Tommy Moore for Governor, and others

I can't write for very long, and this is Election Day, so I'll keep it short.

Mark Sanford's last four years in office have been a poor showing. His good ideas about reforming the election of constitutional officers and streamlining some parts of government have either resulted in failure or only fits and starts of success. His bad ideas about abolishing the income tax and school vouchers never even got off the ground. In the public eye, he's most famous for bringing pigs to the Statehouse and engaging in repeated publicity stunts for his policy platforms. He has a fractious relationship with the legislature and his own party, can't get along with the Lieutenant Governor, and generally doesn't seem to be able to convince anyone with agency in government except Greg Ryberg that his ideas are worth much. He has been called one of the nation's worst governors, and for sheer ineffectiveness he might deserve that title.

Tommy Moore has his share of problems. He isn't an incredibly exciting candidate, and doesn't seem to like to raise money or campaign. Unlike Mark Sanford, he doesn't have a very good record on the environment. His policy platform is amorphous, although generally on the money as regards job creation and public schools. His shortcomings aside, it looks like he'd make a better governor than Mark Sanford. It seems he can at least do something in Columbia other than wield a veto stamp. He knows the personalities in state government, and seems to realize that pure ideology and vision without follow-through is a recipe for poor performance. The libertarian wing of the SCGOP is right about state government: It is time for a change. But instead of dismantling our public schools or halving our state budget, the change we really need to effect is removing Mark Sanford, who has achieved little and often seems unwilling to even try. Let's elect Tommy Moore.

Other Races I Know Something About:
US House, SC District 4: this is another unendorsement. Bob Inglis has generally been good on environmental issues, but has been unwilling to distance himself from regressive social policies, publicly waxes on religious issues, and broke his promise on term-limits. Griff Griffith might make a good representative, but he seems too unabashedly quixotic to be truly effective. Bob Inglis at least gets some good things done, but I don't feel right asking people to vote for him, based on the entirety of his record.
SC House District 24: Bruce Bannister is still the same unqualified GOP rubber-stamp he was in last year's special election. At the very least, Greenville voters deserve a candidate whose platform is more than a link to the Republican Party's website and whose history of public service is more extensive than "usher." He's uncontested, but write someone in.
SC Attorney General: Henry McMaster has generally speaking done a fine job. He's uncontested, but vote for him anyway.
Greenville Auditor: Scott Case has been the stalwart of the Bob Jones crowd on County Council for years. In the past, he was one of the standard-bearers in the fight against the Martin Luther King, Jr. county holiday, and this year he voted against tax reassessment in Greenville County, assuring that taxes will be reassessed next year, when the property tax burden placed on lower- and middle-income Greenvilleians will be higher. His history in the public eye has made him an unsuitable candidate for higher office. Mary Strom is a viable alternative with experience in the position and no such ultra-conservative baggage.
Greenville County School Board District 24: Both candidates are great choices for the job, but David Vickery has the experience in public education that Megan Hickerson lacks. He's the right choice this year.
SC Senate District 5 Special Election: Lewis Vaughn has been on the wrong side of school vouchers, which alone docks him points in my book. Frank Eppes promises to be a conservative voice for business and education in the Senate, and has a reputation that indicates he'd do well in the legislature. Send him to Columbia.

Robert Barber for Lieutenant Governor

In all our local, state and national elections this year, there were only a handful of races where I barely needed to stop to think before I knew who I would be supporting. The Lieutenant Governor's race is one of them. It's not just a matter of Andre Bauer's sophomoric and shady antics. It's not just a matter of Robert Barber's solid qualifications and relative maturity. It's really a combination of the two, alongside a general frustration with who has occupied the second highest office in our state for the past four years.

To be fair, the office of the Lieutenant Governor is largely cosmetic in state politics. Yes, the Lt. Gov. presides over the Senate, which gives him nominal powers to influence policy through procedural rulings. Yes, he heads the Office on Aging. And, yes, he takes over if the governor somehow leaves office early. But that's all usually beside the point in state politics, where bureaucracies clink quietly behind the scenes and governors remain unnervingly healthy through piglet-juggling and cross country bicycling. The Lt. Gov. is really important as a public representative of our government and our state. As such, we should rightly expect said official to act in a mature way at all times, not only when draped in purple robes and wielding a gavel, in addition to tending to the Office on Aging and constitutional duties.

It's hard to say that Bauer has done so. From his follies on the highways to his MySpace page (pardon the Wonkette link), our incumbent has achieved a sad notoriety in our state and indeed across the nation as a kid in an adult's shoes. His dubious land deals have pushed the envelope even further. Mix this together with a copious amount of strain with Governor Sanford and a close association with that bete noire of South Carolina politics, Rod Shealy, and it's hard to say much good about the image he gives our state and its elected officials as a whole. One could conceivably make a comparison between this buffoonery and former legislator and lobbyist Robert Barber's tenuous link to a pro-cockfighting organization, but it would be strained and hugely outweighed by his personal maturity and history as an advocate for the state's welfare and as a Methodist minister.

It's strange to think that these two men who are so different were both cursed by personal disasters this election cycle. This summer, Bauer crashed his personal plane, apparently due to no fault of his own, nearly killing himself and a passenger. Barber's family-owned, award-winning seafood restaurant burned to the ground this fall, destroying a cultural highlight of the Lowcountry. Beyond both sharing humbling experiences, the candidates have little in common, and that's what makes me confident in endorsing Robert Barber. His experience in the capital, working on both sides of the aisle, largely for nonprofit public interest groups, as well as his legislative experience, has prepared him for the position. His personality and life history paint him as a reasonable, mature man who can well represent our state. Andre Bauer is not a man I want in the highest echelons of South Carolina politics. Robert Barber is.

My Unendorsement in the Treasurer's Race

In any other year, it would be obvious. Thomas Ravenel is a smart, attractive, savvy businessman, who also happens to have entered the Treasurer's race on a whim, for all purposes barely has a platform beyond "I like Mark Sanford," and whose purpose in life seems to prepare himself to run for higher office. It wouldn't be hard to write an endorsement for his opponent. Theoretically, Grady Patterson is the ultimate candidate: He has experience, moral gravity, has proven himself competent in the past, and provides a check to runaway libertarianism on the Budget and Control Board.

Once again, the gap between theory and practice rears its ugly head.

I have such a hard time saying anything bad about Patterson. He's a sweet, avuncular fellow who has given decades of time to public service, whose faithful right-hand man, Trav Robertson, has worked like a demon in this race. He deserves credit. I have faith that Patterson has the experience and know-how to help reclaim our state's AAA credit rating and reduce our state's unfunded retirement liability. The question really is, though, can he put that experience to use? Judging from The State's interview with Patterson and Brad Warthen's comments, he might not. I'm not the sort of guy who entrusts billions of dollars in a man who has "bad days" and "good days" when it comes to mental performance.

On the other hand, we have Thomas Ravenel. Ravenel finally put to rest rumors - most of which he seems to have started - that he would run for Senate in 2008 against Lindsay Graham, but that hardly precludes him using the Treasurer's office as a stepping stone to the House or the Governor's Mansion. Watching Ravenel's behavior, the "That's how I roll" statement notwithstanding, one has to wonder how much effort he would really put into being Treasurer. He certainly has two good ideas for the position: Invest state retirement funds in equities and in local banks. Unfortunately, one of those is a reform already being put in motion through referendum. That leaves Ravenel with one policy point that seems to have been thought up in fifteen minutes. The rest of his promises to the voters are vauge and unsubstantial enough to indicate he lacks any real plan for the office. Make no mistake, Ravenel talks a good game, but he seems a lot like that charismatic kid in English class who never read the books but tried to charm his way into an A during report presentations. The Treasurer needs to be someone solid, not breezy.

Which is why I can't really come down on either side when it comes to advising how to cast a vote. Personally, I voted absentee for Patterson and contributed to his campaign. But I'm not sure I'd feel entirely comfortable goading other people into doing the same. I leave it to you, reader, to decide for yourself.

Constitutional Amendments

South Carolina voters have the chance to vote up or down on five state constitutional amendments this year. Although Amendment 1 on gay marriage has monopolized the attention given amendment referenda this year, all deserve a good hard look before any of us vote up or down.

Amendment 1

Amendment 1 would constitutionally define marriage as only between a man and a woman in South Carolina. Practically speaking, the law is unnecessary. Marriage has been defined by statute as between a man and a woman for years, and it seems highly unlikely the SC Supreme Court will strike down that law. The amendment will change a "problem" that doesn't exist. Aside from that, however, such an amendment codifies a type of discrimination in the state constitution. Simply put, consenting adults who enter long-term relationships and ask for legal recognition of them should be able to access the same legal benefits as any other pair of consenting adults. We should, at all times, work to eliminate discrimination where it exists in our laws, not entrench it. Vote no on Amendment 1.

Amendment 2

Amendment 2, presented in two parts, gives the houses of the General Assembly greater freedom in deciding when to recess during the legislative session. There's really no reason to vote against this amendment unless you have some fundamental objection to amending the constitution. Vote yes on Amendment 2.

Amendment 3

Amendment 3 is also presented in two parts. The first allows the state to prudently invest state employee retirement funds in publicly traded equities. The second would eliminate the board that oversees the investment of those state funds. Thomas Ravenel has basically made amendment 3A the central plank in his campaign platform, as well he should. It's about time we caught up with the rest of the nation in our investment regulations. Although it's not the full reform that our retirement fund needs, it's a step in the right direction. However, the second part of the amendment, 3B, is a step back. At this point, when our retirement fund needs to change rapidly to eliminate its unfunded liability and give a big return on the state's employees' dollar, it would be truly unwise to eliminate a layer of investment oversight. Keeping the board will help limit unnecessarily risky investment and provide sorely needed counsel to the Treasurer. I suspect the main argument against keeping the board is the cost of its upkeep. That's hardly a compelling rationale. Vote yes on 3A and no on 3B.

Amendment 4

Amendment 4 would cap property tax reassessments to 15% every five years. It's part of the "tax relief plan" constructed by the Republicans this summer. Predictably, it's anything but. In effect, this amendment caters to a public that's too tax-phobic to view a tax reassessment as anything other than a tax hike. That perception is far from the truth. Tax reassessments are made in order to insure that the burden of property taxes falling on each property owner is fair compared to the current value of their house; reassessments are tax-neutral. Capping tax reassessments means that the properties growing in value the fastest - largely expensive homes, purchased by the wealthy, in rapidly developing areas - will not have their tax burden increase at the same rate as their property value. The undue burden on properties whose values stay static or have increased by less, which reassessment normally corrects for, will therefore not be shifted to truly reflect their change in value. Hence, lower-value properties will be taxed at rates higher than accurately reflect their change in price. It's a complicated process, which I haven't explained very well, (this article does it better) but in effect Amendment 4 will actually raise most people's taxes in South Carolina - and most of those people will be lower- and middle-class home owners. Following close on the heels of sales tax and millage "reform" that lowers taxes on the rich while raising them on the poor, this amendment is a non-starter. Vote no on amendment 4.

Amendment 5

Amendment 5 is a reaction to a Supreme Court case from last year which allows governments to seize privately opened property through imminent domain and give that property to private entities, if those entities' development plans for the property will "benefit the community." South Carolina and many other states have rightly responded to this decision by moving to limit their own powers of imminent domain to prevent their municipalities from taking advantage of this case to seize private property for other private development projects. Our government shouldn't become a real estate agent for development companies. Although South Carolina's imminent domain laws are harsh at it is, asserting property rights through this amendment is entirely justified and legitimate. Vote yet on amendment 5.

Drew Theodore for Comptroller General

The Comptroller General is another one of those "so what?" races - it's not exactly clear why it's elected, and few people know it exists, much less what powers it includes. If it weren't for the fact the Comptroller sits on the Budget and Control Board, the race would probably be on par with the Secretary of State. As it is, however, the comptroller has an important part to play in the fiscal matters of the state beyond a purely administrative role, due to that aforementioned position on the B&CB. It's important, therefore, that the Comptroller be someone not only with fiscal smarts but also a clear head: Someone who isn't lead by political ideology but rather common sense, and who isn't beholden to political interests.

To me, it's hard to get a good grip on this race. The facts of each candidate's past, pretty essential stuff when it comes to deciding whom to vote for, are murky and distorted by either side's spin and attacks. The Eckstrom skit on Saturday Night Live has been one of the cleaner moments in the campaign. Drew Theodore's camp has tried to tar Richard Eckstrom, the incumbent and a CPA, with the brush of poor judgment and ethics. There does seem to be some basis to these accusations. Of the fact Eckstrom was accused of sexual harassment, there can be no doubt. More recently, Eckstrom used a state-owned car to drive to Minnesota on a personal trip. Although he later reimbursed the state, it's still a choice that beggars understanding

Additional accusations about Eckstrom's ties to out of state libertarian groups and how they may have affected his votes on whether or not to fund a legal case against political groups funded by those same libertarian interests draw increasing numbers of questions about our comptroller. Eckstrom's political consultant Rod Shealy offers harshly worded explanations and rebuttals to these charges, but it's hard to believe him, because after all: He's Rod Shealy. Charges against Theodore, Nick Theodore's son and businessman, smack more of flippancy than lack of ethics. His frequent sarcastic posts on a sports car forum, as well as claims that his businesses have failed in the past, are less troubling on a ethical level than the charges against Eckstrom. Running your mouth off on the internet about Columbia's faults doesn't make you look great, and neither does having businesses fail out from under you. But it's hard to say either is a strong indictment against the candidate.

These are issues that should inform our votes, but they shouldn't determine our support - the record should. We know Eckstrom's record on the Budget and Control Board: Staunch support of Mark Sanford's plan to starve government. Having a keen eye for when the taxpayers' money is being wasted is certainly important for any government position, but an ideology that brands government spending as undesirable, period, is fatuous. Although Eckstrom has been a steady hand on some specific fiscal issues, the combination of questions about his judgment and his libertarian leaning votes don't make him the right man for the job.

Drew Theodore brings one important thing to the table. He has a far more pragmatic view of government, one that says elected officials have to make it work, not bluster about philosophy while letting our AAA credit rating slide and our unfunded liabilities pile up. By planning to increase the accessibility of the office to taxpayers, while continuing a conservative view of how to keep our liabilities down, Theodore promises to continue the best parts of Eckstrom's record, while expunging it of Eckstrom's dubious personal decisions and Sanfordite votes.

Jim Rex for Education Superintendent

In any state, education is a major contributor to the well-being of the population. A highly educated population is on the whole wealthier, healthier and more productive than a poorly educated one. American families move to particular neighborhoods or counties partly based on the quality of the local schools; businesses take this into account when relocating or opening new facilities. Strong educational systems help economics cope with structural and technological changes, as well as giving people tools to better make decisions, from the voting booth to the living room, that can affect society for the better. Education's importance is heightened in a state like South Carolina, where economic and social changes on community, state, national and global levels are forcing us all to reevaluate our place in the world. There's especial urgency to the issue of education in South Carolina, simply because of how poorly we compare to the rest of the nation. We have to take our choice seriously when it comes to the superintendency, and make a decision we're sure will help our state's educational system, not hurt it.

There could not be a stronger study in contrasts than that of Democrat Jim Rex and Republican Karen Floyd. Rex is a mature-looking man with years of experience in secondary and higher education. Floyd is an attractive, young-looking woman who touts her children on the campaign trail and with a far shorter public service and education resume. On the campaign trail, Rex speaks in extemporaneous, dense language about the problems of public education. Floyd gives very well-prepared remarks, lightly touching on the issues with a strong dose of smiling and feel-good sentiment. It would be fatuous to simply compare the candidates based on their appearances and public speaking, however. Even when one looks at their platforms, however, one gets a sense of how different the two are. Both platforms are somewhat vague, but the dissimilarities shine through.

Floyd's campaign has focused on a few key issues. Most widely discussed has been her position on school vouchers. Judging from her statements regarding vouchers, Floyd seems less inclined to push for them than a tax-credit scheme not unlike Put Parents in Charge, the governor's failed attempt to subsidize private education in the state. Other than a few policy papers on bringing private contractors into public education and a general support for charter schools, Floyd has given scant few other hints as to what other changes she would make in SC's schools. From a policy perspective, this seems to be a very flawed position. The claim of PPIC supporters is that increasing competitiveness in education will have a free-market effect on public education, forcing under-performing school districts to improve their "product" in order to retain students and keep the state and federal dollars flowing. However, the state's fiscal assessment of PPIC, included in the legislation that failed to pass the General Assembly last session, estimates that 1.5% of current public school students would move to private schools as a result of a tax-credit system. That's hardly enough to spur free market style reforms. Even if we accept the benefits that private school education can have for that 1.5% (a debatable proposition in and of itself, according to the US Department of Education), what of the other 97.5% of students whose remain in public schools? Perhaps the diverse provider model could help them, but there seems to be some doubt as to whether diverse models on their own can provide improvement, or whether increased funding and the background of students might be more influential. Basically, what we're left with is a plan for school improvement that is only guaranteed to benefit one segment of South Carolina's population - the parents who already send their children to private schools, and will receive tax breaks for doing so.

Rex, on the other hand, suggests working within the framework of public education: creating "learning communities" and fostering charter schools in order to spur choice and innovation within public schools, where the vast majority of students in South Carolina will become educated whether or not we waste money on dubious voucher programs. Rex suggests divorcing school funding from sales taxes in order to create greater funding parity across the state. He wants to review the PACT testing array, as well as the state's views on standardized testing in general, which seems wise. Most importantly, Rex is a man with decades of experience in education who will be better able to work with the existing public education system in South Carolina. The Floyd plan is one of inherent suspicion of public education, one of an "outsider" attacking the "educrats" of the state. Singling out educators in South Carolina as a stubborn force unwilling to compromise is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy; what reason does the education system have to cooperate with a superintendent who is unwilling to include their interests in the decision making process? Rex also has the distinction of being divorced from out-of-state big money interests, unlike Floyd.

That all being said, Rex is the better choice for Education Superintendent. We have problems in South Carolina that need to be tackled in innovative ways, and the last thing we need is flashy, ineffective distractions like private school tax credits. We need someone with experience, know-how and willingness to improve the system, not selectively dismantle it.

Mark Hammond for Secretary of State

Almost every time someone has written about or mentioned the South Carolina Secretary of State's office in this election cycle, they have dwelt upon the absurdity of electing the position. It's certainly easy to see why: With its largely administrative role, low profile and small budget, the Secretary of State is an unlikely focus for a statewide election. Most people probably don't know what the Secretary of State is, much less who currently occupies the position, and there's really no reason for them to. This shouldn't be taken as a denigration of the role of the Secretary of State in South Carolina - the Secretary's office plays an important part in our state's private business sector and a significant, if purely bureaucratic, role in keeping our economy running smoothly. But it doesn't make good sense to elect the position.

But all that's beside the point. The position is on the ballot this year, and demands a decision from the voters. The incumbent, Mark Hammond, has served the past four years in a relatively quiet but effective way, taking down fraudsters and providing relatively simple Internet services for new businesses through the Secretary of State's website. And who could forget his continuation of the annual Angels and Scrooges list? It's simple, low-key stuff, but it speaks to good administration of the office, which is the best we could ask from an inherently administrative position. Cheryl Footman is challenging Hammond, but it's not clear for what reasons. A teacher, she brings less experience to the office than Hammond did four years ago- he was Spartanburg Clerk of Court before moving to Columbia - and no real policy recommendations.

Hammond has the experience and has served ably. Let's send him back for another four years.

Emile DeFelice for Agriculture Commissioner

In the race for Commissioner of Agriculture, South Carolina is blessed with two very fine candidates. In fact, this may be one of the few "win-win" races on the ballot; no matter who's elected, South Carolina will have a well-qualified man in office whose work will improve our state. Agriculture is undoubtedly one of the most important parts of our state's economy and culture, so we should be thankful of the men we have to choose between.

By all accounts the incumbent, Hugh Weathers, is a solid, hard-working man who knows how to get results. A farmer and businessman, he was appointed to the position after Charles Sharp, elected in 2002, resigned two years ago after a fracas involving illegal cockfighting. Since his appointment, Weathers has made a name for himself among the agricultural business community, promoting both biofuels and state-grown fruits and vegetables. And of course, there's the new farmers' market. On the basis of this sound record, The State endorsed him recently

That same endorsement also focused on the strengths of Emile DeFelice, an organic hog farmer and Weathers's opponent in the general election. DeFelice has been an enthusiastic campaigner from day one. He is perhaps the first statewide candidate in South Carolina to adopt an internet-heavy campaign strategy: An attractive website, frequent blog posts, YouTube campaign video clips and a general buzz of stylish marketing activity that no other candidate has matched. (Although, as far as I know, he has yet to follow Andre Bauer into MySpace.) DeFelice has emulated Bauer in other ways, however: criss-crossing the state, making campaign appearances wherever he can. He's not just all polish, however. DeFelice is a wonk in the true sense of the word, dwelling on agriculture subsidies (he doesn't take them) and organic farming (his way of life) in a way that often becomes engaging, and he obviously has a thorough sense of how agriculture works in South Carolina, as well as how it can be changed for the better. His policy-filled quips are a contrast to Weathers's folksy eloquence, which on its own is charming and disarming enough.


But we can't vote for both of them, despite The State's wishes to the contrary. Personally. I'm siding with DeFelice. He brings an unexpected creative energy to the office, and is bubbling with ideas to strengthen agriculture in South Carolina. I think he can work to get agribusiness in South Carolina excited about the opportunities open to it, and successfully build on Weathers's legacy to improve our state. Local pundits frequently gripe about the fact that our Commissioner is elected, and I agree that it's high time we made it an appointed position. For now, however, election is our lot. This November, we should take advantage of it and send Emile DeFelice to Columbia.

Glenn Lindman for Adjutant General

This year, the Adjutant General's race is perhaps the least publicized of them all (save the uncontested Attorney General contest), but one could argue that it is, in the grand scale of things, one of the most important. With the United States fighting a war in Iraq on the backs of National Guardsmen, and with the threat of more hurricane seasons like 2005 in the future, South Carolina's National Guard seems to be continually gaining in importance at home and abroad.


You wouldn't be able to tell that from the way Stan Spears has been running the outfit. Our armories, the nerve centers of South Carolina's disaster response, need $60 million in repairs. Dozens of armories have been classified as minimally adequate for service by the National Guard, and the state doesn't even have enough money to pay armory power bills past January 15th. We have a ramshackle National Guard system in South Carolina right now. The General Assembly deserves its fair share of the blame for refusing even 1/10th of what's necessary to bring our armories up to snuff, but we can't lift blame from the Adjutant General himself, Stan Spears.

Gen. Spears's leadership has lacked focus in other areas. Early last year, SC's state guard left $50 million in equipment in Iraq as our state's contingent headed home, with no assurances as to when the equipment would be returned. Our men and women in uniform now lack that equipment, vital for their training, and some of the equipment they have left is in poor repair. I'll admit that I'm not well-versed on the operation procedures in the Guard for the rotation of equipment, but it seems strange that Gen. Spears would let this happen without making some sort of ruckus. Similarly, it seems strange he hasn't made more of a point to criticize the General Assembly for failing to meet even his minimal requests for minimal repairs to minimally adequate facilities. Sadly, that seems to be the refrain of our current Adjutant General: Minimal.

I think there needs to be a change of leadership, and Democrat Glenn Lindman provides an alternative. With his National Guard service in Iraq, complete with service medals, he's as close as SC politics has to a war hero right now. The way I see it, it's important, with a war going on, to have an Adjutant General who has experience in that war and knows what our men on the ground are facing. Most importantly, Lindman seems to recognize that supporting our troops means walking the walk as well as talking the talk - they need proper facilities and equipment to protect our country.

Having an elected Adjutant General is one of the quirks of South Carolinian democracy that's certainly worth giving a second thought - if the other 49 states appoint their Adjutant Generals, perhaps we could get along doing the same. In fact, electing our AG seems to have given us nothing but listless and uneffective leadership. Thankfully, it also gives us the ability to change that leadership directly. I endorse Glenn Lindman for Adjutant General because he is a proven leader, and I believe he can make our National Guard a lot more than minimal.

Rodham a Plus?

Check out this poll on Hillary Clinton's numbers versus John McCain, and now they change when her maiden name is included. I can't explain it, but it's interesting. What's especially interesting is that Clinton is so close to McCain in this poll - I would expect Clinton to be farther behind, and especially not to have 50+ in any poll.

Mark Sanford: a Different Kind of Governor...

One who threatens to sue anyone he can get ahold of.

I'll be honest, Moore's ad is a little disingenuous (I say a little because it's essentially true - from 2003-2005, under Mark Sanford, the state education system has received nearly 700 million dollars less than is required by law) but let's be fair. Threatening baseless lawsuits to whomever is in earshot is asinine, and usually the first sign of approaching senility. Mark Sanford isn't that old, so I'm just going to go with "asinine."

Candidate endorsements to come...

Warner to call off running for President?

To be honest, I'm not incredibly surprised. Edwards and Warner would have been poaching on each other's voter base if they had both run, and one or the other was bound to either pull out early or not run because of it.

Foley, Comptroller, 2006 Elections

Mark Foley: Obviously something fishy went down other than "AIM sex." It seems that House Republican leaders purposefully ignored or withheld information about the scandal in order to prevent political fallout that would further hurt an already damaged GOP. If you ask me, House Republicans will get what they deserve if they lose control next month. Even at the hint of improprieties between underage pages and a Congressman, more should have been done, and the leadership should have dug deeper to make sure they knew the extent of Foley's behavior. Contradictory public statements by the House leadership seem to indicate that either the GOP bigwigs didn't take the problem seriously enough to remember their response, or they recognize their response was lackluster and are scrambling to fudge the truth to cover that up. I'd expect more action from the same Congressmen who were on the front lines of the attacks on Bill Clinton over sexual misconduct.

And Mark Foley... Scientologist? I can't really say it any better than Wonkette.


Comptroller General's Race: There's much ado about nothing here more and more, it seems. I think Theodore had a point, albeit a weak one, when he went after Eckstrom over taking a state owned car halfway across the country. He got on weaker ground in his attack over Eckstrom's remodeling of office space. The blogosphere got on flimsier ground still when reporting on Theodore's posts on a Porsche enthusiasts' website. (I can't imagine anyone finding those posts unless they were purposefully trying to dig something up.) I care about Dick Eckstrom driving the state's property instead of using his own car: Presumably he owns one, and isn't being a conservative about relying on yourself instead of taking stuff from the state? My interest is momentarily piqued by a report on office remodeling costs. I could not care less whether Drew Theodore really likes driving nice cars or whether he doesn't like Columbia (uh... does anyone?). I think that, at best, all this noise is doing is giving Drew Theodore a little more name recognition, which is probably what he intended. So, point to Team Theodore.

2006 Elections: This is a neat little dohickey. It lets you play around with who you think will win the Senate, House, and governor elections, and gives you fundraising and polling information on each race, when available. After messing around with it for a while, and drawing conclusions from polling and fundraising information, I think the outlook is good for the Democrats, although not overwhelmingly so. It seems likely, based on current numbers, that Democrats will win a majority in governorships and House seats, and either break even with the Republicans or come pretty close in the Senate. Either way you make your outcome go, it's neat.

SNL

Laurin mentioned this earlier, but I got a kick out of hearing about the SNL skit involving Richard "The Mauler" Eckstrom. My favorite part of the article is Rod Shealy's response - political spin at its finest.