« Grandmaster Bud of the Irmo High School Chess Club | Main | Residents also advised to refrain from jumping off cliffs... »
Friday, 23 May 2008
How Jake became Jake: Knotts on growing up poor in Columbia
There have been times in the past that I've heard parts of it, but this time, I sat back and listened to Jake Knotts tell his full story of how he grew up in Columbia.
He was offering it as an explanation of his values, a way of telling us why he approaches things the way he does.
Look at it any way you like -- as the inspiring story of how a populist rose up from the poorest corners of our capital city, or how hard times made a "rough cop" and bull-headed hard case of a state senator.
Either way, it's interesting, and worth watching the video. This is from an interview Tuesday morning in our offices. Once Jake had told his story, we of course launched into the usual questions.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 07:28 PM in 2008 S.C., Elections, Endorsement interviews, Midlands, Republicans, South Carolina, The State, Video
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4ea353ef00e55279f3ee8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How Jake became Jake: Knotts on growing up poor in Columbia:
» Zoloft. from Zoloft.
Zoloft withdrawl. Zoloft side effects. [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 7, 2009 4:17:12 AM
» Zolpidem. from Zolpidem.
Cheap zolpidem. Zolpidem fedex. Zolpidem. [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 11, 2009 11:36:42 PM
Comments
I can't get the video to play but his description reads like that of Bounderby from "Hard Times".
Is he going to complete the Political Courage Test from Project Vote Smart? I see there is no need to research his voting record - he basically votes the party line.
Posted by: Randy E | May 24, 2008 6:05:06 AM
I have passionate differences of opinion with Senator Knotts over policy, over the way he votes, things of that nature. As a result, I won't be voting for him. (Don't know what Randy E is talking about - Jake's a long long way from the party line.)
This is still a fascinating story, though, and well told. Thanks for sharing it, Brad.
Posted by: Joshua | May 24, 2008 9:31:16 AM
That was my point, Joshua -- glad you appreciated it. Just plain interesting. Call it part of my campaign to help the world see that politicians are people, not angels or demons.
Randy, tell me again what happened when you tried to view the video -- could you hear it and not see it, or nothing at all? What browser are you using? It plays fine for me on Firefox -- although I see I should shrink the window a bit to fit on this post...
And Randy, Joshua's right -- there's nothing party line about Jake. In fact, what you have here is a war between people (Sanford and Knotts) who are both outside the mainstreams of their party.
Jake is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, in terms of the positions he takes or the way he approaches the world. He's a populist. Sanford is a libertarian.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | May 24, 2008 2:28:54 PM
Sanford = libertarian
Knotts = necessitarian
Posted by: Reader | May 24, 2008 3:17:40 PM
I looked at his recent voting record on the major issues - objective analysis:
Yes for sales vs property tax
Pro-voucher
Voted to support Pay-day lenders
Voted to Appoint Sec of Ed
Extremely low rating for environmental issues
A+ from NRA
Please share an example of how he has he bucked the party line.
Posted by: Randy E | May 24, 2008 3:28:25 PM
A populist would have opposed replacing property tax with the sales tax. A populist would not allow public money to pay for private schools. A populist in no way would support pay day lenders.
Posted by: Randy E | May 24, 2008 3:31:23 PM
Randy, are you sure about those? The voucher thing doesn't sound right. Of course, favoring vouchers isn't party-line. If it were, they would have become law. They are the Sanford line, and Sanford is a countercultural Republican. In any case, Jake doesn't vote for anything Sanford favors if he can help it -- even when Sanford's right (such as on the Lexington Medical Center open-heart CON request).
And while I don't know whether you're right or not on the payday lending thing, how do you figure that the populist position is anti-payday lending?
I ask that because we want to do away with the industry, and as a result we get accused of being bourgeois paternalists -- middle-class busybodies who think they know better than the working-class people who like having these legal loan sharks as an option in a pinch.
Not that I'm agreeing with that assertion, but it's consistent with the kinds of criticism we get for opposing video poker and the lottery. In each case, we're opposing things that are very popular among the working class.
Is a position taken "because it's for the people's own good" a POPULIST position? I tend to think of "populist" as meaning something with mass appeal, something that the people in question would choose for themselves; something they would identify with.
Do you see what I mean?
Also, I gather that you think I mean to praise someone by saying he's a "populist." No, I'm just being descriptive. It's a way of describing someone who is unlike me, because I am no populist. And I don't say that to praise myself; I'm just being descriptive. NOT being a populist, I regard myself with suspicion sometimes: Am I being a snob? Some would say "yes."
Posted by: Brad Warthen | May 24, 2008 4:22:32 PM
Isn't great that a poor boy in Lexington County can grow up one day to be a state senator and 1/3rd owner of a strip club along with the county sheriff and prominent county prosecutor.
Posted by: Bill C. | May 24, 2008 4:37:45 PM
NOW this blog is getting good -- Bill C -- more on that revelation -- Please!
Posted by: Reader | May 24, 2008 4:45:20 PM
Let me guess: Pure. Pure Corruption over here in Lexington County.
Posted by: Reader | May 24, 2008 4:48:14 PM
Where's the strip club, Bill? I should probably go check it out. Is there a cover charge? Do you think they'd accept my company credit card?
Posted by: Brad Warthen | May 24, 2008 5:04:16 PM
Thomas Ravenel's pardon is as good as granted if these yahoos are part-owners of Pure. And if any of this is true, Bill C.
Posted by: Reader | May 24, 2008 5:26:27 PM
Populist (Merriam-Webster) - a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people.
Pay day lenders prey on the common person.
Sales taxes are regressive compared to property taxes. The vote to shift taxing from property taxes favors the privileged. Common necessities make up a larger percent of the common person's salary.
Low socio-economic people can not take advantage of a voucher of $8k to pay annual tuition of $12k at a Heathwood or Hammond. The 8k figure is likely a large overestimate.
Regarding the votes, see for yourselves:
State Scholarships for Private Schools
Amendment No. P-2B Y
Sales and Property Taxes
H 4449 Y
Prohibiting Payday Lending Amendment
AM 4 to S 398 Y (yes to table the bill)
Posted by: Randy E | May 24, 2008 8:13:43 PM
Go, Brad, go. Check it out. Cash. Credit. Who cares. I am going to be highly peeved if this was just a traffic builder, Bill C.
Posted by: Reader | May 24, 2008 8:14:51 PM
So "poor" Jake Knotts is Bounderby from "Hard Times", a man who grew up poor but found success and then showed little sympathy for the poor.
Someone show me how I am wrong.
Posted by: Randy E | May 24, 2008 8:16:11 PM
He showed little sympathy for me -- just a poor peasant girl, transplanted from Louisiana and not knowing about these big, bad wolves.
Emmylou Harris says it best on "Wrecking Ball, Orphan Girl."
Posted by: Reader | May 24, 2008 8:34:09 PM
Brad, find out who owns the Southern Gentleman.
Posted by: Bill C. | May 25, 2008 8:32:51 AM
As long as Lexington keeps voting for rednecks, nothing will change. They know what they are getting with Jake = a guy who will keep the good old boy network humming.
Posted by: Yankee Transplant | May 26, 2008 8:57:03 AM
Meet us at the wrecking ball, YT. We hope to fix that humming noise.
Posted by: Reader | May 26, 2008 10:40:18 AM
I was surprised by Randy's assertion that Knotts voted pro-voucher and went to the Project Vote Smart site (where it LOOKS like he got his information) to check it out. Turns out that Knotts voted yes to TABLE a voucher plan. (I did not check any of the other votes cited.)
Project Vote Smart offers a tremendous resource for voters, but you need to be sure to read the details, not just the topic and yes/no vote on the main candidate page; you need to click on the topic to find out what "yes" or "no" actually meant.
Posted by: Cindi Scoppe | May 27, 2008 8:42:53 AM
I concede my error, Ms. Scoppe (I knew you peeked in on us but didn't know you contributed). I attempted due diligence and had read the Pay Day Lender bill but did not do the same with the voucher plan.
Despite this, I still take issue with his label as a populist given this aforementioned lenders bill and the property tax bill.
Posted by: Randy E | May 27, 2008 12:40:48 PM
Economics lesson for Randy:
If the education voucher is $8,000, and the tuition at Already Filled Up Academy is $12,000, it doesn't mean that poor little Johnny has to go to the government school.
There will be huge market for $8,000 schooling, and smart teachers will set up shop to supply it, in smaller classrooms than the GovCo has. 15 students times $8,000 = $120,000 to pay rent on a nice office , utilities, and still leave $100,000 per teacher.
A real manager ( not an educrat ) will organize a bunch of teachers into a school, pay them $70,000 with $15,000 in retirement and $5,000 benefits, and pay himself $10,000 per class for putting it all together.
Posted by: Lee Muller | May 28, 2008 10:44:58 AM
Lee, off the top of my head, I came up with additional expenditures:
*property insurance
*desks and white boards
*technology; computers, internet etc.
*copy machines and service
*consumables; markers, paper, etc.
*maintenance
*nurse
*administrative assistance because certainly someone has to deal with parent calls, packages, absences,etc.
*meal service
*counselor to handle student graduation, college searches, IAPs,
*science lab equipment
Of course, this will be filled with students of families who want a puritanical education devoid of any extra-curricular activities or athletics.
We also can not provide for any special ed needs.
Also, explain how many teachers are needed each year to provide for the diploma requirements below while maintaining your 15:1 ratio.
English/Language Arts 4.0
Mathematics 4.0
Science 3.0
U.S. History and Constitution 1.0
Economics 0.5
U.S. Government 0.5
Other Social Studies 1.0
Physical Education or Junior ROTC 1.0
Computer Science (Incl. keyboarding) 1.0
Foreign Language or Career and Technology Education* 1.0
Electives 7.0
Total †‡ 24
Posted by: Randy E | May 28, 2008 4:04:01 PM
Don't worry, Randy, being a business man, I know all about those expenses, and already figured them in. So will the entrepreneurs who make a lot of money providing an $8,000 education which is vastly superior to the $12,000 government education.
And you can forget forcing your government curriculum on students. The voucher schools will come up with better programs, because they will hire away the better teachers.
While you sit on the sidelines and tell us how it won't work, the doers will make it work. That's the way is always is.
Posted by: Lee Muller | May 28, 2008 6:36:06 PM
You may "know" about these expenses but you didn't included them in your original proposal.
I'm still waiting for you to determine how many teachers are needed to meet the diploma requirements.
Posted by: Randy E | May 29, 2008 12:13:56 PM
