Looking ahead to 2010: Are we hopeful yet?

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor

Since the current occupant has sort of put the whole being-governor-of-South-Carolina thing behind him — nowadays you have to track national media to know what he’s up to — let’s follow his lead, and look forward to the time when he no longer holds the office even technically.

    In the spirit of getting us to that point as quickly as possible, I spoke last week with the one declared candidate for the 2010 gubernatorial election, Sen. Vincent Sheheen.

    If you don’t know the 37-year-old Camden attorney, you might know his daddy, former Higher Education Commissioner Fred, or his uncle, former House Speaker Bob. He is like them in his dedication to public service, yet very different. His uncle was the last Democrat to run the House, while the nephew has been shaped by having to get things done in a world run by Republicans. It’s made him a consensus-builder, and he thinks that has prepared him well for this moment.

    Not only does he think he has a good chance of gaining the Democratic nomination among those who have been mentioned — and his close allies who might have drawn from the same base of support, Rep. James Smith and Sen. Joel Lourie, are not running — but, “at this point in the state’s history, I have a good chance in the general election,” whoever the GOP nominee is. Why? “Because people are not satisfied.”

    He can identify with that: “I’ve reached this point out of frustration and hope.”

    “We have been stuck in a rut for a long time,” he said, and “I am not seeing things changing at all. And that’s very frustrating.” He senses a similar frustration in the electorate. He thinks voters realize that “if we keep... not doing anything, then we’re not going to improve.”

    So what does he want to do?

• “Get real again about job creation and economic development.” He says the state needs a governor who will treat that as a priority, playing an active part in recruiting business, and working to see that the whole state, including the rural parts, benefits.
• “Pulling South Carolina’s governmental structure into at least the 20th century, and maybe the 21st century.” Some of what he wants to do is what the current governor has said he wanted to do. But the plan that Mr. Sheheen has put forward (parts of which he explains on the facing page) actually has some traction — enough so that Mark Sanford mentioned it favorably in his State of the State address this year. Sen. Sheheen believes the time has come to move restructuring past the starting line, and he thinks he can do it: “I’m not knocking anybody; I’m just saying it’s time to have somebody who can build consensus.”
• “Change the way we spend our money.” As he rightly describes the process, “We budget in the dark.” He wants to see a programmatic budget, followed by the legislative oversight that has been missing, to make sure the spending does what it’s intended to do.
• Combine conservation with economic development. He thinks we need to move beyond setting aside just to conserve, but convert what is conserved to benefit “the humans in a community.” He points to the ways the Camden battlefield has been used to promote tourism.
• Change the way we fund education. Make funding equitable, based on pupils, not districts, so that “a similarly situated student will have the same opportunities ... regardless of where they live.”

    When I ask whether there’s anything else, he confesses: “I’m a geek. I could keep going, but ... I’ve got to think of something that’s politically catchy. I’m supposed to do that.”

    At which point he proves his geekhood by mentioning comprehensive tax reform, which he’s been advocating “since my first day in the House.”

    But while that issue might not make voters’ hearts beat faster, he speaks again of what he sees as “a growing consensus that we need to do something.”

    And he thinks the high-profile, counterproductive “contention between the current governor and the Legislature” has created an opportunity for someone who wants to move beyond that.

    But how would a Democrat fare in that task in a State House run by Republicans? Quite well, he says. He calls Republican Carroll Campbell “one of the most effective governors,” a fact he attributes in part to the “constructive friction” between him and the Democratic Legislature that his Uncle Bob helped lead.

    Ironically, Vincent Sheheen seems to be suggesting that his party has become enough of an outsider in the halls of state power that a consensus-minded Democrat could be less threatening to, and more successful in working with, the GOP leadership. “Someone who is not jockeying for position within their own party could actually help to bring together some of the different factions.”

    As a representative of “swing counties” — Chesterfield, Lancaster and Kershaw — he sees himself as having the ability to be that Democrat.

    Thus far — perhaps because he’s the only declared candidate in either party — he wears the burden of this campaign lightly. At one point he asks me, “Am I making you hopeful?” — then chuckles when I decline to answer.

    But I will say this to you, the reader: He’s talking about the right issues, and he’s talking about them the right way. That’s a start. Here’s hoping that the candidates yet to declare, in both parties, do the same. Then perhaps we can have a gubernatorial choice, for once, between good and better.

For links and more, please go to thestate.com/bradsblog/.

Comments

[Randy E]

Ain't gonna happen, cap'n.

SC has had one democratic governor since Riley. Hodges didn't win as much as Beasely lost because of the flag issue and Collins money filling the tank of the Hodges school bus. Even after 4 years of campaigning for the next election, he was gone.

The Palmetto State is fire engine red. David Duke played well in some SC counties when he ran for president and many of those places have changed little. Obama wouldn't fly over SC in the general election, let alone campaign there. Senator DeMint enthusiastically takes on the role as the most conservative senator in the country and is safe in his seat. Only one state wide dem was elected and then by only 400 votes.

The next democratic governor will be elected in 2030 when enough enlightened yankees and minorities take over the state - to the chagrin of Lee and other David Duke supporters.

[Birch Barlow]

Since the current occupant has sort of put the whole being-governor-of-South-Carolina thing behind him — nowadays you have to track national media to know what he’s up to — let’s follow his lead, and look forward to the time when he no longer holds the office even technically.

What is it about human nature that makes us more likely to find the faults of those with whom we disagree than those with whom we agree? I think it's the same as when we only seem to notice the bad calls the referees make against our team.

Sanford is guilty of being just another big-britches politician in this country -- the status quo.

Besides, Brad, if you really have to track the national media to know what Gov. Sanford is doing then maybe you need to call up your local newspaper and tell them to do a better job.

[Rich]

Randy,

46% of South Carolinians voted for Obama in the last election. If we finally can have an honest census in this state (Columbia, for instance, has always been undercounted)and reform our voter registration laws to allow for same-day voter registration, internet voting, and easier absentee-ballot voting, then I believe we can make it over 50% as early as the next presidential election.

The Republicans always win wherever the franchise is restricted de facto.

[Workin' Tommy C]

Rich:

How about let's have a law that allows only voting at the polls on just one day? I think that was the original plan and would drastically decrease the chances for fraud.

With a little RESPONSIBLE planning, perhaps good citizens can make themselves available on that day to vote. Surely their bosses would be amenable to their taking part of the day off in order to participate in the democratic process.

[Workin' Tommy C]

Brad:

There you go speaking pragmatism to fascism again!

At least you're consistent in that regard.

[Brad Warthen]

Yes, Randy doesn't realize the extent to which Sanford has damaged the Republican brand (which is hardly fair to most Republicans in the state, since he is not representative of them, but those are the hazards you take when you wear a party brand) in S.C., and at a bad time for the GOP.

All that "I hate gummint" stuff that plays so well in the white electorate in S.C. is running smack into the economic crisis. A governor whose response to soaring unemployment is to blame the agency that pays out unemployment benefits and is too busy courting his ideological brethren across the country to engage the state's real problems creates an opportunity for a thoughtful, moderate Democrat to articulate a consensus of hope for a better future.

A strong Democratic nominee, whoever that might be, faces a more favorable environment just in general than I have seen since the 1980s in South Carolina.

The Hodges election was anomalous as Randy suggests, although for more complicated reasons than he lays out. Beasley had a lot of weaknesses, and I have always maintained that Hodges could have taken him out without the Geddings approach of selling out to video poker and the lottery. But at the time, that was an unusual situation that ran against the grain of Republican ascendancy. Now I think we have a different dynamic at work. The electorate will be ready for something different, and that something different could be provided by a Democrat as well as by a Republican.

Does the Republican have the stronger position going in, all other things being equal? Yes. But the rising arc, the momentum, favors a Democrat being able to overcome that. Much depends on WHICH Republican and WHICH Democrat are nominated, and upon events that have not yet transpired and which cannot be predicted at this time. I'm just describing some general trends that I sense at the moment.

[bud]

Much depends on WHICH Republican and WHICH Democrat are nominated, and upon events that have not yet transpired and which cannot be predicted at this time.
-Brad

That's probably one of the best observations you've made in a while. Of course that's what is relevant. If the economy turns around the Dems have a shot. If not, they have no chance. And it doesn't matter who either party picks.

[Workin' Tommy C]

'All that "I hate gummint" stuff that plays so well in the white electorate in S.C. is running smack into the economic crisis.'

Perhaps politicians and other elites might think so, Brad. The folks I've been talking to (a VERY broad socio-economic and cultural spectrum despite the impression my above-average vocabulary might give) have been to a man (or woman) hating politicians and government right now. Who else are they going to blame when common sense tells them who is really at fault?

It was the government's fascist/socialist manipulation guaranteeing bailouts far in advance for the housing marketplace that led to the profiteering by the complicit banking industry when things started to fall apart.

It was the government's rules for banks and other financial institutions that led to the promiscuous lending to those without a prayer nor a history of ever being able to pay back the loans.

In addition to the crashing 401Ks and other investments, the actual value of the dollar continues to decrease leaving lots of formerly self-sufficient elderly with a very scary future--no matter how few years they may have left.

It was the government's creation of the Fed that led to the fiat money system that in turn led us to the point where enough people are finally realizing that, despite the huge increase in the supply of money, there is no corresponding increase in the actual value propping up that money supply. This is theft by inflation.

Even Obama fans are irritated at the level of corporate welfare tax money the great one has bestowed upon the elites too big to have failure on their resume.

Come on, Brad! Use the "F-word" ("fascism")!!! AT LEAST BE HONEST ABOUT THE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT YOU'RE PRAYING FOR!

[bud]

Classic GOP. Senator Jim Bunning has now predicted Justice Ginsburg will be dead within 9 months. Classy senator. Heck the GOP has become nothing but a cess pool of bigotry, obstructionism, war mongering, fear mongering and incompetence. And folks want to work with this sorry bunch in a "bipartisan" way. I say just steamroll over the whole sorry bunch of them. They gave us war and a declining economy why do they deserve any consideration.

[Mab]

The Libertarian stock is rising, y'all:

Check this out from about 3:00-5:18:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wcZmR6cUJc&feature=related

[Workin' Tommy C]

Posted by "Bud:"
"Classic GOP. Senator Jim Bunning has now predicted Justice Ginsburg will be dead within 9 months. Classy senator. Heck the GOP has become nothing but a cesspool of bigotry, obstructionism, war mongering, fear mongering and incompetence. And folks want to work with this sorry bunch in a "bipartisan" way. I say just steamroll over the whole sorry bunch of them. They gave us war and a declining economy why do they deserve any consideration."

WOW! Do you really see that much difference between the parties? Why has Obama still not gotten us out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe, Japan, Korea and every other military-industrial base on earth where we're unconstitutionally stationed?

[Greg Flowers]

I know that there is a lot of buzz about McMaster, Barrett and Bauer on the R side and I expect to see all three run. Any other word of potential Red candidates. On the Blue side we have Sheheen, rumors of Tennenbaum and Rex. Any others? Is Lourie definitely out? It seems that Tennenbaum would be a strong statewide candidate (though she did lose to DeMint) though her politics are not mine. Barrett I am curious about, he has generated little statewide attention but his probable red opponents have such strong negatives. Bauer has almost Jake Knotts negatives in my book.

[Rich]

I could get excited about Inez for governor. I hope she considers it. It would be nice to have an intelligent chief executive for a change. Inez has experience running a state agency that is almost byzantine in complexity while remaining true to her core Democratic values. She would be a good choice.

Again, if we have a fair census and can somehow reform voter registration to become more inclusive, then we might have real change in S.C.

In the European Union, every citizen of every state is given a national identity card at birth. That id card contains on the swipe strip virtually everything you need to know about the person, and it functions as a permanent voter registration.

This means that, wherever you go in an individual national state, you can vote for national and your own local officials.

If we had such a system, people in the middle of moves or wherever they happened to be could vote absentee electronically and have it instantly counted without recourse to paper and post.

Our system is purposely cumbersome, inefficient, and undemocratic. It keeps the poor, the young, and the very busy from exercising the franchise so that Republicans can win.

If we could get voter participation up around 90%, it would be the death of the Republican Party--the party of "no" which I believe is fundamentally out of step with a distracted potential electorate.

[Lee Muller]

If politicians followed the constraints of the Constitution, and did not vote for any wealth transfers from the achievers to the deadbeats and losers, the deadbeats would have to reason to vote.

The Democratic Party has one agenda - buying power by buying votes, and getting personally rich by abusing that power.

[christena]

We cannot imagine 2010......

Christena
Lock in your price today for Your favorite channels - and keep it there until 2010!