Primary elections depress me

I started to blog about the South Carolina primary of last Tuesday, but then I thought... WHAT FOR? Everybody was a shoo-in. I needn't have bothered to show up or vote. Senator Tim Scott won his primary bid, while Lindsey Graham was never in any real trouble at all, despite all his okey-doke on TV, designed to scare the hawks into giving him more money.

Depressing as hell.

As regular DEAD AIR readers know, I vote strategically, which means I vote in the Republican primary, since that's where the action is in my decidedly hyper-conservative state. Lindsey Graham fended off SIX (!) Tea Party challengers, with one hand tied behind his back. As Mr Daisy often says, only God knows how much money Lindsey Graham has. He could probably stand at the polling place (beyond the legal 200 yard-perimeter of course!) and hand out twenty-dollar-bills and not be any poorer for it. As it is, he and Tim Scott rate free commercials from Big Oil and Big Plastic, so he can hold onto his twenties. (and his fifties, and his hundreds...)

And yeah, that is WHAT I SAID: SIX TEA PARTY CHALLENGERS, including famously-wacky Lee Bright (I got a photo of him HERE, which got a new round of look-sees during the campaign) and a pro-lifer who drives an ice-cream truck and likes to call himself a "businessman". (He OWNS the ice cream truck, apparently.)

I voted for the ice cream truck driver, the only one I have met personally. I know ice cream truck drivers ("businessman" or not) will never make it to the Senate.

If these clowns could AGREE WITH EACH OTHER and band together as a unit, then ONE of them could have beaten Senator Graham in the primary. But they are SO specific about every jot and tittle of their conservative principles, it really is People's Front of Judea vs The Judean Peoples Front time. They can't even agree with each other. This is likely due to the fact that there are just SO MANY conservatives here, they can easily splinter over what the rest of us would consider small or inconsequential issues, just as the Left does in places like Berkeley or Boston.

The big news is that Brad Hutto, one of those conservative Democrats that are really Republicans, won the Democratic Senatorial Primary. He thinks he can take Graham, since Eric Cantor was ousted in Virginia. However, take note: Cantor was ousted by the aforementioned TEA PARTY, who managed NOT to have six candidates running at once, but only ONE, and then properly UNITED, they kicked ass. That's how its done; be advised!

Does Hutto think he can take advantage of Tea Party indignation over immigration and endless war? Well, maybe.

Democrat Vincent Sheheen, who already lost a gubernatorial election to (now Governor) Nikki Haley, is running against her AGAIN. As all of you know, I think this is a half-assed idea, and new blood would be far better.

Too bad they can't find any, since they are ineffectual as HELL.

Lindsey Graham has stood up against Tea Party outings, Tea Party attacks, David Brooks almost-naming him as a groper on TV, and countless other sticky situations. He seems bulletproof.

It also matters tremendously, as I have said before, that he is one of the most charming people in the world.

~*~

Stay tuned, sports fans.

Haley Watch: The torture continues

So many links, so much corruption, and so little time.

First up, as always, we have the inept, incompetent Governor Haley.

As one who had my Social Security and bank account numbers hacked at the SC Department of Revenue last autumn, I found the following story fascinating, and mentioned it on the air yesterday:

COLUMBIA — A Democratic senator has asked Gov. Nikki Haley if the state paid a ransom in the hacking of state Department of Revenue files last year.

Sen. Brad Hutto, an Orangeburg Democrat, sent the letter to Haley today and informed senators.

He asked for an immediate answer, arguing that the Legislature is working on final approval of the state's budget which includes tens of millions of dollars related to the massive data breach, which exposed 3.8 million Social Security numbers, 3.3 million bank account numbers and data for nearly 700,000 businesses.

Haley and other officials were asked about a ransom when the hacking was first disclosed last October.

The questions were referred to State Law Enforcement Division Chief Mark Keel, who said he could not comment on the investigation because it was ongoing.

And as I also said on the air, there's your answer.

When a politician is truly innocent of some outlandish accusation, they waste no time in immediately saying so. Why shouldn't they? It is in their interests to dismiss the nonsense as quickly as possible and get on with business.

However, when they are guilty, they do not respond right away... and sometimes (often) try to put off responding AT ALL. They invariably locate some hack to write a press release full of excuses and equivocations, then try to time their excuse-ridden press release for a busy news-day when they think no one is paying attention. I assume that is why Haley has not responded; the excuses (and outright lies) are still being collected, collated and assembled.

In short, right-wing Haleyspeak is imminent.

In this case, however, we are talking about the livelihoods and bank accounts of millions of people... she isn't going to worm her way out of this one so easily.

And more from Her Evilness, denying insurance coverage to people who paid for it, all while charging us MORE:

[A study] by the Rand corporation, looks at the 14 states that have said they will opt out of the new Medicaid funds. It finds that the result will be they get $8.4 billion less in federal funding, have to spend an extra $1 billion in uncompensated care, and end up with about 3.6 million fewer insured residents.

So then, the math works out like this: States rejecting the expansion will spend much more, get much, much less, and leave millions of their residents uninsured. That’s a lot of self-inflicted pain to make a political point.

It’s a truism of health-care politics that the uninsured are impossible to organize. But Obamacare creates an extraordinarily unusual situation. The Affordable Care Act will implemented in states that reject Medicaid. There will be huge mobilization efforts in those states, too, as well as lots of press coverage of the new law. The campaign to tell people making between 133 and 400 percent of poverty that they can get some help buying insurance will catch quite a few people making less than that in its net. And then those people will be told that they would get health insurance entirely for free but for an act of their governor and/or state legislature.

Oh dear God.

Will somebody, please, deliver us from this awful woman? (I told yall not to vote for her. )

I got into a Twitter argument yesterday (what? me?) and surprised myself by stating that I really do believe South Carolina voters thought a nonwhite woman would be an IMPROVEMENT....of course she wouldn't be any feminist radical-of-color (since she IS a Republican), but I certainly don't think they expected someone even more ultra-right than her predecessor Mark Sanford. Are SC voters simply uninformed? Do they vote on looks and PR, rather than what a politician actually stands for? I think they often do; there is the disturbing fact that up to 15% of South Carolinians lack basic literacy skills, which translates as the lowest-level of literacy necessary to apply for jobs or fill out basic paperwork such as insurance forms and tax returns.

This doesn't even count how many are politically illiterate, which is possibly the majority.

Speaking of political illiteracy, I've noticed that since Jim DeMint took over the Heritage Foundation, it's been one disaster after another, with lots more to come, I'm sure. Do they now realize they hired a legendary, world-class dimwit?

Hopefully, this means the place is headed down the drain. Adios, Heritage Foundation.

I wish we could say the same for Governor Haley.

"Born alive" bill moves a step closer to law

I wasn't sure if I should cover this, at first. It's just weird. But as a feminist blogger in South Carolina, I figured it is my unpleasant task to do so.

This sounds like more right-to-life grandstanding to me. Note last paragraph; this law was apparently inspired by ONE case back in 2003. And there is no proof that this fetus was the result of abortion or miscarriage.

I think it's another way to make people more uncomfortable with abortion, basically a propaganda ploy.

Barack Obama supports this? He must not think it will cost him any political support, since it's far too arcane to make any real difference.

"Born alive" bill moves a step closer to law
By Tim Smith • CAPITAL BUREAU • May 6, 2009
Greenville News

COLUMBIA – A bill that would prevent a fetus from being thrown away as medical waste or to die outside the mother’s body as a form of abortion moved one step closer to law this morning after it passed a Senate subcommittee.

Senators amended the House-passed bill to note that nothing in the legislation affects state or federal laws on abortion or affects generally accepted medical standards.

The “born alive” bill now moves to the full Judiciary Committee.

The legislation defines a person as anyone who is breathing or who is born with a beating heart, no matter the means of birth or whether the result of an abortion.

Orin Smith, president of the Palmetto Family Council, told the committee the bill is rooted in a federal law passed in 2002 as the result of aborted fetuses that were allowed to die. He said both former President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama supported the federal legislation.

“I think we have broad support for the bill,” he said.

Sen. Brad Hutto, an Orangeburg Democrat whose wife is a physician, said he does not understand the need for the bill because it does not “change anything.”

Janet Scouten, director of research for Smith’s organization, said the bill would provide “an additional level of protection.”

Holly Gatling, executive director of S.C. Citizens for Life, a pro-life group, pointed to a report in 2003 in Columbia of a fetus found at a laundry company, wrapped in a blanket.

Does anyone else believe this is anything other than pro-life grandstanding?

Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, Ten Commandments

They finally figured out a way to sneak them in. They are now "historical" documents and are included solely for that reason.

Of course, this begs the question: the Catholic or Protestant version of the Ten Commandments? (I bet I know the answer to that one!)

Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, Ten Commandments

By Tim Smith • STAFF WRITER • May 23, 2008 • GREENVILLE NEWS

COLUMBIA -- The Senate passed a bill today that would allow displays in public buildings of the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer as historical documents.

The bill, without the Lord’s Prayer amendment, already passed the House and now returns there for legislators to determine whether they agree with the Senate’s change. If they agree, the bill goes to Gov. Mark Sanford.

Passage came with one prominent opponent. Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell said the Lord’s Prayer amendment is "constitutional quicksand" that will draw a court challenge and unnecessary legal fees.

"There are at least five different versions of the Lord’s Prayer," he said. "I have no problem personally with the Lord’s Prayer being publicly displayed. But the courts have spoken pretty clearly about where they are on the separation of church and state and these documents."

The bill would allow public bodies, including schools, to display a set of 11 documents lawmakers say help make up the nation’s foundation of law and government. Included are the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Emancipation Proclamation and Martin Luther King’s "I have a Dream" speech, as well as the national motto, "In God We Trust."

The documents must include language included in the bill that explains each document’s historical significance.

"The historical documents bill passed by the Senate is a win because it will help to further educate people about the documents that formed the foundation of our country’s history and provide deeper meaning to the great and rich history that we have in this country," said Sen. Larry Martin of Pickens, who shepherded the issue through the Senate.

"It will also be a great tool for history, civic and government teachers to use in their classroom."

Martin said afterward that a number of senators were nervous about including the Lord’s Prayer but did so out of fear of what voters would think if they voted against it. The amendment was proposed by Sen. Brad Hutto, an Orangeburg Democrat.

"Some people felt like there was no way they could go back home and explain why they voted against the Lord’s Prayer," Martin said.

Sen. Mike Fair of Greenville said the bill is "sound." He added, "It’s not religious. It’s historical."

Parts of the Lord’s Prayer, Fair said, was referenced by an early governor of Georgia in removing a provision for debtors’ prison.

However, McConnell, the only senator voting against the bill, said if the Lord’s Prayer is left in, the bill will be overturned by the courts.

"I cannot vote for a bill when all of the advice from the lawyers leads you to the presumption that it is unconstitutional," he said.

"The taxpayers are going to end up footing the bill for all of this. If we had stuck to the documents that have been pretty much court tested, we would be fine. But we expanded it beyond that. And I believe it will cause the package to explode in the courts."

Sen. David Thomas, a Greenville County Republican, disagreed. "It’s true that the Lord’s Prayer wasn’t included in some of the test cases," he said. "But the condition of the test cases is whether the item is placed into historical context. I think they made it where we have a good shot at maintaining the constitutionality of it."

Thomas said he doesn’t mind the bill being challenged because it could expand the documents that can be set in such displays.

What else qualifies? What else might we get put on display? (I see no foreseeable end to the Bible verses.)

And if this is challenged in the courts, I don't want to pay for it. Do I get a choice?