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