Brad Warthen's Blog

Alone

Assuming I set it up right, if you send me an e-mail this week, you'll get this:

Welcome to my special Christmas week AUTOMATED MESSAGE.

 

First, I am alone in the office this week, and spending all of my time editing and preparing for publication material left behind by my vacationing colleagues. This is like doing the work of five jugglers simultaneously, so please bear with me.

 

If you intend for your message to be considered for publication as a LETTER TO THE EDITOR, please resend it to [email protected].

 

If you are submitting a potential GUEST COLUMN FOR OUR OP-ED PAGE, please resend it to Cindi Scoppe at [email protected]. This will NOT be considered until Ms. Scoppe returns on Dec. 29. All local op-ed columns for this week have already been selected and edited. 

 

If you wish to register a comment that is not for publication in the paper, I urge you to post it on my blog, http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/.

 

Any messages requiring a response from me, Brad Warthen: I beg for your patience. I am extremely unlikely to be able to respond this week. If you MUST have a reply this week (and we're talking emergency here), leave a phone message at (803) 771-8468, and I will get back to you when I'm able.

 

-- Brad Warthen

The last couple of weeks of the year have always been a high-wire act, even when we had adequate staffing. It's simply the best time for people to TAKE off, and it's when they WANT to take off, so we try to make that happen as much as possible. But these days, even one person being off one day puts us in emergency mode. This is so far beyond that, it defies description.

Which is my way of saying to YOU, don't look for a lot of blogging from ME this week. The only other person in the editorial offices this week is Randle, who handles letters, and as soon as she has prepared enough letters for publication to get me through the week -- sometime Tuesday, we hope -- she'll be gone, too.

I'm sort of in Chuck Yeager mode -- as I climb into the cockpit alone, my last colleague hands me a sawn-off length of broom handle and says, "Just stick 'is in the handle and WANG it down with yer good arm..."

To which I can only say, "Thanks, Buddy..."

The imperial presidency-elect?

This letter on today's page got me to thinking:

New administration may be full of itself

For the past few weeks, I have witnessed our newly elected commander-in-chief and his subordinates on national and local news.

On the podium is a seal that denotes “the office of the president-elect.” Believing I had forgotten much of my ninth-grade civics class, I reread our U.S. Constitution. Described therein were the offices of, requirements for and duties of the president, senators, representatives, et al. Nowhere could I find a definition of the “office of the president-elect.”

How pompous and presumptuous of those so headily and gleefully poised to assume the reins of power. Could be a sign; I don’t know.

JOHN R. CLARK
Hartsville

What it got me to thinking was this: This keeps cropping up, and I keep wondering why, because Barack Obama doesn't strike me as this kind of guy. He is, after all, The Tieless One. These overdone trappings of gonnabe power just don't seem like him.

Remember how everyone talked about the "Imperial Presidency" during the Nixon administration? Well, who is it on Obama's team who is so tone-deaf as to want to project an image of an "imperial presidency-elect," or earlier, an imperial candidacy (at right)?

I had noticed the seal, too, and I thought it was pretty weird. But what I don't know is, whose idea is this? Why does this keep happening? And why doesn't Obama put a stop to it?

Nikki Haley's letter

Nikki Haley sent me a copy this morning of a letter she sent out to her fellow lawmakers Wednesday. You remember what happened to Nikki on Wednesday, right?  Here it is:

December 3, 2008

Dear Colleagues:
    I feel compelled to share with you some events that occurred earlier today.
    This morning, I was informed that I had been assigned to serve on the Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee and, honestly, I was a little surprised given the differences the Speaker and I have had recently over "on the record" voting.  As I said to you when I took the floor yesterday none of this was personal it was all about policy and to his credit the Speaker set aside those disagreements - or so I had thought.
    It is no secret I had intended to run for Chairman of LCI, but given the events of the past few weeks I recognized that I was no longer in a position to achieve that goal.  I called Representative Sandifer and the Speaker on Monday night to let them know I was dropping out of the race.  This morning, I attended the LCI Committee meeting and closed nominations for committee chair asking that we vote Representative Sandifer by acclamation.
    After the meeting, I returned to my office.  Within minutes the Speaker's chief-of-staff hand-delivered a letter to me from the Speaker informing me that I had been reassigned to serve on the Education and Public Works Committee.  Needless to say I was disappointed.
    The Speaker wanted to send a message and I got it loud and clear.  That message is this; if we as individual representatives disagree with the Speaker over policy about which we feel passionately and share those disagreements publicly, we will be punished for doing so.  The actions he took today are in direct response to my aggressive pursuit of "on the record" voting.  I believe I acted in the best interests of the people I represent and because of my actions I was removed from a committee on which I had served honorably.
    The Speaker and other members of House Leadership will undoubtedly take issue with my account of what happened.  But, make no mistake, the manner in which I was assigned to LCI and then reassigned to Education and Public Works was intended to embarrass and punish me for working to pass a comprehensive "on the record" voting bill.
    I wanted you to know that this punishment handed down by the Speaker will in no way affect the manner in which I go about trying to increase transparency in the Legislature, bringing reform to state government, and working to improve the lives of the people we represent.

Sincerely,
Nikki Haley

And so, to quote the governor, "to be continued..."

I replied to Nikki that I'd put her letter on my blog. Unlike certain other bloggers, I don't have to worry about what the Speaker will do to me. But you know what -- Nathan's not letting it shut him up, either.

'Hyperbole' and Iraq

The last couple of days I've broken my rule about not responding substantially to e-mails. In the interests of making the best use of my time for the readers' benefit, I try to steer people to the blog so that everybody can join in on the conversation. Anyway, when I break my rule I try to do this, which is publish the exchange on the blog. This exchange started, of course, with my Sunday column:

From: Pat Mohr
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 4:34 PM
To: Warthen, Brad - External Email
Subject: hyperbole

Well, Mr. Warthen, isn't your respect for the language, as the SNL church lady would say, "special?"  I guess I'm just another bleeding-heart liberal because I did watch in horror as my country approved torture and suspended habeus corpus for prisoners. And I did watch in horror as people died after Katrina because we had incompetent ideologues in the White House who sat and watched that devastation because  they wanted to "reduce the size of government to the point that they could drown it in the bathtub."  And I've watched in horror as we waged a "war" (otherwise known as an occupation) in which thousands and Americans and even more thousands of Iraqis died because we made a mistake about Saddam's intentions.

Now if those things don't fill you with horror, you're not the man I hoped you were.

Sincerely,
Pat Mohr

On Dec 2, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Warthen, Brad - Internal Email wrote:

The NYT editorial in question wasn't about the issues you mentioned. That was one of the bizarre things about it. It was about things like unauthorized wiretaps, and the operation of Gitmo. Hardly "horror" stuff.

I know lots of people look upon our involvement in Iraq with "horror." I don't, but I know other people do. The NYT editorial wasn't about anything like that.

You want to see what I look upon, with horror, read my blog. http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2008/12/some-things-tha.html

From: Pat Mohr
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 2:24 PM
To: Warthen, Brad - Internal Email
Subject: Re: hyperbole
Importance: High

Thank you for responding. I understand what you're saying about the other issues in the NYT editorial, but I do believe that Gitmo is a horror because of the torture that has been sanctioned there (and in other places because of rendition). If this torture was indeed not just the work of some bad apples, and we have some evidence to say that it wasn't, then it does qualify as a horror.  Like many other Americans, i never thought I'd live to see the day that my country sanctioned torture---not for ANY reason!

And I will go look at your blog.  One reason is that I'd like to know why you don't look upon Iraq as a horror. I don't attribute intent, but I do believe that our government mistakenly believed the boasts of Saddam and ignored/demeaned reports that did not support their preconceptions. Then we refused to wait for the inspectors to go back & look further for WMDs or to go through the UN for assistance, coming up instead with our "coalition of the willing".  Meanwhile, Bush and Cheney deliberately conflated 9/11 with Iraq to justify our preemptive invasion. I still see polls that report that something like 40% of evangelicals believe that Iraqis attacked us on 9/11. So I'll look to see why you don't believe that the ensuing deaths of thousands was not indeed horrible....

I always read your column because even though I frequently disagree with you, you're rational and provide reasons for your opinions. This is no small thing in an area of the country infested with ideologues!  I'll always appreciate the work you do!

On Dec 2, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Warthen, Brad - Internal Email wrote:

Thanks for the kind words.

I doubt that I can explain my support for our invasion of Iraq in 2003 to your satisfaction. I can't explain it to my wife's satisfaction. I certainly can't explain it to the satisfaction of people who disagree on my blog.

It has nothing to do with WMD. I realize it did for an awful lot of people, but not for me. So while I saw not finding the WMD (which we all know had been there, because Saddam had used it) as a big setback, it didn't change anything about why I saw us needing to go in there.

It did have a great deal to do with 9/11, but not in some simplistic way such as you describe, the "hitting back at the people who attacked us" formula. I don't think in those terms.

Either you look at the situation we had in the world at that time and agree with me, or you don't. It's very hard to bridge the gap. I looked at a lot of things, and that's what it added up to for me. Other people look at the same things and don't arrive there at all. Part of it is that I am by nature inclined to intervention. I think we were right to intervene in the Balkans, and wrong not to in Rwanda and Darfur. I think we were wrong to leave Somalia in 2003. I believe when you're the most powerful nation in the world -- economically, militarily, just about any other way -- you have an obligation to act when people are suffering and being oppressed. Anti-war people think that's arrogant. I think it's cold NOT to want to do what we can. And the fact is, if we want to, we can do a great deal.

Here are two of those reasons, which make all the sense in the world to me, but not to antiwar people:
-- Until 9/11, the U.S. policy toward the region had been maintaining the status quo. What that had meant was backing current regimes, however horrible -- or at least leaving them alone -- so as to keep the oil flowing. Don't rock the boat. The 1991 Gulf War was a perfect example of this old strategy: Saddam had attacked Kuwait and was threatening the much bigger target of Saudi Arabia. We sent an overwhelming force to preserve the status quo ante -- pushing Saddam back "where he belonged," and restoring the previous government in Kuwait, and protecting the Saudi regime. We didn't want to take Baghdad then because that might have created a vacuum into which Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria and Turkey, might flow. That would upset the apple cart, and we didn't want to do that. (We should have, because at that time we had something we didn't have 12 years later -- overwhelming force, enough to occupy and stabilize Iraq. I understand why we didn't -- but that calculation was based on the old, pre-9/11, policy of preserving the status quo.)
     9/11 changed this equation, because it showed us that preserving the status quo -- one in which oppressive regimes produced political frustration and encouraged Islamic militantism -- was extraordinarily dangerous to us. The 9/11 hijackers were the result of the old policy of supporting the status quo. We needed to begin the process of changing the region, and Iraq was a good place to start. Succeed there (and the problem in Iraq is that so many things were done wrong in the first years that it took far too long to succeed), and you encourage liberalizing, democratizing forces in all middle eastern countries. We saw the beginnings of that in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Libya -- although much of it was set back by the increasing violence that was only quelled after the Surge began at the start of 2007. Much of that good effect has yet to be seen, but that doesn't mean it can't still happen.

-- Iraq was the place to start because we had every reason to go in and take out the regime there. Saddam had violated terms of the 1991 cease fire for 12 years. He was shooting at our planes enforcing the no-fly zone. In 2002, the UN passed the resolution authorizing force unless Saddam met certain conditions -- which he failed to meet. Some significant UN members balked at acting upon the resolution -- France, Germany, Russia -- but plenty of others, including most European powers, actually joined that "coalition of the willing." And why not? Saddam had spent the last decade and more cementing his reputation as an outlaw regime.

Anyway, that's PART of my thinking on the subject. It doesn't make sense to people who agree. It DOES make sense to some who do, such as the New York Times' Tom Friedman.

Hope that helps, but I won't be surprised if it doesn't.

From: Pat Mohr
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 8:27 PM
To: Warthen, Brad - Internal Email
Subject: Re: hyperbole
Importance: High

Hmm, I've gone back and read and re-read your rationales for going into Iraq. I'm still thinking---because you've made some good points. I do have to tell you, though, that I'm not anti-war; I just think it should be restricted to defense. However, many of your reasons seem to indicate that you truly believe that you are your brothers' keeper, and that's morality I share. I too think we should have gone into Darfur and Rwanda. We do have an obligation to help the oppressed---but not only the oppressed with oil under their land. I just don't think that Iraq should have been singled out, even in the mideast.  What about the outrageous treatment of women in Saudi Arabia for example? And how can we be the world's policemen? How can we ever fix it all?

Moreover, I think our presumptuous invasion has brought us so much international ill will that it will be years before our reputation is restored. And then there's the billions and billions of dollars that have been squandered in this war.  I wonder if Iraqis think it was worth it because I don't think most Americans do. And now we're in greater jeopardy in Afghanistan---and we still haven't found Osama.

All that said, in the light of your comments, I intend to start reading your blog as I continue to think about my position.  I like to think that I'm open-minded enough to change my mind given additional evidence.  I wish I could come back in fifty years and see what verdict history renders on this war....

Thank you again for engaging in this dialogue with me.

On Dec 3, 2008, at 10:54 AM, Warthen, Brad - Internal Email wrote:

All I can ask for is to get people to think about the points I make, so I thank you for that.

In answer to one point you made, let me point out that we did not have an acceptable rationale for invading Saudi Arabia. Remember the 12 years of defiance of the ceasefire agreement, and all those UN resolutions that gave us authorization to go into Iraq. We had nothing like that in the case of Saudi Arabia, or Iran or anyone else. Just Iraq.

Also, the reference to oil is a non-sequitur. We kicked Saddam out of Kuwait for oil. The policy of supporting the status quo was about oil. Invading Iraq actually endangered the flow of oil by upsetting the status quo.

You might be interested in a column I wrote before the Iraq invasion, about why we needed to go in:

THE STATE
THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH ABOUT WHY WE MAY HAVE TO INVADE IRAQ
Published on: 02/02/2003
Section: EDITORIAL
Edition: FINAL
Page: D2
By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor

AMERICA SEES ITSELF, quite admirably, as a nation that doesn't go around starting fights, but is perfectly willing and able to end them once they start.

Because of that, President Bush has a tall hill to climb when it comes to persuading the American people that, after 10 years of keeping Saddam Hussein in his box, we should now go in after him, guns blazing.

In his State of the Union address, the president gave some pretty good reasons why we need to act in Iraq, but were they good enough? I don't know. Probably not. It's likely that no one outside of the choir loft was converted by his preaching on the subject. And that's a problem. Overall, while there have been moments over the last 16 months when he has set out the situation with remarkable clarity, those times have been too few and far between.

He has my sympathy on this count, though: His efforts have been hampered by the fact that the main reason we may need to invade Iraq is one that the president can't state too clearly without creating more problems internationally than it would solve. At the same time, it's a reason that seems so obvious that he shouldn't have to state it. We should all be able to figure it out.

And yet, it seems, we don't.

I hear people asking why, after all this time, we want to go after Saddam now. He was always a tyrant, so what's changed? North Korea is probably closer to a nuclear bomb than he is, they say, so why not go after Kim Jong Il first?

We left him in power a decade ago, they ask, so why the change?

The answer to all of the above is: Sept. 11.

Before that, U.S. policy-makers didn't want to destabilize the status quo in the Mideast. What we learned on Sept. 11 is that the status quo in the region is unacceptable. It must change.

Change has to start somewhere, and Iraq is the best place to insert the lever, for several reasons - geography, culture, demographics, but most of all because Saddam Hussein has given us all the justification we need to go in and take him out: We stopped shooting in 1991 because he agreed to certain terms, and he has repeatedly thumbed his nose at those agreements.

Iraq may not be the best place in the world to try to nurture a liberal democracy, but it's the best shot we have in the Mideast.

I'm far from the only one saying this. The New York Times' Tom Friedman, who has more knowledge of the region in his mustache than I'll ever have, has said it a number of times, most recently just last week:

"What threatens Western societies today are not the deterrables, like Saddam, but the undeterrables - the boys who did 9/11, who hate us more than they love life. It's these human missiles of mass destruction that could really destroy our open society. . . . If we don't help transform these Arab states - which are also experiencing population explosions - to create better governance, to build more open and productive economies, to empower their women and to develop responsible news media that won't blame all their ills on others, we will never begin to see the political, educational and religious reformations they need to shrink their output of undeterrables."

Journalists can say these things, and some do. But if the president does, the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Syrians and just about everybody else in the region will go nuts. In European capitals, and even in certain circles here at home, he will be denounced as the worst sort of imperialist. Osama bin Laden's followers will seize upon such words as proof that the West has embarked upon another Crusade - not for Christ this time, but for secular Western culture.

None of which changes the fact that the current state of affairs in Arab countries and Iran is a deadly threat to the United States. So we have to do something about it. We've seen what doing nothing gets us - Sept. 11. Action is very risky. But we've reached the point at which inaction is at least as dangerous.

Should we go in as conquerors, lord it over the people of Iraq and force them to be like us? Absolutely not. It wouldn't work, anyway. We have to create conditions under which Iraqis - all Iraqis, including women - can choose their own course. We did that in Germany and Japan, and it worked wonderfully (not that Iraq is Germany or Japan, but those are the examples at hand). And no one can say the Germans are under the American thumb.

But that brings us to a problem. The recalcitrance of the Germans, the French and others undermines the international coalition that would be necessary to nation-building in Iraq. It causes another problem as well:

Maybe we could accomplish our goal without invading Iraq - which of course would be preferable. By merely threatening to do so, we could embolden elements within the country to overthrow him, which might provide us with certain opportunities.

But the irony is that people aren't going to rise up against Saddam as long as Europeans and so many people in this country fail to support the president's goal of going after him. As long as they see all this dissension, they'll likely believe (rightly) that Saddam might just hang on yet again.

If the United Nations, or at least the West, presented a united front, the possibility of Saddam collapsing without our firing a shot would be much greater. But for some reason, too many folks in Europe and in this country don't see that. Or just don't want to.

Maybe somebody should point it out to them.

Write to Mr. Warthen at P.O. Box 1333, Columbia, S.C. 29202, or [email protected].

By the way, do you mind if I post our exchange on my blog? Whenever I spend this much time writing about a subject, I try to share it with as wide an audience as possible...

From: Pat Mohr
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 11:06 AM
To: Warthen, Brad - Internal Email
Subject: Re: hyperbole
Importance: High


Certainly, you may share it.

That's it. Join in, if you got this far...

An exchange about macroeconomics

Here's an e-mail exchange from today, unadorned. Perhaps y'all will take an interest in the discussion:

From: Kathryn Fenner
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 9:26 AM
To: Warthen, Brad - External Email
Subject: a suggestion

Brad--
    Upon reading Peter Brown's comment (the old 'it's my money' whine) in Adam Beam's excellent front page piece in today's paper on the possibility of federal "bailout" money coming to Columbia as "investments," I wondered if it might not be helpful for some of your readers if you did a simple primer on Keynesian macroeconomic theory (since Friedman is generally considered discredited outside the Governor's circle). Maybe if people understood that, instead of directly taxing us, the federal government can print money, which, if it pays for certain things like wages, can actually create wealth (increase the pie) rather than taking money from your pocket, everyone might calm down a bit. Or at least some people might....
    A lot of us educated in South Carolina public schools--even the fairly good ones (Aiken) missed out on economics--I only happened to take macroeconomics as an English major at Carolina b/c a friend recommended the professor teaching the honors section (Martin). I would have taken another social science for my requirement for sure otherwise. I also only happened to take an excellent course on the history of the New Deal because it was taught by an excellent professor (John Scott Wilson), whom I had studied under for another course.

Kathryn
--
Kathryn Braun Fenner
Attorney at Law

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Warthen, Brad wrote:
    We touched on economics in my senior year, at Radford HS in Honolulu. You know how we did that? We played a game over the course of several days, in which we were supposed to be marooned on a desert island, and we had to make decisions about how to spend our time. Most time was spent obtaining food, but we could also budget time away from food-gathering to make tools to save time, etc. Scads of fun, much like such computer games of latter days such as Sim City -- only we did it on paper.
     That was about it.
    We also read The Autobiography of Malcolm X, which Barack Obama ALSO read in high school in Hawaii, and found inspirational. Our teacher for that class was Mrs. Nakamura, so we were way multicultural.
     That's about it. I know what Keynesian economics is in this context, very roughly -- it's like, spending to stimulate the economy, right? -- but I would not presume to set myself up as an expert. Oh, I know one other thing -- his middle name was Maynard, like Maynard G. Krebs, whom you are probably too young to remember.

From: Kathryn Fenner
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:43 PM
To: Warthen, Brad - Internal Email
Subject: Re: a suggestion
    Dobie Gillis was in syndication and played in the afternoons when I got home from school, man. Maynard went on to be Gilligan, a vastly inferior show. I'm only six years younger than you, not that your face gives that away (what is it,  a portrait in the attic? Some secret Hawaiian face cream? I mean from reading your columns, you got plenty of sun playing outdoors in the tropics and subtropics)
    The game you played was more about microeconomics, which most people probably grasp more intuitively--it's our household economy, our business. The mess we are in now calls for macroeconomic solutions, which no one in the MSM seems to spell out in a nice graphic for the newbies--how when the government prints money, you get inflation, but you also can get jobs and spending money and ripples through the economy (bottom up works a lot faster--not stimulus in your pocket that you save or pay off credit cards, but jobs for the unemployed who buy groceries and other necessities and thus get the ball rolling again in terms of generating transactions that not only support a civilized lifestyle (as opposed to homelessness or Harvest Hope) but taxable income to repay the "printed money."
    Whatever happened to the notion of "from those to whom much is given...."?  Rotary is such a great example of the fulfillment of the expectations by the fortunate, but some of the bloggers and Peter Brown and Sanford and his cronies (Joel Sawyer's letter was way off base) need to step to the plate. Dennis Hiltner said something to me the other day that drew Socialist me up short, "The employers who depend on workers who depend on bus transit should pay them enough to afford the true cost." I sputtered, but then I thought, "Surely Palmetto Health could take $10 per shift from the MDs and give it to the custodial staff?" I guess that's redistributionist, huh?

My fan mail from the governor's office

Just wanted to make sure you didn't miss the note of appreciation I received from the governor's office for my Sunday column. It ran as a letter to the editor today:

Warthen column damages credibility
    When the facts aren’t on some people’s side, they try and change them to help win an argument. Unfortunately, that’s a model growing in popularity among this paper’s editorial writers.
    I’m writing of Brad Warthen’s latest Sunday rant, in which he lashes out at the governor over a recent column he penned for The Wall Street Journal.
    Congress is contemplating spending another $150 billion to $300 billion to “bail out” states. Every penny of that money will have to be borrowed, from places such as Social Security, or our grandkids, or such nations as China (to whom we already owe $500 billion). The governor is arguing that enough is enough, and that we have to quit piling on debt, no matter how well-intentioned the spending may be.
    You’d know all of this for yourself had Mr. Warthen possessed the courage to print Gov. Sanford’s column alongside his, and let you judge both pieces for yourself. Not doing so is the latest example of a growing lack of credibility on Mr. Warthen’s part, from endorsing one senator despite noting his history of flouting the law, to, on his blog, likening a school choice supporter to bin Laden.
    This editorial page was once respected as a voice for good government. Now, thanks to Brad’s childish screeds, fewer and fewer people are reading.

JOEL SAWYER
Communications Director
Office of the Governor
Columbia

Editor’s note: The State published the governor’s column on the Web. To read it and Mr. Warthen’s column again, go to thestate.com/bradsblog/.

This letter put me in an awkward spot. It was sent to Cindi, but she's out this week, so when he got her autoreply to that effect, Joel sent the letter to me. And the problem was that the letter needed editing, and it's hard to work with the writer of a critical letter when you are the subject of the criticism. As editor, there were a couple of things I needed to accomplish:

• I needed to make sure it was factually correct, so that when he criticized me or the paper for doing XYZ, XYZ was actually what we did. As you can tell from our letters on any given day, we thrive on being criticized. But I draw the line at taking criticism for something we did not DO, because that would give the readers an incorrect impression of what we went to all the trouble of putting into the paper to start with. For instance, when a writer says, "You were wrong to claim that Sen. Hiram Blowhard is a horse thief," but we didn't say Sen. Blowhard is a horse thief, I'm not running it. If I DID run it, readers would naturally assume, "Well, they wouldn't have run the letter criticizing them for calling him that if they hadn't called him that." Unfortunately, the thing that Joel was misrepresenting about us was fuzzier than that. He was trying to make readers think that we had somehow done the governor wrong by not running his column in the dead-tree version of the paper. He was saying this despite the fact that he knows our standard is NOT to use that precious space for guest columns that have run elsewhere (every piece we run like that is another piece that was offered exclusively to us that we CAN'T run). The average Joe on the street could have made the mistake of saying what he said in the letter; he knew better. He also knew that we went to the trouble to publish the governor's piece online (you'll recall that in the past I've made the point here that our online version is the perfect place for columns by gummint officials -- who send us a lot of submissions -- that don't meet our standards for the paper), promoting it from the newspaper on the day it ran, and providing a link to it in the footer of my column about it (why? because I wanted people to go back and read it). But Joel insisted upon accusing us of wrongdoing on this point, so I eventually shrugged and let it go -- and resolved to state the fact of the matter in a neutrally-worded editor's note (knowing, of course, that lots of readers will think publishing on the Web is inadequate; but at least this way they had the facts before them). There were other factual points that were easier to resolve -- such as his originally having claimed that we acknowledged Jake Knotts was "a criminal" in endorsing him; I persuaded him to change that wording. But the business of how we had handled the governor's piece was too central to his point.
• Then there was the "courage" thing. I never could persuade him that some other word would make more sense to the reader -- "courtesy" would have worked; even "decency" would have worked. I mean, what is the reader supposed to think I was afraid of? I wrote a whole column about the governor's column, told you how to go read the governor's column, provided links to it, but I was afraid of it? But I guess he thought I was just trying to censor his criticism of me rather than helping it be a more logical letter. So I let that go, too.

Anyway, we spent so many e-mails going back and forth on those points that I never even got around to such minor things as: When you say "the facts aren’t on some people’s side, they try and change them to help win an argument," and you suggest I did that, what do you have in mind? Name one fact I cited that was wrong. But it wasn't worth it.

"Courage" is a word that is often misapplied to what I do. Truth be told, there are people who read a column such as the one Joel was criticizing and praise me for having the "courage" to write it -- but that is utterly ridiculous. "Courage" doesn't come into it, either way. I mean, what do I have to fear besides dealing with hassles such as that above? But I've heard that about columns I've written about governors going all the way back to Carroll Campbell. People seem to think I'm tempting the gods or something criticizing these guys. I don't know.

What I DO know is that if you want to see courage, read Dr. Ray Greenberg's piece on Sunday. Finally, we have the heads of major agencies having the guts to speak out about how we've hocked our future by failing to invest in the critical infrastructure of our society. State agency heads just don't write columns like that, but he did.

And of course, the governor came down on him over it. Oh, he did it politely. His response (which Joel sent me in the same e-mail with his letter, and which I ran the same day as his letter, which makes his complaint about our not running the governor's last column seem even more off-point -- but I digress) was of course more polite than Joel's. It's too important to the governor to be seen as above the fray to write anything like what Joel did. At the same time, a public university president who dares to write anything like that motivated the governor to take him down a notch personally. Other uppity agency heads will take note. (The governor can't do anything to Dr. Greenberg or to most agency heads, but that's not the point -- most of them don't want to get into a spitting match with the gov; better to lay low.)

A couple of quick points about the gov's piece about Dr. Greenberg (aside from the fact that his overall point was to defend the bankrupt notion of arbitrary spending caps):

1. His utterly laughable attempt to be condescending to the MUSC president: "I certainly don’t begrudge him that view. Like any agency head, his role is solely to look out for his corner of state government and the tax dollars that are coming his way. On the other hand, we in the governor’s office have a very different role in looking after the entire state." Go back and read the piece by Dr. Greenberg, who runs an institution of higher learning that employs 11,000. Look at the concerns that the doctor expresses, and compare them to the narrow ideological points espoused by the governor, and judge which of them you believe is really thinking about the good of "the entire state."
2. Second, the governor cites his favorite misleading statistic. The original text of his piece said, "Government in South Carolina costs about 140 percent of the national average, largely due to an unaccountable and inefficient structure." That is not true. I was able to make it technically (although still very misleadingly) true by the insertion of a single word: "State government in South Carolina costs about 140 percent of the national average, largely due to an unaccountable and inefficient structure." What's the diff? State government in SC costs more per capita than state government in other states because of our almost unique system of the state performing lots of functions that local governments perform in other states -- such as road maintenance, and owning and operating school buses. If you look at government overall, adding in our pathetically anemic local governments, we actually spend less than other states do on state and local government -- or at worst, around the average (there are different ways to calculate it; some ways we're right at the average, some ways we're well below). A very important distinction, but don't expect to hear this governor acknowledging it; the fiction that we -- the state that won't maintain its roads or guard its prisons or support its colleges nearly as adequately as other states do -- spend too much on government is what he's all about. Anyway, keep these two facts in mind, as Cindi explained in a recent column: We pay less per capita in state and local taxes than most of the country, and we pay less as a percentage of our income than most of the country. 

One last note, and this is one I DO deserve to be kicked for. The governor misspelled Dr. Ray's name throughout his piece, and I'm just noticing it. Yes, it was the governor's mistake, but I'm the one who had it last, so it's my fault for not catching it.

Judge Sanders should have used another historical reference

Alex Sanders is a great guy, but he is a political partisan. He's someone I like in spite of that fact.

And like most folks who try in good faith to defend partisanship, he was unconvincing in a letter you no doubt saw on page this past Sunday:

Ignoring candidate’s party seldom works
    As in every election, I heard people say they always vote for the candidate, not the party. People who think like that go to horse races and bet on the jockey, not the horse. That seldom works out for them.
    Incidentally, I wasn’t the first person to express that idea. Winston Churchill was.

ALEX SANDERS
Charleston

It so happens that Churchill provides us with one of history's most dramatic examples of the madness of putting party ahead of the candidate.

Churchill did as much as any man to save Britain from the Nazis in WWII, and the British people were grateful. But when the war was over they voted him out of office -- not because they didn't want him to be their P.M. any more, but because they chose the Labour Party to rule Parliament.

It was a terrible shame, but that's the parliamentary system -- one that, at least in the case of the executive part of government, makes the individual completely subordinate to party. Thank God we can avoid that in this country, as long as we don't surrender our ability to think and choose to parties. No matter what Alex Sanders says.

Mayor Bob's update on bus funding

Just now getting to my weekend e-mails, and I see this one from Bob Coble:

I wanted to give you an update from the City County RTA Committee that met at City Hall last Thursday. City Council members include me, EW Cromartie, and Kirkman Finlay. Belinda Gergel also joined us. County Council members include Damon Jeter, Val Hutchinson, and Joyce Dickerson. Chairman Joe McEachern also attended. The Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce and other groups also were in attendance. The first meeting had four presentations from staff on a variety of background issues. Joe Cronin of the County gave an excellent overview of how our RTA compares to peer cities. I believe that all the Committee members strongly agree on two fundamental points. First that transit is an essential public service that is critical for those who depend on bus service to get to their job and the doctor; an essential environmental tool to prevent non-attainment status and become a green community; and is vital to continuing economic development. Secondly, that the County and the City have the capacity to provide funding currently and it would be unacceptable not to do so.

Frannie Heizer, as the attorney for the RTA, presented the current legal options for funding. She made the following points: First, a sales tax referendum could not be held until November 2010 (Richland County Council could call the referendum now for 2010). Secondly, Frannie believes that the use of hospitality tax for transit would require a change of state law in the 2009 Legislative Session. The County has asked for an Attorney General’s Opinion to see if hospitality tax could be used now without a change in state law. Thirdly, neither City nor County property tax can be used without a referendum and then property tax would be limited by the cap on milage. Fourth, the mass transit fee by the County and the vehicle registration fee by the City and County are available now (both fees are different legally but to the taxpayer are paid in the same way and the same amount). 

When we establish a funding plan, other issues that were discussed included the need for other governments and partners to participate in funding the RTA; doing a comprehensive operations analysis; and changing the RTA organizational structure to have advisory members for those governments that are not providing money to the system.

The next meeting will be Friday November 14th at 9:30 am at the RTA headquarters on Lucius Road. We are inviting three members from the Lexington County Council to participate.

Thanks. I will keep you updated.

Kind reader offers me a way to spend some of that 'free-time' that I'm just eaten up with

Now that most people have gone home for the day, I can find a few secs to skim through some of my e-mail from the last day or so, and I run across this:

To: Warthen, Brad - External Email
Subject: Why is it that the press does not press on for info on the items below?

Missing Obama information...

1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available'
4. Harvard College records -- Not released 
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
13. Your Record of baptism-- Not released or 'not available'
14. Your Illinois State Senate records--'not available'

Oh hey listen! I know you are busy! Is this too much for you now? I mean tell you what. I will come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you are busy, so I will just let myself out. I will be back tomorrow.

To which I can only respond: Yeah, get back to me in about five minutes. I know I've got that stuff sitting around here somewhere....

More feedback on McCain endorsement

Just in case you didn't get enough with the comments on this post or this one or this one or this one, here are a few that I've received via e-mail. I didn't keep the attributions because some of these people probably wouldn't mind and some would, but I don't have time now to sort them out:

Hi,

Your recent Sunday column concerning John McCain neglects to mention that John McCain has lied about his military record on several occasions. I was eleven years old and watched the U.S.S. Forrestal as it arrived at Subic Bay in the Philippines -- minus John McCain. The writer of this article has performed a valuable public service, while you and the rest of the McCain worshippers continue to go AWOL.

_________________________________________

His pick of Sarah Palin--that kind of blows the doors off the "experience"
argument.

You also failed to mention that he graduated 4th from the bottom of his
class at Annapolis, which makes him dumber than George Bush, who you also
endorsed, twice.

Do you suppose he's also dumber than Mark Sanford, who you also endorsed?

Why don't you just say, "At The State, we endorse dumbasses, and McCain's
pick of Palin as well as his graduating 4th from the bottom of his class at
Annapolis leaves him as the only candidate that we can endorse."

You did good back in the poker machine days, and I still like reading your
stuff some times--some great sentences you can come up with at times--in
fact, i'd even say kind of incredible, and i even quote the stuff from time
to time, giving you the attribution, of course.  The problem is you have
quite a few loose screws that find expression in the endorsement of
candidates who have trashed this state and this country.  yes, you have a
track record.

Fortunately, I'm not going to be able to rub it in your face a few years
from now when you're writing about what an idiot McCain is, that you
endorsed him (like I have done with Bush and Sanford) because McCain is not
going to win.  Hopefully, you'll never endorse another winner.  For the good
of this country, let's hope not.

_________________________________________

Brad

You are a barrel of laughs.  It is truly funny how you are trying to convince yourself and others that you are open minded and not a closed minded, dyed in the wool, Republican.  The Republicans could literally run this country into the ground and you would still endorse a Republican.  (Oh, I guess that has already happened.)

The rationale for your endorsement was pitiful.  It wouldn't get a B from a friendly 10th grade Social Studies teacher.  I can imagine the red pencil comment "To endorse McCain because he supported the Surge is not a very deep analysis of the Iraq situation."

__________________________________________________

Mr Warthen,
I'm sitting here typing, deleting & retyping all the reasons why I find it incredulous that you've endorsed McCain for president.
I finally realized that I need not struggle to put it into words - Warren Bolton has already done that, very succinctly.
I will just say that I am extremely disappointed in your decision.  And the reasons given to support it do not resonate with me. 
Your, in my opinion, fool hearty endorsement is one that will remain in the back of my mind & forever color my perceptions of future positions presented by The State.

__________________________________________

Mr. Warthen,

I am an Obama supporter and I was disappointed that The State endorsed Sen. McCain. We are all entitled to our opinions, however, and I attempt to be open to views that are different from mine.  I must say, though, that your written justification for the endorsement of Sen. McCain in this morning's edition was as weak as water.
Thank goodness for Mr. Bolton's very thoughtful editorial this morning, it was proof to me that there continue to be people on your staff that reason and think independently. That piece and my husband's insistence on reading every comic strip everyday is the only reason that I did not cancel my subscription to your paper on the spot. 

_______________________________________________

After reading your editorial and the editorial page this morning, I called your paper and terminated my subscription, even though I have been a subscriber since I moved to South Carolina in 1977.  Through the years, I have agreed and disagreed with your editorials, but I have never considered the disagreements as serious as I do today.  I cannot disagree more with your conclusion that John McCain is better qualified.  I can't believe that you truly see John McCain as "exhibiting fierce integrity, principled independence and awe-inspiring courage as he has put his country first." 

I have seen nothing but a self-centered, spoiled man who is very angry and who has over and over put himself first.  For you to say that choosing Palin is not a factor for making a decision astounds me since it is such a clear example of McCain's lack of judgement. I thank Kathleen Parker for giving me the first reasonable explanation of why McCain made such a choice.

I know that one subscriber will not break your newspaper, I just wish I could get everyone in the state who is supporting Senator Obama to also cancel their subscriptions and then maybe you would wake up!

____________________________________________

To quote John McEnroe “are you serious!!!” I guess I really shouldn’t be that surprised.

Even though, like John McCain’s support of 90% of George Bush’s policies, I generally agree with The State’s editorial positions and the issues so eloquently addressed by Cindi and Warren and Brad (heck I even got the paper’s endorsement when I ran for Columbia City Council in 2000); I must say I was very disappointed at the endorsement of John McCain.

I realize we all see the world and life through our own “lenses,” but, come on, you folks have blindfolds, or at best blinders, on for this one. I do compliment you on putting the best possible spin on your choice by limiting your reasons and the issues discussed. Especially interesting was your total avoidance of other issues like temperament, and judgment in the choice of Sarah Palin. Guess you don’t see any concerns/negatives in a McCain administration. I could go on. You and most informed citizens/voters know the litany on both sides.

I can’t cancel my subscription over something like this. I am grateful to even get The State delivered out at Lake Wateree. I did have to express my disappointment. You coulda/shoulda picked the best candidate, and likely winner, as have over 200 other publications, four times the number who agree with you/The State.

I’ll still respect you after the election.

__________________________________________

To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: to Mr. Warthen

Dear Mr. Warthen:

I am disappointed in your endorsement of Sen. McCain. Not surprised, as you observed. Rather, I am dismayed at the rationale you used in choosing an endorsement for our next president. In a state thirsty for demonstrable fruits of education, we need leaders (including newspaper editors) who apply sound reasoning in decisions. Most of your reasons were poorly grounded - most notably, that the economic crisis and vice presidential selections are irrelevant to your endorsement. Many of us could not disagree more.

A sound economy is one essential key to our collective future. Each political party has a long record of economic policy - these candidates represent those parties ( I remind you that Sen. McCain may have resisted some foolish decisions by his party but he is not an Independent), so the positions on the economic condition are not a wash. Can you give us a deeper foundation for this opinion?

And as Gen. Powell recently observed, THE job of the vice president is to stand ready to be president. Our American tradition is to have two candidates running rather than a solo presidential candidate so the people can choose who the v.p. will be. Using your logic, we should just elect a president and let that person choose a successor after the election. Essentially you have endorsed Gov. Palin to be our executive, commander-in-chief, and strategist in leading us out of this economic crisis. You owe us an explanation for why you support putting our future in her hands.

_______________________________________________

To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: The State's Endorsement

I was so disappointed when I read the headline that you are endorsing McCain/Palin in the Presidential race.  I thought after your endorsement published in January of Obama, you were on the right track to unification for the state of South Carolina.  My husband and I have been very involved with this election process and have done much research and study in making our decision for our Presidential Vote.  I would think that with the resources afforded to a large newspaper, you would have come tot the same conclusion that we did.  Obama is our choice, no question.  We have struggled with job loss, student loans for our children in college and our sons service in the military.  McCain will only continue the policies that have made living and working for middle class American families so difficult these past few years.
Your opinion in January about Obama was spot on:

"Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership," the endorsement continued. "In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration - and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity - transcending party - is a core value in itself.": The State,  January22, 2008

We are so disappointed in your change of heart, and in our service with home delivery over the past year, that we will be canceling our subscription. 

____________________________________________

To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: (no subject)

Good morning to you Mr. Warthen-

Not knowing how to work this "blog" thing, I have to e-mail you my thoughts after reading the McCain endorsement which was no surprise at all.  What else could you people do in a state like
South Carolina?  Your paper, which from what I hear , is losing subscribers due to over-emphasis on sports, particularly football, diminishing Book Review section, less arts, less and less in-depth coverage of national and international news (no wonder people don't know about the Colombian Free Trade Agreement) loss of the Saturday Editorial Page and having to go to the internet to finish many stories.  Can you imagine the loss of subscribers you would suffer if you endorsed Obama?  Yes, you did once but not for the finish. 

You state in your personal remarks that people know your mind so well.  I disagree.  You always seem to be self-searching, trying to put across that you are neither this or that, so how can anyone know you when you don't yet seem to know yourself? 

As for knowing McCain, the remarks in the endorsement and yours show that you only know the surface of the man and haven't really studied him in depth.  His recent acceptance of some of the most vile ads against Obama and his shameless pilfering of Obama's campaign slogan of Change and many of Obama's ideas show this as a man who stops at nothing to get what he wants.  During rallies when folks said ugly things about Obama, he made a half-hearted attempt to stop it but later defended his audiences (note that when he tried to stop it, he was booed or given very sparce applause).  He and Palin unleashed some very, very frightening elements during their campaign and this is not the kind of man who should be a leader of all the people.  He has always been a panderer and will always be.  He also has a nasty streak that is also frightening.  Even your favorite columnist, Charles Krathammer, a former psychiatrist or something of the sort, while bashing Obama last week, stated that McCain launched a volcanic missive to Obama when he did not go along with some proposal of McCain's.  Krathammer should have spent a little more time analyzing McCain.

His military career and his time as a POW was not the glorious, self-giving time that has become an urban legend of sorts.  There are many places one can go to find out who this little man really is - and I just don't mean little in stature.  He is a bellicose, uneven tempered man with a lot that he is still trying to prove and we are in danger of being his proving grounds.

Further, I would like to see a little more balance on the Editorial Page with your syndicated columnists.  It is discouraging to open the paper and see either Krathammer, Will, Parker.  Once in a while we get Freidman and when it snows in July, Dowd.  Broder is even a change.  Surely there could be a better mix and your letters more balanced. 

__________________________________________________

Morning,
I just called and canceled my annual subscription(paid in advance)  to The State Newspaper after 17 years and 8 months. You ask Why?  Let me start by paraphrasing W.C. Fields When the world ends I want to be in SC. He was asked WHY? Because they are Fifty (50) years behind.
I do  not take issue with The State/Brad's endorsing Sen John McCain.  This was expected.  What I take issue is with the reasons and lack thereof.
1  "Surge"  The war did not start with a "surge"  The war started before the surge and Sen Barack Obama stated before the war and before the surge started that we SHOULD NOT GO TO WAR.  The "surge works" not in isolation.  We are paying  many $$$$$$$$$, Have you heard about the "Awakening" No one on itself would be success.  Please tell me now who had the better judgment and foresight from the start? Sen McCain or Sen Obama?

2.  You have lost sight of what the rest of America is mainly concerned about THE ECONOMY  THE ECONOMY THE ECONOMY. "Iran to North Korea"? Who cares RIGHT NOW? What most people care about is feeding their families, I guess we do not have to, My household income is over $250,000.00 per year. 

3.  "Columbia Free Trade Agreement"?  Take a poll of your readers and I bet my re-subscription that no more than 10% knows what you are talking about. Is this the new way of not saying "BLACK"? You yourself had to ask your own guestion  "WHY so many words about the CFTA.  Trying to justified putting the square peg in the round hole.

4.  "Judicial appointment"?  If you believe what both men said about litmus test, I have a bridge to nowhere I can sell you for the price of your subscription. 

5 "immigration reform" how many times did he flip flop on this issue.  What about voting against a MLK holiday?  You have the audacity to mentioned Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid BUT totally ignore Sen McCain's first decision Gov. Sarah Palin Oh so now you are worried about the majority in Congress?  What happen to the last six years? 

6. Is Country first involve KEATING FIVE, wrecking three planes, jumped out of one that was destroyed, shot down at 3,000 feet when he should have been flying at 4,000 - 10,000 feet?

7.  "Why didn't ( I prefer  "did not")  mention Sarah Palin"?  You are still trying those pegs.  How could you consider  one without the other ?  All thing been equal Sen McCain should die before Sen Obama.  Are you telling me that is the former is elected president and dies 4 months in his term Gov. Palin is suited to run the country and the world for the next 3 years and 8 months?  What are you drinking?  I do not want even a tea spoon of that, and if you are sneaking some in your paper I do not want to touch same again. 

8. "We could go on and on, and we will"  I will not. If I want to read you paper I can go to Refdesk like I do every day. Where I read at least 3-5 national, and 3-5 international newspaper seven day per week.

________________________________________________

To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: McCain endorsement

I gave all my information upfront because I mean this when I say the editorial board has two straight-up wimps, Brad Warthen and Cindi Scoppe. How can you not know who to endorse at this point in time? I realize Ms Scoppe has the right to make her decision anytime she feels like but as educated and bright as Ms Scoppe is, it just seems like she's afraid to endorse Obama in South Carolina and I say the same thing about Warthen. Please, the reason people assumed the editorial board would endorse McCain is because they knew you would come up with some wimpy reason to endorse the republican candidate.  I do believe that the publisher and owner of the state is not a wimp and I feel like Warren Bolton is not a wimp and the reason I feel that way about those two is that they're consistent, especially Bolton but endorsing John McCain in South Carolina is not progressive and saying you're not sure as an educated person when the election is less than 10 days away is not courageous and it's patronizing to your readers because both candidates have had websites up and running with information on their plans. My issue is not that the State endorses a republican candidate but that they put their circulation ahead of any real effort to change the country or be progressive and after reading Warthen's commentary over the past year I don't think he's very progressive when it comes to race at all. You see when it's time to do something courageous don't complain all year long then do the opposite or say I don't know. 

_______________________________________________

I am so very glad that McCain has been endorsed.  I supported him in 2000.  I feel his loyalty and dedication to the welfare of the United States is  far above his opponent.  McCain actually cares about this great country and what he can do to protect it.  Obama is more concerned over his "Kingship" of the country.

He is the most arrogant and elitist person who has ever ran for president.  He refuses to answer the "tough" questions and has ran a most negative and dishonest political race.   He is guilty of what he accuses his opponent of.  I feel so much better knowing that The State Paper and you have endorsed the best candidate we have.  Bless You.

So there you have it.

I haven't had time to respond to more than one or two of these folks, and need to turn to putting out tomorrow's page now. But at least I could give their views a wider airing by posting them here.