« Brash youth: The lost Thomas Ravenel videos | Main | Bash Wingate for this if you must find something »
Friday, 22 June 2007
Democrats bash Wingate about the wrong things
Political parties don't stop to think twice very often. They should.
Yesterday, not four hours had passed after Gov. Mark Sanford announced that Ken Wingate would step in as interim treasurer, and the state Democratic Party already had a singularly nasty release out pounding away at the guy.
Parties do that, I suppose. But it's grotesque when Democrats and Republicans in South Carolina engage in the kind of trashy, slash-and-burn rhetoric that we normally see out of Washington on those 24-hour TV "news" channels. It's like children imitating their dysfunctional parents.
This one is particularly egregious because it's off-base. It accuses Mr. Wingate, by strong implication, of being a hateful racist. Here's how it does that:
Wingate's appointment brings a new cloud of suspicion over the Treasurer's office, however. In 2002, when he was running in the Republican gubernatorial primary, the S.C. League of the South endorsed Wingate.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the league a "neo-confederate hate group." The group "opposed removing the Confederate flag from the State House dome in 2000," and "opposes state funding for education" (The State, 10/1/2004). The league "also supports secession as an option for protecting states' rights."
Wingate has repeatedly refused to denounce his association with the hate group or express disagreement with their positions.
At the end, there's a quote from party chair Carol Khare Fowler that says in part:
Ken Wingate has refused many times to denounce his association with a hate group, and for that reason he should not be considered for the interim position. I don't know why anyone would want to be associated with a group that expresses so much hatred and division, and I can't understand why the Governor would appoint someone who does. I hope Governor Sanford will rescind the appointment and strongly consider someone who isn't a hate group candidate
Well, golly, he must be a pretty hateful guy then, huh? Well, not so as I've been able to notice. But then, I get exposed to actual hateful people a good bit -- out in the world and right here on my phone and in my e-mail -- and I've had trouble seeing a resemblance between them and Ken Wingate. As I said before, he's a pretty decent sort.
The League of the South is a serious bunch of yahoos. (Just ask them; they'll tell you they're serious.) They would like to see South Carolina secede again. They want to see the United States flag removed from state government buildings. I am not making this up.
But they are at least smart enough to avoid overtly racist statements (and if I missed something on their Web site, or you have some other proof, show it to me; I don't mind being corrected, and it won't be a terrible shock). Yes, I think disbanding the United States is a hateful idea, in that it would be disastrous for the whole world, including South Carolina, which remains too large to be an insane asylum. And yes, it is disingenuous at best to pretend that the Confederacy would have existed without this state's powerful desire to keep black folks in bondage. Such willful obtuseness is also hateful.
But to leap from that to Ken Wingate being hateful -- and that's what the release is trying to make us think -- is a reach. And a hateful one, if you despise scorched-earth partisanship as much as I do.
Here's what Mr. Wingate had to say in 2004 when confronted about the League's former endorsement of him in 2002:
I don't know anything about them, their issues, their policies, what they try to do or what they're involved with.... I have not sought the endorsement of the League of the South in this race or, as I recall -- and it's been more than two years ago -- in that race.
Not exactly a ringing denunciation, but neither is it an expression of appreciation to the League for its "help."
That's not to say that Ken Wingate doesn't deserve criticism for some of his past associations. I'll have more about that later.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 04:56 AM in Character, Elections, Parties, South Carolina
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/337487/19483890
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Democrats bash Wingate about the wrong things:
Comments
That Democratic Party release is partisan politics at its worst. Thanks for sharing it.
I thought Wingate made a good impression when he ran for office, and thought it seemed like a good appointment.
With a republican controlled house fighting with a republcan senate, and everyone disagreeing with a republican governor, you'd think the democrats's could capitalize on all that. What a lack of leadership.
Posted by: mark g | Jun 22, 2007 6:29:30 AM
Brad, you didn't exactly make a strong case that Ms. Fowler's comments are out of line. Wingate's lack of a strident repudiation of the SC League of the South suggests a tacit sympathy for the group, well in line with her statement: "Ken Wingate has refused many times to denounce his association with a hate group". The fact that Mr. Wingate is so willing to actively pursue policies that take away a legal form of recreation (video poker) from state citizens is reason enough to believe he is capable of supporting other intrusive measures.
Posted by: bud | Jun 22, 2007 7:30:56 AM
I'm a Democrat and I think Ken Wingate is a pretty good guy. I was pleased when I heard that Sanford appointed him interim treasurer, and I'm disappointed in the SCDP for issuing a press release trashing him.
The SCDP has some issues. Since moving to SC in 2000, I've gotten the impression that the Party's old guard is very partisan, very strident. It seems they'd rather toe the national party line than reach out to the undecided or unaffiliated people of the state.
I was hoping that a new chair might help change things, but apparently it hasn't.
Posted by: Susanna | Jun 22, 2007 8:25:33 AM
I bet Wingate is opposed to homosexual marriage too. Wonder what Mzzz. Fowler would say about that? According to people like she, conservatives must be on clear public record as opposed to anything the Ms. Fowlers of the world don't happen to like. She needs to get a life. I bet if we scrutinized every whacked out group that SHE supports we'd have enough to keep us busy a while. Wingate will be a good treasurer. We (and Mz. Fowler) should just let him. How typical of democrat rock- throwers not to want to. Ed
Posted by: ed | Jun 22, 2007 8:53:11 AM
This should be easy to settle. I think we all agree that the SC League of the South is a pretty shady outfit that is at least in spirit a racist organization. Did this sizeable organization support Ken Wingate in either his 2002 or 2004 political bids? If so, then Mr. Wingate has an affirmative obligation to denounce this group and reject it's endorsement. Otherwise, Mr. Wingate is guilty by association. In that context Ms. Fowler's comments are right-on.
Why is this so hard to understand? A hate group supports a candidate. When confronted by that hate-groups support the candidate does not clearly repudiate that support. Therefore that candidate must be considered supportive of that hate-group's major stands on issues. Ms. Fowler is simply pointing out a fact. All Mr. Wingate has to do is denounce the hate group and his name is cleared. Nothing could be simpler. The fact that no one attacking Ms. Fowler can actually come up with any evidence that Mr. Wingate repudiates the SC League of the South, a group who apparently supported his candidacy, suggests THEY are the partisans.
Posted by: bud | Jun 22, 2007 9:34:55 AM
Ms. Fowler is not totally off base here. I seem to remember last summer there was a slight controversy over Mr. Wingate's puritanical and ultimately futile attempt to censor the summer reading selection at Clemson (where his daughter was attending) because the novel dealt frankly with issues related to sexuality and gender. Like his non-repudiation of the League of the South, there seems to be a pattern here. His refusal to rebuke the League's endorsment and his silly attempt to control Clemson's curriculum raise questions not only of character but of intellectual judgment.
Obviously, this has nothing to do with his ability to very temporarily administer the state's financial transactions (which seem more than adequete), but it does raise the question of whether or not South Carolina is capable of having officals who aren't completely right-wing extremists. The implication of Ms. Fowler's statement is not that Wingate is racist or hateful, but that he, like many others in the SCGOP, are willing to tacitly tolerate the most extreme ideas on the right, which in turn gives the appearance of an endorsement of those hateful positions.
Posted by: moderate Dem | Jun 22, 2007 10:09:51 AM
[...] it does raise the question of whether or not South Carolina is capable of having officals who aren't completely right-wing extremists.
Not if ed and Sanford have anything to say about the selection of officials.
Brad, otoh, would have trouble recognizing a right wing theocrat if he were being drowned during a forced protestant baptism.
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Jun 22, 2007 10:42:00 AM
I used teh Google, and it looks to me like Ms. Fowler's remarks are pretty much dead on target. No one uses overt racist language any more, they talk about things like "voting fraud", or "universal ID", or they talk about how if Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948, we wouldn't have all these problems we have now. The League of the South stuff goes even further than that, most of it looks like Thomas Dixon could have written it.
Wingate was endorsed by an extremist racist group; he declined to denounce them. Ms. Fowler pointed that out. How that's "nasty", I fail to understand.
If denouncing racist hate groups is "scorched-earth partisanship," and making excuses for them is "bipartisanship", well, let me be a scorched-earth partisan.
Posted by: Hal Jordan | Jun 22, 2007 12:20:15 PM
I guess my question is: Who did she want the Governor to appoint? A democrat? Would she have been pleased with any other conservative appointee? I think the answer is probably not. I don't know. I'm just sick of people like this woman who make no real contribution to anything positive that I know of, and yet are primed and ready to find fault less than 24 hours after the Governor appoints someone to fill in and get a job done under less than optimum circumstances. How small and petty and puny this is. It demonstrates a pretty clear lack of character to me. I'm just sayin. Ed
Posted by: ed | Jun 22, 2007 12:53:03 PM
By the way, if Mz. Fowlers' problem IS that she really wanted a liberal person appointed to this job, I say tough nuts! In order to get your people into positions of power, you need first to win elections. What is difficult to understand about that?
Again, Wingate will be a good treasurer, and fault-finders and nit-pickers who lose elections and then spend their time casting stones at people who are trying to get the job done ought to LET him be a good treasurer. I wonder how his affiliation with whatever group this is really impacts upon his performance as treasurer? Could Mz. Fowler explain how she thinks his acceptance of campaign contributions from whoever will affect his performance? Of course not. She has no point, she simply has an agenda.
And for moderate dem: Acceptance of a campaign contribution does not make Wingate a right wing "extremist" and for you to imply that it does makes you look silly. If you really believe this foolishness, you ought to check into who exactly contributes to your favorite democrats. Ed
Posted by: ed | Jun 22, 2007 1:16:07 PM
Gee Brad - I wish the rest of us could be as smart as you. You are so wise.
This was a big issue in Wingate’s most recent losing campaign. Why shouldn’t the Democrats bring it up? Is the release factually wrong? You don’t like the tone? Is that your problem? Well, I don’t like your beard.
There’s no question that you are your own biggest fan. That is usually the case with faux intellectuals.
In a way you unite the two parties. Republican, Democrat or liberal or conservative .. Everyone agrees that your writings make you seem like a self-righteous tool bag.
Doesn’t Midlands Tech need an adjunct government professor or something? I think you’d be good at that. Maybe people would listen to you there.
Posted by: John Middleton | Jun 22, 2007 2:37:43 PM
"A self righteous tool bag"...hmmm. I'll have to file that one away for future use. Although we disagree, nicely said John. Ed
Posted by: ed | Jun 22, 2007 7:19:34 PM
I don't understand how an endorsement says anything about the candidate endorsed.
Charles Manson in his own perverse way endorsed the Beatles, but that didn't put the Beatles in bed with him.
Sounds like S.C. Democrats don't have enough to do.
Posted by: Weldon VII | Jun 22, 2007 9:16:59 PM
Precisely so and well said, Weldon. Ed
Posted by: ed | Jun 22, 2007 9:25:14 PM
Fail elementary logic, ed and Weldon?
When an organization endorses a candidate the implication is that the candidate and the endorsing organization have much in common.
And, indeed, a look at the modern SCGOP and neo-confederates certainly confirms this.
So, if the candidate wishes to disassociate himself from the endorsing group then he should clearly, emphatically and unmistakably reject not only the endorsement but the aims of the group itself.
Otherwise, people might accurately conclude that the candidate doesn't really reject the group's aims-- just the unwanted notoriety that goes with being tagged as a sympathizer.
Wingate knows that underneath the hoods/robes and neo-confederate rhetoric, the League of the South strikes a chord with his supporters. He can't denounce the group, their historical revisionism, and their bizarre philosophy. It appeals to much to his base.
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Jun 22, 2007 11:25:27 PM
Note to Susanna, I agree that the old guard SCDem leaders have problems-- but the problems are almost exactly opposite of what you cite.
In fact, the SCDem leadership is far too much LIKE the SCGOP leadership to be too shrill or partisan.
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Jun 22, 2007 11:31:51 PM
Only in your world RTH. Politics being what it is these days, we're long past the days when what you assert was true.
If I have failed anything, it wasn't my logic course, it has been in getting you to see/admit the truth. Ed
Posted by: ed | Jun 23, 2007 5:32:08 PM
Ed, I'll try to put it a little more simply, and maybe then you can understand it.
1. The League of the South is a neo-confederate hate group. "States' rights," as everyone knows, is a code word for establishing and maintaining a system of racial oppression without interference from the federal government. They want the federal government to allow states to establish racist societies.
2. The agenda of the League of the South is one that every decent person denounces in clear and unequivocal terms.
3. Ken Wingate was confronted with an endorsement coming from the League of the South. He had an opportunity to denounce them and their agenda, to declare that he was opposed to racism, that the days of maintaining a racist society in South Carolina or any other state of the United States were long past, and that the racist society to which the League of the South longs to return was a long, hideous chapter in American history, one that we are glad to be rid of.
4. Wingate did not do this. Instead, he pretended to be unfamiliar with the League of the South. Instead of denouncing them and stating that he wanted no part of them and their agenda, he said that he "had not sought their endorsement."
Understand now?
Posted by: Hal Jordan | Jun 23, 2007 10:00:57 PM
Screw you and your condescending tone Hal. I don't need lectures from agendized liberal fools.
My point remains: Wingate will be an outstanding Treasurer. Period. You and people like you need to let him be just that. None of this foolishness will have one iota of impact upon how Wingate functions as Treasurer, and you bloody well know it. This kind of nit-picking and fault-finding is the stuff brought forward by little minds, who don't have anything else. And, it is sad...typical, but sad. Ed
Posted by: ed | Jun 24, 2007 8:10:15 AM
Well, Ed, you need lectures from someone, because you don't understand how evaluation of officeholders by the public is supposed to work. I guess you don't understand how America is supposed to work.
Your point, apparently, is that Wingate's agreement with the goals of the League of the South, or at any rate his failure to repudiate those goals, and the attempt by the group to associate itself with him, doesn't involve financial issues, and is therefore irrelevant. Fine. But that's your view, it's not binding on others.
Following your line of reasoning, Ravenel's apparent coke problem should be winked at because it didn't affect his functioning as treasurer.
Basically, your argument is, you like Wingate, so you can think up excuses for him, and because you can think up excuses, everybody else is obligated to accept your excuses.
Well, they aren't. Ms. Fowler takes a more expansive view of the role of public servants than you do. She doesn't see them as confined to one narrow area, with scrutiny similarly confined to that narrow area. She feels that the whole person should be evaluated, and someone should be judged as fit or unfit for public office based on the evaluation of the whole person.
Someone who agrees with the goals of the League of the South is immoral. Someone who, when presented with an attempt by the League of the South to associate themselves with him, fails to denounce them, is immoral. Ms. Fowler feels that this manifestation of immorality on Wingate's part disqualifies him for public office. You don't.
That's the essence of your argument. Your argument is that Ms. Fowler disagrees with you, and anyone who disagrees with you should be silent. Well, tough. Ms. Fowler doesn't care whether you think she should be silent, I don't care, no one cares. Make your argument all you please, persuade everyone you can that your viewpoint is correct, but understand, whether you like it or not, that other people are going to make their arguments and try to persuade other people that their viewpoint is correct.
Posted by: Hal Jordan | Jun 25, 2007 12:15:24 AM
My point remains: Wingate will be an outstanding Treasurer. Period.
-ed
That's not a point at all, that's an assertion. Since the right-wingers generally supported Ravanel it calls into question their judgement about who would make a good treasurer. We had plenty of evidence to show that Ravanel was a spoiled brat, unqualified shill for the conservative right. Many of us with a brain saw through his screeching assault of so-called liberals in the 2006 campaign. We dismiss completely and utterly the rantings from the right concerning yet another blow-hard right-wing politician. Wingate's refusal to thoroughly dismiss a hate organization seriously calls into question the moral fiber of this man. But who do the right-wing shills attack? The messenger, Carol Fowler. For shame.
Wake up people of South Carolina. You listen to the right-wing spin machine at your peril. The result will be more of the same: A state that underperforms every other state in the nation on just about every measure of quality of life.
Posted by: bud | Jun 25, 2007 8:13:24 AM
I need lectures and you're just the guy to do it eh? Not a chance pal.
In any event, it is curious to me that nearly every liberal democrat congressman and senator presently in office has taken campaign contributions from the evil and sinister Jack Abramoff, but strangely it's only a problem to cynical ideologues like you when conservatives have taken them.
Then of course we have slick Willy, the lecherous and deviant liberal boy president whose pecadillos were only matters of private life...or at least so you liberal sycophants told us ad nauseum.
You have not a shred of credibility on the Wingate thing, Hal. NONE. You traded it all away when you were busily defending the indefensible and supporting the unsupportable for all of your liberal office-holders.
I know that you sit in the slow part of the class, so I'll tell you again, slowly: Wingate IS the Treasurer in this state. He will do a fine job, nit-pickers and nit-wits like you notwithstanding. Get over it. When your guys start winning elections, you can get your people into positions of power. Until then, it sucks to be you, doesn't it? Ed
Posted by: ed | Jun 25, 2007 9:17:07 AM
nearly every liberal democrat congressman and senator presently in office has taken campaign contributions from the evil and sinister Jack Abramoff
That is false, ed.
Posted by: kc | Jun 25, 2007 10:41:02 AM
No it isn't, and when I get more time tonight, I'll support it with facts. Don't let the fact that you may not want it to be true blind you to what IS the truth, kc.
For the time being, I simply point out that the senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, had admitted to accepting contributions from Abramoff. This came out and was widely reported back last year when liberal hit men were attempting to run conservatives out of town for accepting contributions from him.
I am sorry that the facts don't support your particular version of reality, but they are the facts nonetheless. And I don't care what you support, neither do I care whether Hal likes the fact that Wingate IS Treasurer...you and he can think and say whatever you want, but you don't get your own personal version of the truth. That may fly in the pages of the newspaper, and it may fly in the liberal circles you inhabit, but it won't fly with me and I intend to point out your hypocrisy when I see it. Ed
Posted by: ed | Jun 25, 2007 11:30:26 AM
By the way, I probably exagerated a little when I said that "nearly every" liberal in congress has accepted contributions, but if so I didn't by much. Again, I'll provide the facts later for anyone not so agendized that they actually care about the truth.
In the meantime, for the special-ed folks in the class like Hal, I'll be perfctly clear: The reason I brought up Senator Reid and Jack Abramoff is because the intellectually vacant like Hal go around trying to make a huge case against Wingate because he is associated with some group, when this exact kind of association goes on all the time between politicians of all stripes and their donors/supporters. Hal doesn't want or like this point made when it concerns liberals, but he's all over it when he thinks he can make hay with a conservative. Again, the hypocrisy of people like Hal is thick and plentiful. Ed
Posted by: ed | Jun 25, 2007 11:52:11 AM
