357 days left in office, he has only until June's session end to mend rifts and get work done. And that time is colored by the affair and subsequent investigations. Just last week, the House voted 102-11 to formally rebuke him for abuse of his office and called into question his leadership. It rejected an impeachment resolution.

The resolution said “Sanford's conduct in its totality has breached the public trust of South Carolinians and has lowered their confidence in his ability to be their chief executive” and “has also brought ridicule, dishonor, disgrace, and shame not only upon Governor Sanford but upon this State and its citizens which rises to a level which requires a formal admonishment and censure.”

While it's nonbinding and has no practical affect on Sanford, he'll leave office as the only governor on record with a formal censure from the House. The Senate has referred the resolution to committee and it is unclear if it will act on the measure.

Meanwhile, the State Ethics Commission will schedule a hearing for Sanford on 37 charges involving violations of state ethics laws tied to his use of state planes, pricey commercial flights and use of campaign funds that could bring $74,000 in fines. And the attorney general is reviewing those to see if they merit criminal prosecution.

First lady Jenny Sanford has filed for divorce and the governor is not contesting it.

He calls it all “the storm” and knows people are interested. “Some would venture this will be my most widely watched state-of-the-state,” Sanford said.

Certainly, I'll be following it, probably on the local PBS affiliate.

Jenny Sanford files for divorce

Photo of Jenny Sanford by Heidi Heilbrunn of the Greenville News.




I had other obligations on Wednesday night and missed Jenny Sanford's TV-interview with Barbara Walters. But several of the local news outlets covered it, as well as national blogs like The Huffington Post:

CHARLESTON, S.C. — Even if her straying husband had asked her to, South Carolina first lady Jenny Sanford says she wouldn't have stood with Gov. Mark Sanford when he faced cameras to tell the world about his affair with an Argentine woman.

Jenny Sanford told ABC's Barbara Walters for a special airing Wednesday her husband's actions have caused consequences but not robbed her of her self esteem. Excerpts of the interview were released Tuesday.

As she has said in earlier interviews, Sanford told Walters she found out about her husband's affair last January and forbid him to see the other woman. She said she told him not to see his four boys or her for a month last summer as well.

"My hope was that he would wake up from whatever he was in the throes of and maybe see what he might lose," she said.

"Certainly his actions hurt me, and they caused consequences for me, but they don't in any way take away my own self-esteem," she said. "They reflect poorly on him."

But the best part? She said she wouldn't stand there like a prop.

This quiet dignity is why Jenny is loved by the women of South Carolina and the USA:

But Jenny Sanford was not beside him and she told Walters that the governor never asked her to appear.

"I wouldn't have. If he had asked me, I would have said no," she said.

YES!

It is my fervent hope that Jenny's patent refusal to physically stand beside her husband like an obedient little Stepford Wife, will catch on. NO MORE USING POLITICIAN'S WIVES AS PROPS!

I am more than a little thrilled that it is a southern woman who has finally put the kibosh on this terrible tradition. I have always thought it was an added, horrific humiliation to make wives stand there mutely while sleazemeisters like James McGreevey, Larry Craig, Elliot Spitzer, et. al. make their various confessions. Their wives were used as moral set-decoration: Looky here, I have a WIFE, I am not a sex pervert!*

This is an ethical variation of woman-as-ornament, woman-as-arm-candy: Woman as TAMER of men's collectively untamed, wild, crazy libidos. It is offensive as hell and always has been. Bravo to Jenny for NOT PLAYING ALONG!!!!

~*~

And today, we get the news that she has filed for divorce. If she has a publicist, I say, give that girl a raise! Great timing, right after a well-received national interview.

The Greenville News reports:

COLUMBIA – Gov. Mark Sanford said this morning that he takes “full responsibility for the moral failure” that led his wife, Jenny, today to file for divorce.

“While it is not the course I would have hoped for, or would choose, I want to take full responsibility for the moral failure that led us to this tragic point,” Sanford said in a brief statement. “While our family structure may change, I know that we will both work earnestly to be the best mom and dad we can be to four of the finest boys on earth.”

The complaint filed this morning by First Lady Jenny Sanford in Charleston County Family Court is brief and accuses the governor of having sex with another woman but provides no other details or discusses divorce issues other than to note agreements are expected to be filed in the matter sometime in the future.

Jenny Sanford announced this morning she was filing for divorce “after many unsuccessful efforts at reconciliation.”

And meanwhile, although the SC House censured Sanford, and the impeachment resolution may go to the full house floor--it appears totally stalled for now, and Mark Sanford has no intention of leaving office any earlier than required.

Stay tuned, sports fans!



*Technically, I think the first person to successfully employ this strategy was Richard Nixon during the Checkers speech. Pat Nixon sat there like a mannequin (barely breathing or blinking, it seemed) as Nixon told the country she didn't own a mink, but instead, "a respectable Republican cloth coat" ... using his wife's humble nature as somehow proof of HIS humble nature, which as we all know, was nonexistent.

Thus, the first modern example of wife-as-moral-prop was not a sexual scandal, but it was a scandal. Richard Nixon never referred to "Pat" publicly (in contrast to other presidents who called their wives by their first names in speeches), but always publicly referred to her as "Mrs Nixon"... which I found strange even as a kid. "Mrs Nixon likes... Mrs Nixon says..." as if she really had no other identity besides his misses.

Ethics panel finds probable cause for charges against Gov. Mark Sanford

Photo of our esteemed governor is from WJBF-TV.



I worried I was boring yall with the continuing Mark Sanford follies here in Carolina... so I laid off him for awhile. But hey, it's getting good again, so an update is in order.

My Green Party droogs disagree with me about the fate of Mark Sanford, and think tarring and feathering him takes attention away from "the real enemy" (for lack of a better term)--and there is no doubt a lot of truth to that. But some of us enjoy this sort of thing on it's own terms, and likely descend from the same people who watched public executions a couple of centuries ago. Execution-by-Media is the equivalent of public execution for our modern age. (With the added bonus of being able to smugly congratulate ourselves on how civilized we have become!)

Hang em high!

Ethics panel finds probable cause for charges against Gov. Mark Sanford
Who will get to see commission's investigative report not yet decided
By Tim Smith • Staff writer • Greenville News
November 19, 2009

COLUMBIA — Gov. Mark Sanford now knows what the State Ethics Commission believes he may have done wrong, but it will be next week before the public learns what ethics regulations the governor is accused of violating with his travel or campaign finances.

And the question of who gets to see the commission's report of its investigation remains unsettled and with it the request by House leaders to view the report and decide whether to pursue impeachment action.

After eight commissioners met behind closed doors for nearly seven hours Wednesday, the commission's executive director said only that they had found probable cause for ethics violations in the governor's case on multiple allegations.

Herb Hayden, the commission's executive director, said specific findings by the commission won't be publicly released until next week. “A finding of probable cause is not a finding of guilt,” Hayden said. “It is only one phase in the process.”

[...]

An administrative hearing at which the commission would hear Sanford's side and render a verdict as to guilt won't be scheduled until after the first of next year, Hayden said. That hearing would be closed unless Sanford agrees it should be open to the public, he said.

“As we have always maintained, Gov. Sanford supports the public release of the full and complete ethics report,” Bowers said Wednesday night. “We believe that once all of the facts have been considered, it will once again confirm that this administration has been a good steward of tax dollars and public resources.”

On November 10th, we learned that Governor Sanford has $1.7 million left in his campaign finance account and actually has the right to use these funds to pay for legal fees generated by the State Ethics Commission investigation. Do you believe?!?

Rep. Greg Delleney sponsored the impeachment resolution on Tuesday, but House Speaker Bobby Harrell decided to cut Sanford a break, announcing yesterday that barring anything new in the ethics investigation, Sanford's scandalous love-affair with his Argentinian 'soul-mate' Maria Belen Chapur was not sufficient for impeachment.

And then today, after the news from the ethics investigation, it seems Harrell has changed his tune:

House Speaker Bobby Harrell has called on Gov. Mark Sanford to release a disputed investigative report into the governor's possible ethical or criminal violations stemming from his travel and use of campaign funds.

Harrell, R-Charleston, argued a Nov. 5 S.C. Supreme Court ruling made the report public, and that Sanford is not living by standards he has demanded of others.

"We are disappointed that Governor Sanford has broken his transparency promise by keeping this court-ordered public document secret," Harrell said in a statement. "After claiming to be a leader in the transparency movement and heavily criticizing others on this issue, the Governor’s insistence on secrecy goes against all his past actions on this issue."

Harrell has asked the Supreme Court to clarify their decision about whether the House and public can access the report. Sanford's attorneys and the S.C. State Ethics Commission have until tomorrow to file arguments in the case.

Sanford has asked the Ethics Commission to prevent staff from releasing the report to lawmakers or the public, arguing it could undermine Sanford's defense. Harrell also criticized the eight Ethics commissioners for choosing to give the report to Sanford's attorneys during a closed-door session.

They gave the report to Sanford's attorneys?!?

That really stinks, doesn't it? (It stinks almost as bad as Sanford's colorful Appalachian Trail fib.)

This is what happens when right-wingers investigate right-wingers: Everybody stands around with their thumbs up their asses.

Stay tuned, sports fans!

Boeing in South Carolina

Left: Boeing illustration of the 787 Dreamliner.




As you have undoubtedly heard by now, South Carolina got Boeing and the conservatives are crowing (yes, I'm a poet)... it's fairly nauseating.

Should Mark Sanford (our wayward, romantically-preoccupied governor) get credit for this economic coup? -- is the political question of the hour.

In any event, he is wasting no time in grabbing the credit:

SC Gov: Boeing 787 Plant Should Spur Growth Across State
By Ann Keeton
Wall Street Journal

CHICAGO (Dow Jones)--Boeing Co.'s (BA) new 787 Dreamliner plant in North Charleston, South Carolina, should have "a ripple effect that will play out over time," generating economic activity across the state, Mark Sanford, South Carolina's governor, said in an interview Thursday with Dow Jones Newswires.

Sanford spoke by telephone en route to Charleston from the state capitol.

Late Wednesday, Boeing said it had chosen South Carolina over Washington state for added 787 production. The new facility, to supplement final assembly in Washington state, is expected to be up and running by July of 2011.

To woo Boeing, South Carolina legislators offered substantial financial incentives. Boeing gets those benefits if it brings in at least 3,800 new jobs and invests $750 million in the next few years.

"This is the largest single job creation in South Carolina history," Sanford said. "It will give us an immediate shot in the arm at a time when it's needed."

As with other states, South Carolina is battling unemployment, now at about 10%. But, Sanford said, that comes on top of strong job growth in the past few years, as 85,000 new workers have come into the state. He hopes that Boeing will hire as many local workers as possible, although the number of local hires hasn't been discussed.

Over the long term, Sanford expects Boeing suppliers and other businesses to come to South Carolina, "repeating what we saw with BMW." The German auto maker has had a U.S. production plant in Spartanburg, South Carolina, for 15 years, and currently is expanding that facility.

Boeing recently bought out a supplier's factory in North Charleston, and plans to expand there to add production capacity for the 787. But Sanford said he and South Carolina officials have been talking to Boeing since 2003, when the aircraft maker turned down his state's offer to start initial 787 assembly work in Everett, Washington.

In its home state of Washington, Boeing's Commercial Airplanes unit employs about 73,000 workers, and accounts for many more jobs there.

In the Seattle area, where most workers are located, business costs are relatively high, partly due to the presence of unions. Sanford said the recent decision by Boeing's North Charleston workers to reject union representation made a difference to Boeing, which has suffered a series of employee strikes in recent years. "They proved to Boeing that this is a right-to-work state," Sanford said.

(((sigh))) Yes, let's trash the unions some more, while we're at it.

Meanwhile, WIS in Columbia reports that this will make things easier on Sanford, so his happiness is unmistakably for himself and his own fate:

Boeing announcement may mean less heat on Sanford
Posted: Oct 29, 2009
By Jackie Faye

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) - No one was happier to hear that Boeing was moving a major operation to South Carolina than Governor Mark Sanford.

With calls for his resignation and talk of impeachment, the deal and the economic growth it promises has taken the heat off the governor, for now.

Sanford says the cooperation that allowed South Carolina to seal the Boeing deal is a good sign for state government.

"To get something done means working in bipartisan fashion wherever you can, and where you respectfully disagree, you respectfully disagree," said Sanford.

One senator calls the Boeing decision a "quantum leap" for a state that's seen more than its share of negative news. One question remains: will Boeing also be a boost for the beleaguered governor?

Sanford, targeted first for his admitted affair and later following questions about his air travel, was still under fire this week by a handful of lawmakers who want him impeached.

"Leaving his state for five days without anybody knowing where he was, there was no chain of command or protocol established to exercise executive authority," said Rep. Greg Delleney. "If anybody else had done that, they would have lost their job. And he ought to lose his."

But some say the Boeing announcement has energized efforts to attack the state's unemployment problem, and impeachment could be too much of a distraction.

"What I've tried to do is take my cue from my constituents," said Gilda Cobb-Hunter. "What my constituents have said to me very clearly is, 'look Gilda, y'all have beat that horse to death. What I want to hear from you is what are you all going to do about bringing jobs to this state?' After all, the responsibility for job creation doesn't just rest with the executive branch. It also rests with the legislative branch."

"We understand what the important issues facing the state are," said Rep. Kenny Bingham. "We're doing everything we can to move in that direction. There are certain other issues obviously that come up that are beyond our control that we do have to deal with to some degree. But I think our focus is going to be moving South Carolina forward. I think that was pretty obvious yesterday in the last two days this week as we've been in session, dealing with the employment security commission. Dealing with the Boeing deal and the incentives package that we put together."

A lot is riding on the results of the state ethics commission investigation. Lawmakers say if that report fails to turn up solid evidence of serious misconduct the impeachment effort might begin, but it will ultimately go nowhere.

Translation: We lost our window of opportunity to get rid of Sanford and weaken and divide the South Carolina GOP. They are now united once again, however tattered and torn from within... as the Christian conservatives who were ready to roast Sanford on a spit (particularly women who identified with Jenny Sanford and admired her decorum in the face of this horrible disaster for her family), quickly back off and regroup.

If we'd had a strong, well-connected and well-financed dissident faction to go after Sanford immediately, we could have gotten rid of him in the first two weeks after the scandal. I knew when we didn't, that he had won the necessary reprieve. A master politician, he turned the confused attrition of his opponents into the appearance of a lack of political will, rather than basic disagreement about how to proceed.

Point, Sanford.

Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, waiting in the wings, thanks you.

Restating the negativeness of the universe

I hereby apologize to all of my very patient email correspondents. If you are wondering about my rudeness, I have not checked email in days; ON STRIKE against the email, which is threatening to colonize my soul. It's currently taking more of my time than mere blogging or Twitter, God help me. Trying to sort it out and make lists of priorities, blah blah blah. In the meantime, bear with me, yall!

How does the internet do this to us? Does everyone else feel the constant encroachment of ONLINE into "real life"--maybe the problem is that we divide our consciousness into these categories...do the kids manage their time better than we do? I think if you grow up communicating online, you learn to make time for it in a more natural way and can do it anywhere. The rest of us have to figure out how to integrate it fully.

Then again, maybe not. Maybe the kids are as frazzled as we are?

~*~

Photo of Jessica Lange at this year's Emmy awards by Dan Steinberg, Associated Press.



Reprinting my indignant comment over at Feministe (cross-posted to Echidne of the Snakes) ...which was brought about by THIS New York Times column by Maureen Dowd, and THIS endless thread at Huffington Post. (click on the latter at your own risk!)

Suddenly inflamed by cable-TV busybodies, I wrote:

The thing people are missing is the age component. The “research” (using word advisedly) at HuffPo suggests women are unhappier AS WE AGE. Probably because they will not stop fussing at us to look young, and have upped the ante. Now we are expected to diet, use botox and collagen and look good forever. This is impossible to achieve after a certain age without considerable anxiety and anguish. Women in past generations were never expected to be “matrons” and look hot.

Still shocked that one of those nasty “fashion” TV-round-ups criticized Jessica Lange for showing her old-lady arms at the Emmys. Never mind that she won! (They didn’t even fucking MENTION that!) But they did mention her (likely) plastic surgery, while sneering that her arms still look bad. Jesus Christ, she’s 64, has two Oscars… is there NO ESCAPE for ANYONE?

No matter how well-achieved a woman is, no matter that she has had her face stretched to the limit already, dammit, just look at those ARMS!

Infuriating.

Reprinting the comment here for EMPHASIS.

Infuriating!!

~*~

Speaking of infuriating, the much-beleaguered First Lady of South Carolina, Jenny Sanford, is writing a memoir:

Ballantine Books, an imprint of Random House Inc., said Tuesday it will publish Jenny Sanford's “inspirational memoir” in May 2010.

The publisher says Sanford “will grapple with the universal issue of maintaining integrity and a sense of self during life's difficult times.”

The book is currently untitled, and financial terms were not disclosed.

Mark Sanford was once a rising star in the Republican Party. He acknowledged in June that he had a yearlong affair with an Argentine woman he called his soul mate.

Jenny Sanford moved out of the governor's mansion in August, but she and her husband have said they're trying to repair their marriage.

Inspirational?

Oh, hell no.

Let's hope it isn't one of those unreadable, born-again "women's memoirs"--incessantly dotted with Bible verses. Or, worse, every emotion described is carefully catalogued with accompanying chapter and verse, so you know that even her most wayward thoughts are okay with Jesus.

Yes, I have been plied with a few of these in my time. They should NOT be confused with real memoirs.

Let's hope Jenny's account is a little better than the majority of these.

~*~

More in South Carolina fun-house news: My senator, Lindsey Graham, trashed Obama on the Sunday-morning talk shows as "being everywhere but the food channel"... which was admittedly funny. (Well, I toldya he was damned charming.) Meanwhile, he says he is ready to "compromise"--which could mean anything, coming from him.

On Saturday, downtown, I saw several Joe Wilson T-shirts and bumper stickers. Yeah, they LOOOOOVE him! CNN's Political Ticker reports that he has raised over $2 million on the strength of his ill-mannered temper tantrum.

Once more, I put out the SOS. Just in case you missed it the first time!

~*~

The title of today's post comes from the following clip... the reference to Play it Again Sam in yesterday's post, reminded me of this:



:D

"What's the matter with South Carolina?"

....is the title of an article by Politico. They mention Mark Sanford, Joe Wilson, Jim DeMint, and the whole Hee Haw gang:

South Carolina didn't always look like such hostile territory for Obama. He never had much hope of winning the state in the general election, but his decisive primary victory there in 2008 helped propel him to the Democratic presidential nomination. While he lost the state in November by nine percentage points to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), his performance nevertheless represented the best Democratic presidential showing in nearly three decades.

[...]

While the state has also elected loose-cannon Democrats like Sen. Fritz Hollings, whose seat DeMint won when Hollings retired in 2004, it's no accident that its high-profile politicians tend to be Republicans these days or that they don’t feel bound by the constraints felt by their colleagues in more politically competitive states.

"It has traditionally been a pretty deep-red state and I think that Republican politicians feel that there's not a limit to what they can do or say when it comes to Democratic elected officials, particularly the president," said former Democratic Gov. Jim Hodges, who was defeated by Sanford in 2002. "In most places, they play the sport of politics every two or four years. In South Carolina, they play it every year. It is more important than football, to some degree."

And here's my chance to answer the question. (I sure will.)

You wanna know what's wrong? How about the fact that the rest of the country has written us off and won't fund the insurgents? This is what happens. You are looking at the result of liberals being left HIGH AND DRY.

I'm sitting right here. My blog struggles... it might be the only progressive blog in the upstate. I know for a fact it isn't the only one in the whole state--but there aren't many. Support? Hello? I almost ran for the Green Party candidacy (for Congress) some years ago, but realized I could not afford it, especially if it meant taking significant time away from my job. Anybody home?

We have been left twisting slowly, slowly in the wind.

I constantly hear and read about how the national parties and various progressive organizations fund actions, bloggers and activities in affluent, liberal areas. Why? They ain't the ones that need the money, people and accompanying resources, you know?

I have witnessed the rather amazing and ostentatious spectacle of both major parties invading my state repeatedly during the Democratic and Republican presidential primaries, throwing away more money than the Saudis. They inject obscene amounts of money into those campaigns, but as I said, will not fund the insurgents. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE AN AIR AMERICA RADIO STATION IN THE UPSTATE. (My repeated emails about that were totally ignored; I didn't even rate a reply. Thanks!) Basically, the answer from national progressives has been to ignore upstate South Carolina progressives "on the ground"--and please pay attention...THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS.

Understand, now?

We need resources, offices, money, support. We have a radio station that is dormant that could be put to use. We have people ready to work, and radical organizations already in place. I have mentioned countless groups on this blog. YOU HAVE IGNORED US. The rich Republicans have colonized the state, and have gained enormous power that they have taken nationally, to challenge progressive change. We might have put a considerable dent in their influence, but we have no way to do that. We have been hobbled by them at every turn; they run ALL the major media outlets. At the town hall meeting I attended, as I said, there was a total of three "out" progressives. The rest were silent, inside, unorganized. I know there had to be at least another three. That might have been enough for us to feel safe raising a sign or banner, making our presence known to others and starting a necessary dialogue with local moderates. AND we could have gotten ourselves on TV or radio. As it was, we were too afraid.

WE NEED HELP. SOS.

Just answering the question.

(((sigh)))

I certainly don't expect anything to change as a result of this blog post. It would involve modern-day privileged progressives getting off their spoiled asses and doing something gutsy, as progressives did back in the day of the Freedom Riders. It would take NERVE, and kids with privilege do not appear to have any nerve left, as they did during the Civil Rights and Anti-War movements. (In fact, we do not have any appreciable anti-war movement, do we?) We need people to move to the state; we need people to share their knowledge and liberal connections with us.

What's the matter is that you wrote us off, and the rich saw that you did. As a result, you gave them a whole state to play with.

How do you like the consequences?