Brad Warthen's Blog

Duck! The culture war just started back up

Just as it looks like maybe we can have a relatively high-minded campaign with two presidential nominees who both can appeal to us independents, the Kulturkampf flares back up.

This delighted The Wall Street Journal this morning, which as the official spokespaper of conservatism went out of its way to affirm Democratic fears of the "Republican attack machine" when it gleefully greeted the California Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex "marriage:"

Gay Marriage Returns
    Just when the news was filling with stories about a Republican Party gasping for air, along comes the California Supreme Court's 4-3 decision yesterday legislating gay marriage. The GOP certainly hasn't done anything to deserve such luck.
    Recall how in November 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court, also by a 4-3 vote, issued a similar gay marriage pronouncement. It dogged Democrat John Kerry all the way to Election Day. The issue got so hot that the liberal fever swamps came to believe that Karl Rove had invented this greatest of all "wedge" issues.
    Nope. Judges invent wedge issues. Always have. As with California's Supreme Court, many of the berobed judiciary take it as their solemn duty to do the people's thinking for them on the modern world's most difficult and divisive social issues. So it was with Roe v. Wade, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared 50 state legislatures irrelevant. The aftermath has been more than 30 years of the abortion wars....

Oh, and in case you think the WSJ's characterization of the left as wont to impose judicial fiat in spite of what the people of our republic may want is a bit overboard, check out this quote from the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom (that's him at right):

"As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

So there. Pow, zing. I just want to go on record right now as saying that in the culture wars, I'm a conscientious objector. I just don't want to have this fight.

I tell you how this always feels to me -- like the two sides in these culture battles are allied with each other against the rest of us. How else do you explain both sides -- from the voice of the political right to the gay rights folks -- being so happy about this development? When both the Karl Roves and the Gavin Newsoms are thrilled, it's time for the rest of us to duck, because here it all comes again.

Sheri Few touts ability to raise funds as advantage in House 79 primary

Although she was a candidate for the GOP nomination for this seat two years ago, this is the first video I've posted of Ms. Few -- in fact, I don't think I shot pictures of her either, since I didn't post any at the time. She was the second candidate to come in for an interview in 2006, and it apparently had not yet dawned on me to take my camera into those meetings for blog purposes.

This time around, I have an embarrassment of riches -- so many images and clips on candidates that they keep threatening to crash my laptop. And yet, they've been coming in so fast I haven't had time to post many on the blog. But at least I'm doing this one. (Truth be told, if I weren't under the gun to produce a video clip of something for the Saturday Opinion Extra by midnight, I wouldn't be doing this one, either -- it's been a tough week, and hours to go before I sleep.)

In this clip, Ms. Few is talking about her proven ability to raise money, which she suggests (and she's probably right) is considerably greater than that of her two opponents, David Herndon and Tony Lamm.

Up to now, contributions to her campaigns has been a source of controversy, since she attracts a considerable amount from out-of-state sources pushing private school "choice." But she says Republicans should consider that the party is in danger of losing the seat currently held by Bill Cotty, and that the likely Democratic nominee -- Anton Gunn, who played a key role in the Barack Obama campaign in South Carolina -- might be able to raise some out-of-state money of his own.

Here's the clip:

Candidate interviews continue...

Yesterday, it was Rep. Kit Spires, Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott and Senate challenger Katrina Shealy.

Today, it's House candidate Tony Lamm, Richland County Council candidate Don Purcell and Richland County Clerk of Court Barbara Scott.

But before that ....aieeee, Cindi's coming to get me for the first one! Gotta go...

Let's talk military buildup

There are certain things that worry me, and nobody seems to be talking about them. In fact, our public conversations tend to go off in directions entirely opposed to where the discussion should be going. For instance:

• Children's brains are essentially formed, in terms of their ability to learn for the rest of their lives, by age 3. What do we do about that? I don't know, but it's weird that we can't even make up our minds to fund 4K for all the kids who could benefit from it.
• Also on education -- we need to bring about serious reforms in public education, from consolidating districts to merit pay to empowering principals. But thanks to our governor and his ilk, we talk about whether we want to support public schools at all.
• China is growing and modernizing its military at a pace that matches its economic growth. It won't be all that long before it achieves parity with our own. But instead of talking about matching that R&D, we can't make up our minds to commit the resources necessary to fight a low-intensity conflict against relatively weak enemies with low-tech weapons.

Anyway, there was an op-ed piece in the WSJ today about the latter worry:

China has a vast internal market newly unified by modern transport and communications; a rapidly flowering technology; an irritable but highly capable workforce that as long as its standard of living improves is unlikely to push the country into paralyzing unrest; and a wider world, now freely accessible, that will buy anything it can make. China is threatened neither by Japan, Russia, India, nor the Western powers, as it was not that long ago. It has an immense talent for the utilization of capital, and in the free market is as agile as a cat.

Unlike the U.S., which governs itself almost unconsciously, reactively and primarily for the short term, China has plotted a long course, in which with great deliberation it joins economic growth to military power. Thirty years ago, in what may be called the "gift of the Meiji," Deng Xiaoping transformed the Japanese slogan fukoku kyohei (rich country, strong arms) into China's 16-Character Policy: "Combine the military and the civil; combine peace and war; give priority to military products; let the civil support the military."

Anyway, discuss amongst yourselves. And if you can, try to get the people running for president to talk about it. We need them to...

Lindsey pandering for McCain

Someone pointed this out to me yesterday, but I was having so much trouble getting ANYTHING to post I gave up on the blog for the day. Now that things seem to working again...

We know that Lindsey Graham's best buddy in the Senate is John McCain. And predictably (but sadly), Lindsey is walking point for his party's presumptive presidential nominee on his worst idea ever -- the summer-long gas tax holiday:

Gas tax holiday to be introduced by Graham
By Doug Abrahms
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham said he will propose suspending the federal tax of 18.4 cents a gallon for the summer in a measure on the Senate floor as early as next week.
    "On a very short-term basis, I think Sen. (John) McCain's got a really good idea -- relieve that tax," said Graham, R-S.C.
    The idea also has been widely touted by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Democratic candidate Barack Obama has dismissed it as a political gimmick that will not solve the real problems of soaring demand and dwindling supply.
    Although presidential candidates have been talking about the gas tax holiday for weeks, there has been no vote yet.

Long-term, short-term, it's a horrible idea, that goes precisely in the wrong direction.

CORRECTION TO PREVIOUS: Earlier at this point in the post, I said Jim DeMint was with Graham and McCain on this. Wesley called from DeMint's office Wednesday to say that's not true. So I'm sorry about that. It just goes to show, I guess, that you can't believe everything you read. More about that later.

Remember, of course, that Hillary Clinton's on their side on this. The only presidential candidate talking like a grownup on this issue is the youngest of them all, Barack Obama.

The Obama Effect

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
WEEKS SUCH as the one just past — in which I am still mired as I write this — do not lend themselves to complete, extended thought of the sort that leads to coherent columns.
    But when have I ever let that stop me?
    We’re in the middle of candidate interviews for the June primaries — 50-plus meetings with folks seeking their respective parties’ nominations for the state House, state Senate, county councils, sheriff, clerk of court, and on and on ....
    But as disparate as these candidates and their goals and issues may be, sometimes themes emerge, or seem to emerge.
    Here’s one, which I’ll call The Obama Effect, just to have something trendy to call it.
    There’s nothing new about this effect, of course, and I certainly didn’t discover it. But I have been tracking it since last July, when I wrote a column headlined “Obama, the young, and the magic of Making a Difference.” I wasn’t sure what I was describing then. I’m not sure now, either. It’s an amorphous phenomenon, or set of phenomena — but one of considerable force in spite of, or perhaps because of, that lack of easy definition.
    It’s the thing that led to nearly half a million people coming out to vote in the S.C. Democratic presidential primary in January, which is all the more extraordinary when you recall that there had been a very hotly contested Republican presidential primary just the week before, and that no one who voted in that was allowed to vote in the other. The turnout on Jan. 26 was double that of the 2004 Democratic primary. Republicans, after 20 years of touting the growing pull of their party, actually saw participation decline from their last contested presidential primary. This is less because of a decline in GOP fortunes in the state, and more because of an indefinable something over on the Democratic side.
    Detractors mock the phenomenon for the very fact that it is so hard to describe. “Hope” for what? they say. What kind of “Change”? Satirists have no end of fun mocking media types — people who make their livings describing things — for failing to explain why they’re going gaga. None of that diminishes the power of the thing.
    Still, I thought it had rolled on to other states beginning in February. But then we started these interviews, and I began to see a certain something — something I couldn’t quite put my finger on — cropping up on the county and legislative district levels.
    We’re used to candidates coming in with definite reasons for seeking office. Challengers speak of their enthusiasm for a certain cause, or describe in excruciating detail their indignation over having sought help from their representative and found him or her insufficiently responsive (a very common reason to run for office). Incumbents speak of needing just a little more time to accomplish that same thing they wanted to accomplish the last time they ran, and the time before that. And so on. After a few election cycles, you can finish the candidates’ sentences for them.
    But this time, we met some first-time candidates in Democratic primaries who didn’t seem to have a particular reason for filing, beyond a newfound enthusiasm for public service itself. Their reason for being in our interview room was ill-defined. I wrote a summary of one such interview on my blog, which led a curmudgeonly reader to complain that “those bromides tell us exactly nothing” as to what this candidacy was about. But I had included this clue: a quote from said candidate to the effect that this was “an exciting year, an historical year” to get involved....
    Not long after that interview, Associate Editor Cindi Ross Scoppe wondered aloud why some of these folks were running, and I ventured the hunch that this was a case of The Obama Effect. She said I had no objective, quantifiable reason for saying that. And she was right, of course.
    A few days later, Richland County Council Chairman Joe McEachern — who’s running for the seat currently held by Rep. John Scott, who’s running for one held by Sen. Kay Patterson — made no bones about it: There was an Obama Factor pulling in folks who had never previously given any consideration to public life. He and other more experienced hands were fielding a lot of questions from enthusiastic people wanting to know exactly how to go about getting involved.
    All of the aforementioned candidates have been black Democrats. But it fell to a white Democrat, Rep. Jimmy Bales, to spell out the thing more overtly. He said he’d like to see his party increase its numbers in the S.C. House, and “this might be the year this happens.”
    “If Obama were the nominee,” he said on May 1, “and if Democrats would come together... I believe that he would come close to carrying this state,” and would in addition have the effect of increasing the number of Democratic S.C. House members — not so much to a majority, but to a less anemic minority. Say, from 51 members out of 124 to 58. He says this dispassionately, calmly, without any signs of hysteria. It’s just that the candidacy of Barack Obama has made some previously unlikely things seem attainable.
    No, I can’t prove it. Nor can I quantify it. But there’s something there, and it’s happening down on a much more local level than has been widely documented so far.

Senate Dist. 21: A 'debate' between Wendy Brawley and Sen. Darrell Jackson over his position on school 'choice'

This is one of my better little videos from endorsement interviews lately.

Wendy Brawley of Richland One school board, who is challenging Sen. Darrell Jackson for the Democratic nomination in Dist. 21, is going after the incumbent hard, and has a bill of particulars as to how she believes he's looked after his own business more than the people's. An example: Her accusation that he favors private school vouchers.

Sen. Jackson argues back strongly, point by point. I think it's a video worth watching, especially if you live in that lower-Richland and Calhoun County district.

Arrgghhh! It was painful enough the first time

Among those who lived through the Florida Long Count in 2000, who would want to live through it again? Not me. But HBO is betting I'm in the minority:

REVISIT THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN U.S HISTORY

AS KEVIN SPACEY LEADS AN ENSEMBLE CAST IN RECOUNT

PREMIERING SUNDAY, MAY 25^TH AT 9 PM ET/PT ONLY ON HBO

Two-time Oscar^® winner Kevin Spacey (“American Beauty,” “The Usual Suspects”) leads the ensemble cast of HBO Films’ RECOUNT, debuting SUNDAY, MAY 25 (9:00-11:00 p.m. ET/PT) on HBO.

Shot on location in Jacksonville and Tallahassee, RECOUNT revisits one of the most dramatic moments in U.S. history, portraying the turmoil of the 2000 presidential election in Florida

.  The film also stars Bob Balaban (“For Your Consideration”), Ed Begley, Jr. (“Living with Ed”), Laura Dern (“Year of the Dog”), John Hurt (“The Elephant Man”), Denis Leary (“Rescue Me”), Bruce McGill (“Cinderella Man”) and Tom Wilkinson (“Michael Clayton”).

RECOUNT follows the Florida recount from Election Day in November 2000 through the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of George W. Bush over Al Gore five weeks later.  This illuminating, hugely entertaining film pulls back the veil on the headlines to explore the human drama surrounding the most controversial presidential election in U.S. history.

Kevin Spacey portrays Ron Klain, Vice President Al Gore’s former Chief of Staff.  Tom Wilkinson portrays James Baker III, who was previously Secretary of State to President George H. W. Bush.  Denis Leary plays Michael Whouley, national field director during the Gore campaign.  Laura Dern portrays Katherine Harris, Secretary of State of Florida.  Bob Balaban portrays Ben Ginsberg, national counsel to the Bush-Cheney campaign in the 2000 election.  John Hurt plays Warren Christopher, former Secretary of State to President Bill Clinton.  Bruce McGill plays Republican lobbyist Mac Stipanovich.  Ed Begley, Jr. portrays attorney David Boies, who represented the Gore campaign before the Supreme Court.

For more details on the film and to view the trailer go to: http://www.hbo.com/films/recount/

Laura Dern as Katherine Harris?!?! Have mercy! Please, let me remember her as she was in "Wild at Heart " -- or almost anything else you can name...

Tell you what -- why don't y'all watch it, and tell me about it...

I feel like Batman

And not even a cool, respectable sort of Batman, like the one in "Batman Begins," or even the quirky-hip Michael Keaton Caped Crusader in the first big-budget movie version (best moment -- when he answers the crook who demands to know who he is with an edgy "I'm Batman!" that lets you know our hero's wound JUST a bit too tight).

I'm talking Adam West here.

The thing that's got me feeling this way is that I'm in the middle of candidate interviews for the June primaries -- legislative, county council, etc. -- and the same characters keep cropping up.

And no, this is not a plea for term limits. It's the challengers, some of whom are perfectly normal people, but some of whom have these, um, idiosyncrasies that stick out a mile, and they keep coming back, no matter how many times they've been defeated. It's like:

It's you! the Joker! Again!...

... or the Riddler or the Penguin or Catwoman or whoever. No, wait, Robin, not that Catwoman -- let's bring in Julie Newmar!

On the one hand, it's sort of comforting and homey. On the other hand, you keep thinking NEW people will crop up to challenge these candidates. And they do. But then, as soon as your guard is down -- "YOU! Again!"

Oh, and by the way -- if you're a candidate who's run before who's about to come in for an interview -- this post is NOT about you.

Obama answers Hillary's shot with a PBR

Barack Obama, not to be outdone on the regular-guy front by Hillary's boilermakers, strode decisively into a Raleigh bar tonight and ordered a Pabst Blue Ribbon.

As a result, he won the North Carolina primary. That is, you can't prove that's not why he won. If only he'd mastered the intricacies of Yuengling while there was still time in PA...

He also demonstrated that he could hold his brew by resisting a pitch from a perky saleswoman who wanted to sell him new kitchen countertops for the White House. Really.

Unfortunately, while the candidate was catching up on his drinking, his rival went and stole the Indiana primary -- apparently. Obama, apparently feeling mellow, conceded that contest to her before it was even over.

So the madness continues.

Tomorrow, his campaign plans to work on his bowling. Once he cracks 100, they'll teach him to bowl and drink beer at the same time, and then he'll be unstoppable...

Ron Paul lives!

Over the weekend I found myself in Greenville, and I rode by a house adorned with several Ron Paul for President posters, and I thought, "Somebody hasn't heard the news..."

Apparently, that somebody is me. I discovered today in the course of reading The Economist that Ron Paul is still running for president!

This immediately brings several things to mind:

• How come none of you Paulistas complained when I removed his Web page link (along with everybody else's except McCain, Obama and Clinton) from my list at left?
• If his supporters thought the MSM was boycotting his campaign before, what must they think now? Paranoia must be striking pretty deep in the heartland right about now.
• Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was a scrappy diehard. Compared to the persistence of Dr. Paul, she's a shrinking violet.
• Does putting "Ron Paul" in a headline still have the magical effect of drawing his supporters to your blog by the thousands? If so, we're about to find out. Anyway, I hope they appreciate my giving them this forum to get their message out to the unsuspecting multitudes. But they probably won't; they'll probably just yell at me for not knowing their guy was still running...

But you're probably wondering what Katon means to ME, Al Franken...

As the Rolling Stone correspondent to the 2004 Republican Convention, I know that S.C. GOP Chairman Katon Dawson, like Sgt. Hulka, has a heck of a hip sense of humor. Here's further proof:

    After weeks of bad news for Al Franken, even other state Republican Parties are getting into the act. Franken, who earlier this year agreed to a $25,000 fine for failing to cover workers' compensation insurance for his employees, has also been stung in recent days by an acknowledgment that he owes up to $70,000 in back taxes in several states in which he performed.

    In a letter to the South Carolina Department of Revenue, Palmetto State GOP chairman Katon Dawson last week asked director Ray Stevens to make sure their state received full payment from Franken's company, Alan Franken Inc., which received payment for services there.
    "South Carolina faces an uncertain economic environment," Dawson wrote. "It is incumbent upon us to ensure that every individual and corporation lives up to its obligations to report its income, and pay its fair share of taxes." In the letter, Dawson requests a full review of the company's activities in South Carolina since its inception in 1991.
    "I don't think people are going to believe Al Franken's good enough or smart enough to be a U.S. Senator because, doggone it, he doesn't pay his taxes," Dawson told Politics Nation. "But I have a punch line for the Democrats' star comedian-turned-candidate: show some personal responsibility and pay your fair share."

    Franken last week said the blunder came when his company's accountant overpaid taxes in New York and Minnesota, where the comedian and satirist has lived, instead of paying taxes to the states in which Franken performed and was paid. Still, if even other Republican Party chairmen are having fun with Franken's lax accountant, one can bet the Minnesota Republican Party won't let the issue go so easily.

By the way, if you didn't get the headline, you're probably either too young or too old to remember the Al Franken decade, to wit:

Jane Curtin: Well, the 1970's are in their final month, and with some thoughts on this decade and the one we're about to enter, here's Weekend Update's Social Sciences Editor Al Franken.

Al Franken: Thank you, Jane. Well, the "me" decade is almost over, and good riddance, and far as I'm concerned. The 70's were simply 10 years of people thinking of nothing but themselves. No wonder we were unable to get together and solve any of the many serious problems facing our nation. Oh sure, some people did do some positive things in the 70's - like jogging - but always for the wrong reasons, for their own selfish, personal benefit. Well, I believe the 80's are gonna have to be different. I think that people are going to stop thinking about themselves, and start thinking about me, Al Franken. That's right. I believe we're entering what I like to call the Al Franken Decade. Oh, for me, Al Franken, the 80's will be pretty much the same as the 70's. I'll still be thinking of me, Al Franken. But for you, you'll be thinking more about how things affect me, Al Franken. When you see a news report, you'll be thinking, "I wonder what Al Franken thinks about this thing?", "I wonder how this inflation thing is hurting Al Franken?" And you women will be thinking, "What can I wear that will please Al Franken?", or "What can I not wear?" You know, I know a lot of you out there are thinking, "Why Al Franken?" Well, because I thought of it, and I'm on TV, so I've already gotten the jump on you. So, I say let's leave behind the fragmented, selfish 70's, and go into the 80's with a unity and purpose. That's what I think. I'm Al Franken. Jane?

Jane Curtin: Thank you, Al. That's the news. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.

The Obama Effect: Democrats' chances in the S.C. House

Here's a video I prepared for publication on the Saturday Opinion Extra page for this week. It's from an endorsement interview with Rep. Jimmy Bales, who's being challenged in the Democratic primary for District 80 by Stanley Robinson.

Mr. Bales mentioned in passing in the first minute or so of the interview that he hoped Democrats would pick up a few seats in the S.C. House this year. Not quite hearing him, I asked a little later whether he had said he thought Dems might regain a majority.

Actually, he did think there was an outside possibility of that, but mainly he was hoping his party would find itself in a better tactical position with a few more seats. He mentions some districts in particular where he thought Democrats might prevail.

Here's the kicker -- he's pinning his hopes on Barack Obama. This is a theme I've been running into, in various forms, in these interviews so far. The Obama Effect ranges from motivating folks who were previously uninterested in politics to run. And it prompts Mr. Bales to hope to get closer to 58 Democrats in the House, from the present 51. This depends, of course, on Mr. Obama being the nominee -- as does so much else.

The Democratic Presidential Primary back in January created a lot of excitement, and we're still seeing the effects.

A little bit of inside baseball: On the video, you'll hear Cindi jumping in to make sure I have it right, and won't go hog-wild on the "Democratic Majority" theme. She has nothing to worry about; I'm a professional.

The Energy Party Manifesto: Feb. 4, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SNL parodies of media and Obama

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

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

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

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

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

Preview: Cindi's column Sunday explaining restructuring

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trying to keep up with candidate interviews

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh.

He DID wag his finger -- he actually DID!

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

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

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

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

No, but he's got time for THIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Bill Clinton wagging his finger at us AGAIN?