Last post for this blog

I am four days away from doing something I haven’t done since college: going to work, full-time, for pay. I will be an intern with the Illinois Senate Democrats through the Illinois Legislative Staff Intern Program. My husband and the children and I have moved to Springfield, Illinois, where we live very near some of his family, and after all of the massive chaos of moving we are finally beginning to settle into our duplex on a beautiful tree-lined street west of downtown. South Carolina is and always will be my home state, and there’s always a chance I could move back, but for the time being, we’re hoping to remain here for a while, give our children some continuity, and get involved in politics and policy-making in Illinois, which is my husband’s home state.

All that to say, I am shutting down this blog on South Carolina and Dorchester County issues, with one final plea to the voters not to give up on our public schools – or, perhaps more accurately, to reverse course and stop giving up on our public schools. Unless the entire system is abolished, no matter how many voucher or tax credit programs we try or how many charter schools we establish, we will still have children whose parents don’t care enough to fight through the paperwork to get them a good education, who don’t live in the right neighborhood or have transportation, who have learning disabilities or needs that can’t be addressed by a private school, or who simply won’t meet the qualifications for entry to a private or charter school. The philosophy behind the modern-day public school system in the U.S. is that EVERY child should be educated. Not just the smart ones or the well-connected ones or the ones with motivated parents. Private and charter and magnate schools alone can’t take on the task of educating every single child, unless a massive influx of state funding builds many more schools and pays many more teachers – and then how will we make sure the system is any different from the current one? Unless we stimulate the private school market in a big way, with accompanying government regulation to make sure all students can find what they need somewhere, we will be stuck with a system in which public schools educate only those who feel rejected from most of the good things in society. Stuck in crumbling school buildings with underpaid and disrespected teachers, they will truly be second-class citizens.

That is, unless we support our public schools – and yes, in the current fiscal crisis, that means taking money when it comes along, including from the federal government. If we support our public schools, we can make them proud again, places where parents from the CEO to the homeless can feel proud and safe to send their children. That’s part of the vision of a democratic society, too. While I’m on the subject, kudos to the wonderful teachers and administrators of Summerville Elementary, and to Superintendent Pye of Dorchester District 2. You’re doing an amazing job with dwindling funding and a surging and increasingly transient student population. You educate the children you have with great compassion and energy. Thank you.

I will still be blogging periodically on my Blogspot blog (http://eastvold.blogspot.com), although not as much on specific political issues because of my job. The posts will likely be on broader social and Christian-life-related topics.

Thank you for your patience as our family moves in a new direction. I look forward to hearing about where your year takes you, too.

- KPE

State Superintendent of Education: elected or appointed?

I don’t have much of a problem with a Lieutenant Governor elected along with the Governor instead of being a separate ballot line, but I do think an appointed Superintendent of Education is a bad idea. (Both proposals just passed the House and are headed on to the state Senate.) One can assume (I guess) that most people who vote for a winning gubernatorial candidate wouldn’t mind if he/she were replaced by someone of the same party if incapacitated. But in many (recently most) elections, voters have picked a Superintendent of Ed who is from a different party than the governor and articulates a rather different vision for education. Maybe that makes government run less smoothly. But I think it also indicates that the voters are saying something important, something that should not be ignored. After all, the state superintendent does not run local schools on a day-to-day basis. He or she is concerned not just with pesky details about which the voters are uninformed, but with a wider vision for education in our state – something about which many voters know at least a little and have pretty strong opinions.

Thoughts? If you live in a state where the state superintendent of education (or equivalent position) is not an elected official, how’s it working out?

- KPE

When you don’t need a gun (update)

This article appeared in this morning’s Post and Courier. Apparently South Carolina is one of the best states to live in if you plan on taking care of your own law enforcement problems; state law allows a home owner to protect not only his life but his property, and not just in her home but in her car, business, a campground, etc. Law enforcement and prosecutors have apparently interpreted the law quite liberally, too, including declining to prosecute a man who fatally shot a would-be thief in the back as he ran away after failing to steal a bicycle. One problem some have identified with this state of affairs is that private citizens have greater leeway in using guns than even law enforcement officers, who are allowed to use deadly force only when it is reasonable to suspect that a person’s life is in imminent danger – not to protect property. Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon told the reporter that this discrepancy makes sense because law enforcement officers are trained to make these distinctions whereas private citizens are not. Fair enough – and I’m all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt when it appears he reasonably believed himself or his family to be in danger. But when a gun owner admits to using his or her gun for the express purpose of preventing damage or loss to property, I think it’s time to rein in the posse and give citizens an incentive to let the police do their jobs.

- KPE

When you don’t need a gun

Recently, I read about yet another probably unnecessary discharge of a firearm. In a neighborhood on James Island, between Harbor View and Fort Johnson Roads, that has been unnerved by a series of break-ins, a man fired five bullets at a man he says was trying to break into his truck and steal his stereo equipment. The target claims he was doing no such thing, but instead was going through the shooter’s trash. One of the shots grazed the target’s head.

Let’s bracket for a moment the question of which party was engaged in criminal behavior. (After all, it’s not exactly okay to be rummaging through someone’s trash in the middle of the night.) The gun owner was understandably concerned about his property – his truck and the $2000 worth of stereo equipment he says was inside. We have property rights in this country, and that’s a good thing. But I want to ask the question, just hypothetically – what would the owner of the truck have done if he hadn’t had a gun?

I’m guessing he would not have confronted the man allegedly breaking into his trunk. He probably would have stayed inside (or retreated to the house or another safer vantage point if he was already outside) and called the police. Observed the suspect. Taken note of a vehicle tag if the suspect had one. Unless the suspect had any designs beyond just breaking into the truck (or looking through the trash, as the case may be), neither the property owner nor his family would have been in any danger necessitating the use of a gun.

Let’s look at an even clearer example. Last fall, a Charleston-area business owner shot and fatally wounded a man who was breaking into his truck, which was parked behind his store. As it turned out, the thief was unarmed, but when the business owner confronted him, he had reached into his pocket as though about to pull a gun. The businessman thus shot in defense of his life, not just his property. He was not charged with any violation, since it was determined that he acted reasonably in self-defense. But again – what if the business owner had not had a gun with him? My guess is that he would not have confronted the thief, that he would have stayed inside his store and called the police, not walked out into the parking lot. Last week, in West Columbia, a homeowner discovered a man trying to break into his truck in the middle of the night and shot him, fatally, as he was riding away from the scene on a bicycle. Obviously that wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t had a gun.

I’m not for outlawing all ownership of guns by civilians. Hunting is a sport with a proud heritage in the U.S. (especially the South), and if is practiced (as it often is around here) with respect and care for nature, and in conjunction with good conservation practices, I don’t have a problem with it. And certainly there are situations in which guns, wielded by brave and responsible citizens, have saved lives that were truly in danger. There really is something to the gun lobby’s reminder that the bad guys carry guns, and so “good guys” who are unarmed are at a real disadvantage.

But at the same time, it seems from news reports such as the above that having a gun makes you take risks you wouldn’t take without one. As Michael Westen said so brilliantly in one of the early episodes of Burn Notice, “Guns make you stupid. Duct tape makes you smart.” In other words, it’s easy for a person with a gun to feel safe, invincible, powerful, able to handle a situation by himself. And that can make gun owners do stupid things. If all you’re armed with is a roll of duct tape, you’re going to be a little more cautious.

Now, I get that for some people there’s something deliciously macho and empowering about being able to take care of a problem yourself, without calling the police and hiding while some crook runs off with your stuff. But our society, like so many others, has made a conscious decision to be a nation of laws and “official” law enforcement. Throughout our history we have gradually turned away from vigilantism. Even the Wild West became less wild in part because of the wishes of the people who lived there; law and order were not just imposed from outside. Taking the law into your own hands makes for an exciting movie but in daily life begets an existence that is dangerous and uncertain, where it’s hard to start a business or start a family with any confidence and where one doesn’t know whom to trust. It’s all well and good to use your gun to chase away a burglar, until someone else decides you need to pay for allegedly looking at his wife the wrong way. Laws and law enforcement must be predictable to a decent extent if our society is to function. Yet the gun lobby frequently seems to endorse do-it-yourself law enforcement, when they push for more lenient penalties (or no penalties) on gun owners who take matters into their own hands when their lives were probably not at risk. Again, it’s tough to say whether or not one’s life was at risk in a given situation, or what the gun user knew at the time. But it’s clear that people often get into these murky situations in the first place because they feel able to defend themselves.

It’s legal to use force – even lethal force, if necessary – to defend one’s self. As it should be. But self-defense needs to be self-defense. Or defense of another vulnerable person. Not defense of your stereo system. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? Is it permissible to discharge your weapon to keep someone from stealing your $20,000 car? Your $2000 sub-woofer? Your $200 Wii? Your $50 pair of sneakers? If so, then we’ll be back to the state of nature; the strong (and the armed) defend themselves, and the weak make do. Surely few gun owners think this is a good idea. And yet we need to draw a line somewhere. Restrictions on and barriers to gun ownership are part of that, as is prosecution of firearms violations when the situation warrants it.

One person’s chance at proving his or her manhood or womanhood with do-it-yourself law enforcement may be a neighbor’s reason to fear going out of the house. Or the needless death of a kid gone astray who might come out of a few years in Juvenile Justice and be a productive citizen. In the rush to make sure citizens can buy guns to defend themselves and their families, we must remember that our ancestors deliberately and with good reason built a country in which there are processes for judging and sentencing suspected criminals.

- KPE

Endorsements – November 2010

Here are my endorsements for this year’s general election. All races are on the ballot at least somewhere in Dorchester County, but I’ve included a few that won’t be on my ballot (Stallsville Precinct, ballot style #16) because of my familiarity with the candidates, races, and/or issues. Whatever you do, get out there and vote tomorrow. Whether your ancestors were white Englishmen who fought in the Revolution, African slaves and African-American civil rights pioneers, women enduring police brutality to secure the right to vote, or immigrants braving shipwreck and disease and hunger and thirst to become American citizens, men and women have bled and died so that you can stand in line tomorrow and cast your ballot. The polls are open from 7am to 7pm, and if you can’t make it during that time due to work, disability, illness, travel, or family emergency (or if you’re over 65), you can still vote absentee today. No excuses. See http://www.dorchestervotes.org for more information.

Governor – Vincent Sheheen

Endorsed by the typically conservative S.C. Chamber of Commerce and a number of Republicans disgruntled with his opponent Nikki Haley, State Sen. Sheheen is a moderate Democrat who is likely to work with the General Assembly more harmoniously than term-limited current Gov. Mark Sanford or Sanford’s protege Haley. At a time when economic development and job creation are at the top of the next governor’s agenda, being likable and able to work with a great variety of people and institutions are key qualities. Sen. Sheheen is also committed to public education and conservation, but flexible when it comes to working out solutions. He also happens to be pro-life, yet dedicated to reducing the incidence of abortion through supporting pregnant women and beleaguered families – not just installing additional hoops for abortion-seekers to jump through.

Lieutenant Governor – Ashley Cooper

Attorney General – Matthew Richardson

Superintendent of Education – Frank Holleman

As those of you who keep up with me on Facebook know, I think this may be the most important race in the state this year. Mick Zais, the Republican nominee, firmly backs a tax credit plan that would amount to giving out vouchers to some students to enroll in private or sectarian schools. SCISA, an association of private and religious schools, endorses Zais, but their main goal (as stated in their endorsement letter to member headmasters) is to win back students whose parents have had to pull them out of private schools because of financial hardship. The private schools are unprepared (and unwilling) to handle the deluge of students, many with learning disabilities and behavioral problems, from failing schools who would seek to use their credits there. Unlike charter and magnate schools, private schools accepting tax credits would not be required to accept students on a random or first-come-first-served basis. They would not be obligated to teach special education students or students with a history of behavioral issues or students several grade-levels behind. They would not have to admit representative percentages of students of various racial backgrounds. Meanwhile, the tax credit program would cost many millions of dollars – leaving the public school system without the resources to serve students who are not accepted by private schools or whose parents choose to leave them where they are.

Dr. Zais has no direct experience in public K-12 education, but Dr. Frank Holleman has spent his entire career working with public schools, mostly in South Carolina. One look at his website (www.hollemanforeducation.com) should convince you of his thorough knowledge of the S.C. public school system and his many innovative ideas. Dr. Holleman has read the research and knows that academic preschool is key to closing the achievement gaps due to race, socio-economic status, and education level of a child’s parents. Rather than wasting money on tax credits, he wants to make good-quality preschool available to every at-risk child, and eventually to any child whose parents want to enroll them. (Whatever scare tactics conservatives may use, Dr. Holleman has never proposed making preschool mandatory and has no plans to do so.)

I can’t think of a race with as stark differences between the two major candidates as this one. I urge you to think about what the goals of public education in this state should be, read about the candidates, and vote carefully!

Comptroller General – Richard Barber

Secretary of State – Marjorie Johnson

U.S. Senate – Nathalie Dupree (write-in)

I cannot in good conscience vote for either Jim DeMint or Alvin Greene. One third-party candidate (the Green Party’s nominee Tom Clements) and several candidates waging write-in campaigns have recommended themselves to fill the obvious void in this race. I am not entirely satisfied with any of them, but I am going to write in local celebrity chef Nathalie Dupree rather than the name of a friend or some individual who doesn’t have a formal write-in campaign because the less scattered the votes against DeMint are, the worse DeMint’s probable victory will look, in my opinion. Ms. Dupree is certainly familiar with South Carolina, and particularly the Charleston area, and her major issue is getting money for a study necessary to deepen the port of Charleston, one of the main engines of the state’s economy. (Sen. DeMint has refused to support this step as part of his grand-standing opposition to earmarks.) While Ms. Dupree’s website doesn’t have much on it, she’s at least serious about the campaign and the issues (she’s put in quite a bit of her own money, apparently), and in a race that DeMint will almost certainly win, that’s enough to convince me to vote for her in hopes of embarrassing the sitting senator as much as possible.

U.S. House of Representatives – Rob Groce

This rather bizarre seven-way race (in the first Congressional district) has been a tough one for many Democrats. Like Alvin Greene, Ben Frasier was a surprise, dark-horse winner of the Democratic nomination in June. But unlike Greene, Frasier has not been indicted on obscenity charges and has actually done some campaigning. Mr. Frasier claims that the Democrats who have deserted him for third-party choices are doing so out of racist motives, and indeed I don’t see any point in questioning the legitimacy of his win at this point (except as part of a broader investigation into our state’s voting machines). But the fact is that Mr. Frasier has publicly proclaimed a great number of positions that are diametrically opposed to those of most Democrats: he is anti-union, favors dramatic increases in defense spending, and favors an Arizona-style immigration law for South Carolina and at the federal level. He also comes across as rather vindictive about his win (and lack of support from many Democrats) following 30-plus years of unsuccessful runs for office.

Full disclosure: Rob Groce is my good friend. But although I probably have a personal bias, I think it’s fair to say he’s the real Democrat in the race, though he is running on the Working Families ticket. Mr. Groce is not a politically ambitious man, and he is as humble and down-to-earth as can be. But when Mr. Frasier won the primary and it became clear that there was no representative of Democratic values in the race, Mr. Groce felt it his duty to get involved. He stands for workers’ rights, benefits and a living wage for hard-working South Carolinians, public education, good jobs, and our veterans. He’s discussing issues other candidates in the race haven’t touched, and he’s a smart guy with some innovative solutions. Please don’t let Tim Scott win this one in a landslide because of uncertainty and division among those who oppose him.

State House District 98 – Christine Jackson

County Council District 3 – Kenny Waggoner

County Council District 7 – Tim Patrick

Okay, so Tim Patrick is a friend of mine, too. He worked very hard this summer to get on the ballot as an independent; there is no Democrat in the race. The Republican, Jay Byars, is cozy with the real estate industry and has not shown a commitment to smart, controlled growth for our county, whose services are overburdened already. We need more jobs in-county, not more residents who use our roads and send their children to our overcrowded schools but work elsewhere. Mr. Patrick, a young family man and Navy veteran who lives in Wescott Plantation, has some great ideas for planning communities with ample roads, parks, and grocery stores close to houses. He supports small businesses. Especially if Dorchester residents approve the local question and task County Council with developing a plan for county parks and recreation, Mr. Patrick would be a great choice to help spearhead that effort, with his knowledge of sustainable, livable communities that are good for both businesses and families.

School Board (Dorchester District 2) – Frances Townsend, Charlie Stoudenmire, Harry Blake, and Gail Hughes

Amendment 1 – No

Amendment 2 – No

Amendment 3 – Yes

Amendment 4 – No

Local Question – Yes

Introducing the newest Eastvold

Jonathan and I are happy to announce the birth of our fourth child, Juliana Charis Pinckney Eastvold, at 3:40am on Saturday. She weighed six pounds, six ounces, and we are all doing well.

For information about the meanings of her name, further details, and a picture, please see my other (less political) blog at http://eastvold.blogspot.com.

- KPE

What happened last Tuesday? (And are SC Dems to blame?)

Like so many Democrats (and political junkies of all stripes) in this state, I’ve been trying to figure out since Tuesday night how unknown Alvin Greene could have defeated (rather decisively, if the numbers are to be believed) Vic Rawl, a serious candidate who criss-crossed the state, spent what I’m sure amounted to hundreds of hours on the phone fundraising and talking to potential supporters, robo-called, had an active website and Facebook page, did media interviews, etc. After several days of back-and-forth, with pundits, establishment Democrats, Republicans, Greens, experts, and of course the press chiming in with their favorite theories, we don’t seem to be any closer to knowing for certain what happened. It’s still a game of “was there or wasn’t there” – a conspiracy, that is. Was Mr. Greene a Republican plant? Was there vote fraud? Did someone pay Mr. Greene’s filing fee? Did someone (presumably either connected to the DeMint campaign or at least trying to work on its behalf) paying “walking around money” to rural folks to get voters (particularly blacks) to the polls for Greene? Or was this just a victory for the ultimate non-incumbent? A snub to “professional politician” Vic Rawl? A response to the failure of the established Democratic Party in South Carolina to reach out to blacks/the unemployed/rural voters/you name it? Was it the fault of the state party for even letting Mr. Greene file in the race to begin with? Was Rawl’s campaign simply run so negligently that even someone with no campaign, no website, no name recognition, no money, no nothin’ could beat him? Were Republicans and Democrats alike so busy crossing over in attempts to influence other races (like the governor’s race, featuring Nikki “did she or didn’t she” Haley, Andre “don’t feed the strays” Bauer, Robert “gambling is the answer to all our problems” Ford, and a cast of other interesting characters) that it created the perfect storm? Or did THAT many people really pick the name that was alphabetically first on the ballot?

The more I think about it, the less likely it seems that Mr. Greene won, fair and square, by that large of a margin. Even if the Rawl campaign were run sloppily, even if it’s an anti-incumbent/anti-establishment year, even if cross-overs were higher than usual (and I don’t think anyone has proven that was the case), results like this don’t just happen. As far as I know, nothing like this has happened in any other state this year, or in this state at any time in recent memory. Yes, Ben Frasier’s victory over Robert Burton in the Democratic First Congressional District race was also unexpected (and, to my mind, a little suspicious, too – Col. Burton has decided not to file a protest, however), but at least Frasier campaigned. He went to a few events, and he took out ads in some papers. And (thanks to his dozens of runs for various offices) he at least had some name recognition. Alvin Greene had no name recognition, no signs, no mailers, no ads, no proven campaign appearances (he says he campaigned but can’t say where), and (of course) no money besides the filing fee. This wasn’t a case of a smaller, slimmer campaign beating a larger, more cumbersome one; it was no campaign at all solidly pounding one that was at least average in its scope. Now we have expert analysis of Tuesday’s numbers showing that in many precincts, more votes were cast for Mr. Greene than the total number of Democratic voters signed in that day, not to mention huge discrepancies between absentee vote tallies and Election Day tallies. At many times during the past five days, I’ve started to think, “Maybe I’m making something out of nothing. Maybe this is legit, an instance of popular dissatisfaction with politics as usual, and I’m just being a sore loser.” And every time I start to think that, the unsettling thought occurs to me that someone, somewhere, is probably laughing.

But regardless of whether foul play was involved (and it seems to me increasingly certain that it was), the question remains: Were South Carolina Democrats hoisted on their own petard? Is the Democratic establishment to blame, either for allowing themselves to be duped so easily or for ignoring the needs of its real base? In a column published on Friday, Brian Hicks of the (Charleston) Post and Courier suggested the former possibility. “[A]dmittedly there is something fishy here,” Hicks acknowledged; yet the Democrats deserve what they get because “they are the idiots who put him on the ballot.” “Are they that hard up for money?” Hicks asked, and “don’t they check these people out?”

That argument isn’t hard to answer. I haven’t read the bylaws of the South Carolina Democratic Party recently, but I’m guessing it’s not legal, according to the written operating procedures of the organization itself, for the SCDP to turn down an eligible candidate’s filing fee and refuse to put him or her on the ballot. I do know that the state party may not endorse a candidate before the primary (however much pressure individual Democrats, not speaking for the party, may exert). The SCDP offered Mr. Greene no funds, no support, and, it seems, no encouragement. As for the charge that Carol Fowler or someone else at the state party should have vetted Mr. Greene – why would they? It wasn’t their job; if running a background check was anyone’s job, it was the Rawl campaign’s or the media’s. (Hicks did accept some blame on behalf of the press for not digging further into Mr. Greene’s background; it certainly is worth noting that no one in the mainstream press gave him any chance of winning either (and therefore ignored him completely, with the exception of an article in the alternative weekly the Charleston City Paper) and so can’t exactly afford to pick on anyone else for being surprised.)

Even if the SCDP (or anyone else) HAD thought to run a background check on Mr. Greene and had discovered his pending felony charge, that wouldn’t have been enough to justify removing him from the ballot. Like it or not (and most of us like it most of the time), we’re innocent until proven guilty here in America, and a pending felony charge doesn’t disqualify you from any public function, like voting or running for office. Sure, if someone had known, the story could have been broken before the election and the results might have been different, but there still wouldn’t have been any way to keep the uninvited candidate off the ballot. It’s worth noting that the problem of unwanted nominees is not a new one for the SCDP; Bob Conley, who won the nomination to challenge Sen. Lindsey Graham in 2008, turned out to be a libertarian with few principles most Democrats could with good conscience endorse. Believe me; the Democratic establishment hasn’t forgotten about that one. The subject of Bob Conley comes up with great regularity at party gatherings. But there wasn’t anything the SCDP could have done to keep him off the ballot and out of the race, and there’s nothing they could have done about Alvin Greene.

The more serious accusation is the one made by Georgetown blogger Jamie Sanderson and in the Indigo Journal by “Jennifer.” Both these bloggers (again while not denying that there might have been some funny business) charge that the Rawl campaign in particular and Democratic campaigns in general failed when it came to voter outreach – preaching to the choir, ignoring rural blacks, running establishment candidates, and of course underestimating an opponent and neglecting to research his background.

To some extent, of course, this charge is one that needs to be taken seriously by future Democratic candidates and their staffs; campaigns can always be run better and smarter, and I’ve been saying for a while that when you’re consistently the underdog party in a state, you can’t just contact the same voters every election cycle, use the same get-out-the-vote strategy, and expect a different result. Yes, there are quite a few Democratic and likely Democratic voters in South Carolina who aren’t registered to vote or don’t vote as often as they should, but just rounding them up isn’t going to change the game. We have to persuade; we have to have an effective message. But at the same time, I have watched the Rawl campaign relatively closely (in the interest of full disclosure, I have done some volunteer work for the campaign but was not and am not paid staff), and I don’t think either the candidate or staff dropped the ball to the extent that what happened last Tuesday would be the expected result. (After all, what happened caught everyone – veteran poll watchers, pundits, the media, the Rawl campaign, the state party, everyone – by surprise, so it seems disingenuous for anyone to now say that Rawl bungled the race so badly that he should have expected something like this.) The Rawl campaign traveled throughout the state, attending not just party conventions and gatherings, but many community events. There were bumper stickers, mailers, and robocalls by the thousands. The campaign website was extensive and up-to-date. The campaign issued press releases at least twice weekly, spent as much time raising money as it responsibly could while meeting as many voters as possible, and as far as I can tell spent its money judiciously. Yes, Vic Rawl is a former judge and state legislator. But he is not a professional politician and has spent much of his life in the private sector. In a year that was supposed to be the year of the challenger, fewer incumbents fell than expected; it strikes me as odd, then, that the supposed anti-incumbent wave sweeping the nation (which actually was even less powerful in SC than elsewhere, unseating only three state representatives in the primaries) would also wash away a man who spent a couple of terms in the state legislature decades ago. I’ve seen some articles and posts that almost in the same breath blame Rawl’s supposedly “establishment” profile AND his lack of name recognition. You can’t have it both ways.

No, the Rawl campaign didn’t vet Alvin Greene. Yes, it should have – in retrospect. But given the completely unexpected nature of Mr. Greene’s win and the fact that no one has come up with any proof (aside from a single brochure that Mr. Greene showed a reporter but was loathe to part with, apparently because he had only the one sheet in his possession) that he ran any sort of campaign whatsoever, there would have been no reason (had the campaign done a background check and discovered the felony charge) to reveal negative information about Rawl’s opponent. It wouldn’t have been sporting, honestly. And would the voters have paid attention anyway? I don’t know.

I do think S.C. Democrats can take advantage of this moment to do some soul-searching, and we ought always to be seeking to run better campaigns and include more people in the political process. But at the same time, we can’t let what happened (especially if it was not a legitimate result reflecting the will of the voters) divide us, particularly along racial lines. While admitting that we can always do better, we have to affirm that the Democratic Party is the party that for the last fifty years consistently has sought to include African-Americans in the political process and work for integration and better lives for people of all races in this state. We do need to recruit more African-American candidates. But Vic Rawl, even though he is white, was no exception to our party’s values when it comes to racial equality. If, indeed, there was some plan to rig or fix this election, I don’t want the perpetrator to succeed in causing racial divisions among either Democrats or South Carolinians in general.

Vic Rawl filed a formal protest yesterday with the state party. He made it clear that this doesn’t mean he’s decided to stand for election again if the party calls for a new primary. I tend to think he might prefer to wash his hands of the whole messy thing, take his retirement, and go fishing. But I applaud him for wanting to make sure the votes have been counted fairly. In a democracy, we all deserve the right to have our votes recorded as we intended to cast them. And certainly, conspiracy or not, the Diebold voting machines we use in S.C. don’t have a great track record and, according to many computer experts, are far too easy to tamper with at various stages of the process. If nothing else, the South Carolina Board of Elections owes it to all the people of South Carolina, Republicans as well as Democrats, to get to the bottom of any suspicions about the voting machines so that all our election results are accurate and credible in the future.

All that to say, until further notice I’m sticking by Vic Rawl and Carol Fowler. I think they have both handled this decidedly odd situation with grace and wisdom, without unfairly vilifying Alvin Greene (who, if he is the victim of some scheme to plant him as a candidate and then throw him to the media wolves, is much to be pitied) but without backing down from discovering the truth because of the fear they might be labeled sore losers, as in fact they both have. Please, let’s get to the bottom of this mystery and then move on, knowing we’ve done all we can.

- KPE

Endorsements (Democratic primary)

It’s that time again; both parties’ primaries here in South Carolina will take place tomorrow, Tuesday, June 8. The polls will be open from 7am to 7pm, so there’s no excuse (for most people) not to find time to slip out to the polling place at some point during the day. Please, please vote. Yes, the results of many of the races look like foregone conclusions. Yes, a lot of South Carolina politicians have been behaving badly recently. Yes, all too often elected officials ignore or fail to understand their mandates and abuse the public trust. Yes, there’s plenty to be cynical about. But the right to vote is still what sets our country apart from the many effective dictatorships (“benevolent” and otherwise) in the world. It’s what keeps our government as accountable as it is (which sometimes isn’t very, but it sure is better than nothing). It’s what allows us to act for the good of our families and communities, in accordance with our own consciences, rather than being treated like mere sheep too stupid to make decisions for ourselves. And please, especially if you have local races on your ballot that haven’t gotten a lot of play in the media you tend to read or watch – go to www.postandcourier.com or www.journalscene.com (if you’re in Summerville) and learn about the candidates for your County Council or Town Council or State House seats, too. These races may not seem all that important now, but when you find yourself upset about a zoning decision or your property tax assessment or why there aren’t any decent parks in your county, you may wish you’d paid attention.

Getting off that soapbox… here are my endorsements in the races that will appear on my (Democratic) ballot. There aren’t that many, actually; my precinct does not fall within any contested County Council or State House districts. But I decided, for the sake of simplicity and not having to figure out where to draw the line, not to endorse in races in which I can’t vote.

U.S. House of Representatives – District 1

Robert Burton

Ben Frasier

Mr. Frasier is a perennial candidate (not that “perennial candidate” ought to be a slur; Abraham Lincoln was a perennial (and perennially losing) candidate for many years) who finally has been declared by a court to be a legal resident of South Carolina but apparently does operate a business and spend much of his time in another state. That said, I’m excited about Col. Burton’s candidacy and not just voting for him because he seems like the only viable Democratic alternative. Col. Burton has extensive military experience, has served his county in Iraq and Afghanistan, and will bring valuable insights to the debates about those conflicts that will certainly take place in the U.S. Congress over the next few years. Having talked with him on several occasions, I have been impressed by his dedication to South Carolina and the First District, as well as his willingness to listen and learn. For instance, I was interested to note that when the Minerals Management Service held a public hearing in Charleston on the environmental assessment process for geologic surveying prior to potential drilling off our coast, Col. Burton was there – but he didn’t come to grandstand and talk about his candidacy. He sat in the back and listened to the presentation and to the comments of concerned citizens. Because he had to leave early and had noticed my presence there, he later asked me for a recap of the rest of the comments. He has a real desire to get to know the residents of the district and learn about how to help them in Washington.

U.S. Senate

Alvin Greene

Vic Rawl

As in the Congressional race, the outcome of the Democratic Senate primary is probably clear, since Mr. Greene does not have a website, has no signs up (as far as I know), and has filed no campaign finance reports. However, I do want to encourage Democrats to get excited about the likely winner of our party’s nomination – Judge Vic Rawl. Judge Rawl is a serious statesman who is particularly serious about unseating conservative Republican poster-boy Jim DeMint, whose own interest in shaking up the Republican establishment in favor of right-wing, anti-government candidates has taken him just about everywhere but his home state during this primary season. Judge Rawl, by contrast, is intensely interested in South Carolina, its strengths, and its problems. He has served in the military, in the state legislature, as a judge, as a mediator, as a Charleston County Council member (coming out of retirement to serve where he saw he was needed), and on a number of statewide boards and commissions. If you get the chance, please go to one of his events and sit down and talk with him about the issues; he’s always interested in how to make our state a better place and solve real problems, rather than arguing about the bogeymen often conjured by Republicans to keep Southern voters in the fold. Judge Rawl is well-read, informed, creative, and committed, and if Sen. DeMint can work up the courage to debate him in the fall, I am confident that South Carolinians will be struck by the contrast in terms of public policy knowledge, the ability to work with others (including across the aisle), and sheer love for this state. It will truly be a pleasure to vote for Judge Rawl tomorrow and in the general election. And in case you don’t think he has a prayer against a senator with nationwide name recognition, check this out: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/campaign/101017-sen-demint-less-than-a-shoo-in-for-reelection

Superintendent of Education

Frank Holleman

Tom Thompson

Honestly, I’m impressed with both of the Democratic candidates in this race. I heard both speak at Gallivants Ferry last month, and their passion for public education in South Carolina and making it serve our children better is clear. However, I’m convinced that Mr. Holleman’s vast experience in education policy (working for the U.S. Department of Education and under Jim Rex in South Carolina’s education department) and wealth of ideas for improving our schools makes him the best choice. I encourage you to take a look at his website (www.hollemanforeducation.com) and at least skim his blog to see the breadth and depth of his ideas for education; I think you’ll be impressed, too. Both candidates on the Democratic side, by the way, stand firmly in support of public education and making all schools better for every child, rather than letting a few lucky children leave failing schools through “school choice” schemes and letting the rest languish while precious resources go to charter schools, magnate schools, or even private schools. (Yes, I know that was a controversial statement I just made, and I’d be happy to delve into that further, but for now I just wanted to give my readers an idea of where the candidates stand on school choice. As far as I know, all the Republican candidates favor some form of school choice, but of course there are many variations on that theme, so if you’re reading this and you do support school choice, be sure to read about each of the candidates and see what plan in particular each favors.)

Governor

Robert Ford

Jim Rex

Vincent Sheheen

I actually endorsed Sen. Sheheen several months ago, and my enthusiasm for his candidacy hasn’t wavered. Sen. Sheheen is a dynamic, energetic statesman who, in the state legislature, has proven himself capable of working with politicians on both sides of the aisle and brokering creative compromises. He is extremely popular in his district (Camden and many surrounding areas), which is hardly known for its rampant liberalism but keeps returning him to Columbia. Like Judge Rawl, Sen. Sheheen is someone whose love for South Carolina and desire to make life better for all her people is palpable. Dr. Rex touts his experience as the only statewide office-holder on the Democratic ballot, but while he has made contributions to education in our state, he has little experience in other issue areas and no direct legislative experience. Given the frequent (and costly) horns-locking between our current governor and even members of his own party in the legislature over the last seven-plus years, I think legislative experience is perhaps even more important (and less easily gained) than executive experience for an incoming governor. A governor needs to know how to achieve productive compromises and navigate the rough waters of legislative wrangling – not just how to say “no” when he doesn’t like something that shows up on his desk. Vetoes should be a last resort, not a starting point. Too much is riding on the legislative (particularly the budgetary) process.

While I’m at it, I do want to give a shout-out to all three Democratic candidates for their classy behavior during this primary season. Unlike the Republican contenders, the Democrats (and their supporters) have for the most part been respectful and fair to one another, critiqued and attacked each other only on the issues, and avoided the gaffes, slurs, and accusations that have too often characterized recent South Carolina politics. May the best man win – and I firmly believe that’s Sen. Vincent Sheheen.

I know some Republicans do read this blog, and many of my friends and relatives are Republicans, but, unlike the major newspapers, I’m not going to write endorsements for the Republican side because I don’t trust in my ability to pretend I’m a Republican. That job is better left to actual Republicans. I do want to say that I have met Brent Nelson and have been following his campaign for the Republican nomination for Superintendent of Education, and he seems to me to be a gentleman and a dedicated, experienced educator. (And hey, we need more political scientists in government, right?) If you are a Republican interested in a moderate approach to school choice, check him out.

I have gotten some questions about whether it’s a good idea for Democrats to vote in the Republican primary in hopes of pushing things one way or another. (South Carolina has an open primary, so you can vote in whichever party’s primary you like (but only one at a time) and still vote your conscience in the general election and not have to register as a member of a party.  However, do keep in mind that which primary you vote in (though not your actual vote) is a matter of public record, and you will almost certainly be contacted at some point by the party in whose primary you voted; as a Democratic precinct president with access to these lists, I’ve surprised quite a number of Republicans that way!) I’m generally not crazy about the idea of voting insincerely in any election, and sometimes the results are unintended. For instance, if you’re a Democrat and vote for the least conservative of the Republican candidates in a given race, you may end up contributing to the election of a candidate who is harder for the Democratic nominee to beat. My advice to those considering crossing the aisle for the primary is to think about and research the probable effect (if any) of your vote, and also to look at all the races on your ballot and see if your vote will be needed in any of the Democratic nomination contests. Don’t ignore down-ticket races just so you can try to wreak havoc among, say, the Republican gubernatorial or Congressional candidates.

And whatever you do… please get out there and vote.

- KPE

Last night’s gubernatorial debate

My family and I had a great time last night at Manny’s in West Ashley watching the final Democratic gubernatorial debate along with other Democrats and then visiting with the candidates after the debate. My impression was that Dr. Rex started strong and on the offensive (as he needed to in this last week before the primary), but Sen. Sheheen gave stronger and stronger answers as the debate went on. Dr. Rex was quite possibly better prepared, but Sen. Sheheen demonstrated better instincts when confronted with less-familiar questions (in other words, outside the usual jobs/education/economic growth issue areas), such as whether the Confederate flag should be removed from the State House grounds, whether the governor of South Carolina ought to sign legislation outlawing abortion in our state should the Supreme Court break with the Roe v. Wade precedent at some point in the near future, and what if anything the governor can do to prevent egregious rate increases by utilities.

I was especially impressed with Sen. Sheheen’s answer on abortion. At first, all three candidates seemed a bit confused by the question and (typical of S.C. Democrats, who often wrestle with conflicts between their personal and political views on the issue) spent most of their response time trying to avoid being labeled as either pro-life or pro-choice. In the rebuttal phase, though, Sen. Sheheen came out strongly in favor of policies, such as better maternal health coverage and improved adoption services, that can reduce the number of abortions without necessitating a complete ban on the procedure. He also voiced his personal opinion that abortion is not a good option for women. As many of you know, I am less conflicted than many Democrats and am unafraid to call myself pro-life and to express my opinion that abortion does, indeed, result in the killing of a human being. However, I respect politicians who, although they may disagree with me on certain particulars, are brave enough to tell the public when they are conflicted, when they are wrestling with an issue, when what they would do personally seems to be different from what they consider prudent and just in the arena of government. People involved in public life have to struggle with these issues and keep trying to find solutions that are fair and right, even when the process is messy and doesn’t result in a nice sound bite. I applaud Sen. Sheheen for at least taking a tentative step in that direction.

I also want to thank the S.C. Democratic Party and everyone who was at Manny’s last night for making the debate-watching party such a success. Some fairly good-natured jostling over numbers and placement of signs notwithstanding, I thought the event was a great advertisement for unity among Democrats, even in a closely fought gubernatorial primary. Sheheen supporters applauded Dr. Rex as he entered the room, Rex supporters applauded Sen. Sheheen and took pictures of his supporters with him, and even though there were very few supporters of Sen. Robert Ford in attendance, most people applauded him as well and showed him great respect. I was impressed and anticipate that S.C. Democrats will peaceably and enthusiastically get behind whomever the nominee is on June 9.

- KPE

Local candidate forum Tuesday night in Summerville

Candidates for various contested Dorchester County Council seats, as well as all four candidates (two Republicans, two Democrats) for the District 98 State House seat currently occupied by retiring Rep. Annette Young, have said they will participate in a forum planned for Tuesday. I am planning on being there, probably with Jonathan and at least some of the children.

WHEN: Tuesday, May 25, 6-8pm

WHERE: Smith Hall, Pinewood Preparatory School (1114 Orangeburg Rd., Summerville)

WHAT: Candidate forum involving candidates for County Council Districts 2, 3, and 7; and State House District 98

The list of confirmed attendees, according to the Journal Scene:

County Council District 2:

• Haskell Brown (R )
• David Chinnis (R )
• James Stein (R )

County Council District 3:

• George Bailey (R)
• Matthew Creel (D)
• Kenny Waggoner (D)

County Council District 7:

• Jay Byars ( R )
• Jamie Feltner (R )

State House 98:

• Larry Hargett (R)
• Chrissy Jackson (D)
• Chris Murphy (R)
• Steve Yeomans  (D)

I hope to see you there. As a reminder, both the Republican and the Democratic primaries will be held on Tuesday, Juen 8; vote at your regular polling place.

- KPE