South Carolina Politics

[krazeeboi]

I think the social conservatism may be what monsoon was getting at more than anything. I prefer a socially moderate, fiscally conservative political atmosphere myself.

[monsoon]

^I thought I was pretty clear what I was talking about but I will state it again so it is more clear.

Everybody should know that I am talking about the present GOP which gladly wraps itself in the world "conservatism" which it is anything but given it's desire to make war, place corporations & the wealthy ahead of common folk, and pandering to religious fanacitism which wants to send us back to the 1950s. The point was made that the since SC upstate is seen as the epicenter of this kind of thinking, which I don't doubt, then that isn't good for the area since most of the world looks at this movement with disgust. I would think that SC would want to distance itself from this association but I assume that won't happen anytime soon.

After the 2006 election many said the GOP has become the party of the Dixiecrats, and that unfortunately started in SC.

[Spartan]

Dixiecrats? Come on now. I am all for an intelligent political debate, but thats just crap and you know it. I'd like to know who said it. I'm willing to bet its liberal pundits or people with an agenda.

I can't argue about what the current bunch of 'conservatives' have turned the party into on Capitol Hill. But you can't honestly say that 50% of the nation believes what you just said? I'd like to think that even you can acknowledge that fact, metro. Most people can distinguish between the two.

I, for one, am proud of my city for being able to attract the political heavyweights, and that my state is a key part of the Republican primary process.

[monsoon]

I was reporting what I have heard on Television. I wasn't commenting on the GOP conservatives, but rather , what the rest of the Nation and what the rest of the world thinks about it. Given that the GOP was routed out of not only the House but the Senate as well, then I would say that more than 50% of the nation does feel that way. They only place where the GOP held a contested seat was the Senate race in Tenn. where they ended up playing the race card again.

The specific comment was that the only thing the GOP has left now was white Southerners and religious evangelicals. In my mind that is something that SC should try to distance itself from.

[Captain Worley]

I was reporting what I have heard on Television. I wasn't commenting on the GOP conservatives, but rather , what the rest of the Nation and what the rest of the world thinks about it.

See, I don't think what is reported on TV is the way a lot of folks in this country think. I think it is more the opinion of those doing the reporting.

The news nowadays should be more rightly labeled as an editorial.

[monsoon]

^Possibly, but the results of the vote speaks for itself.

[Spartan]

I don't agree with your analysis, metro. The results show that the public didn't like the direction that the GOP was taking us, this much is true. But I don't think you can read into it any more than that. It is certainly no indication of what the world thinks. The Senate is under the Democrats control by a technicality. Under the constitution, when the Senate is in a tie, the president of the senate's affiliation determines the majority.

They only place where the GOP held a contested seat was the Senate race in Tenn. where they ended up playing the race card again.

The Tennessee situation is anecdotal at best. I mean, does Joe Biden represent the entire Democratic Party? There are certainly racial problems in the USA, but they are hardly confined to a single party.

As for the religious 'evangelicals' comment- there is some truth to that, but I think you'll find that many are not happy about that trend. I would expect to see that change in the future.

[vicupstate]

I don't agree with your analysis, metro. The results show that the public didn't like the direction that the GOP was taking us, this much is true. But I don't think you can read into it any more than that. It is certainly no indication of what the world thinks. The Senate is under the Democrats control by a technicality. Under the constitution, when the Senate is in a tie, the president of the senate's affiliation determines the majority.

The Tennessee situation is anecdotal at best. I mean, does Joe Biden represent the entire Democratic Party? There are certainly racial problems in the USA, but they are hardly confined to a single party.

There is no 'technicality', the Democrats won a 51 seat majority. The Vice President is the President of the Senate and he is a Republican. If there were a true 50-50 tie, the VP would determine control.

And yes, the GOP did play the race card in Tennessee. It was pretty dispicable. Conservatism is losing favor to some degree. It was evident in the Dem pickups in previously GOP areas. Referendums results also so a 'slow melt' of conservatism. It is further evidences by the decline in ratings for Fox News and the increasing popularity of Colbert and Jon Stewart.

Politics is a pendulum, it's starting to swing back to the middle. And not a moment too soon, IMO.

[Spartan]

No they didnt. There are two people, Sen. Sanders and Sen. Lieberman, that are 'independants' meaning that they have no 'official' party. These people have allied with the Democratic caucus, and that is why the Democrats have control. I understand why the Democrats are in charge, but I don't agree with how they have gone about it. Its extremely technical, and its not a 51 seat majority on paper. Thats all I have to say on that issue. My point was more that the Republicans are not out of power in the Senate, even if they arent the 'majority.'

I'd say the decreasing ratings of Fox News, I can understand that. All they do is have shouting matches that prove unproductive in the end. But its interesting that inspite of their losses, people still tune to them when the big stories are coming out (The Israel-Palestin Conflict or the North Korea nuclear tests last year, for example).

The increasing popularity of Colbert and Stewart? I would take that as more of another signal of the dumbing down of America if its coming at the expense of other real news agencies. Those guys are great entertainers, but I sincerely hope they do not reflect the real political situation in this country.

The political environment is all so dependant on the modarate voters. The people on either end of the spectrum don't generally have much say in the process. Thats why the Upstate's status is important. Being a conservative stronghold gives us a stronger part in the process.

[vicupstate]

No they didnt. There are two people, Sen. Sanders and Sen. Lieberman, that are 'independants' meaning that they have no 'official' party. These people have allied with the Democratic caucus, and that is why the Democrats have control. I understand why the Democrats are in charge, but I don't agree with how they have gone about it. Its extremely technical, and its not a 51 seat majority on paper. Thats all I have to say on that issue. My point was more that the Republicans are not out of power in the Senate, even if they arent the 'majority.'

I'd say the decreasing ratings of Fox News, I can understand that. All they do is have shouting matches that prove unproductive in the end. But its interesting that inspite of their losses, people still tune to them when the big stories are coming out (The Israel-Palestin Conflict or the North Korea nuclear tests last year, for example).

The increasing popularity of Colbert and Stewart? I would take that as more of another signal of the dumbing down of America if its coming at the expense of other real news agencies. Those guys are great entertainers, but I sincerely hope they do not reflect the real political situation in this country.

The political environment is all so dependant on the modarate voters. The people on either end of the spectrum don't generally have much say in the process. Thats why the Upstate's status is important. Being a conservative stronghold gives us a stronger part in the process.

Sanders is to the Left of every Democrat in the Senate, he is treated the same as any other Democrat in the Senate. Lieberman was the Dem's VP candidate just three years ago. You are splitting hairs.

The dumbing down of America was just as evident in the 90's when Rush, Laura S. and that crowd ruled the Radio talk shows.

[Spartan]

The dumbing down of America was just as evident in the 90's when Rush, Laura S. and that crowd ruled the Radio talk shows.

How? And do they still not rule the air waves? Rush is still #1.

[Spartan]

John McCain is stopping by Sugar-n-Spice in Spartanburg today.

[whitehourseview]

Mitt Romney is to have a Presidential campaign kickoff event, not quite the official announcement since that was done in Michigan today, at Seawell's in Columbia tomorrow. He was in Greenville last week, but has been in Greenville at least half a dozen times in the past six months, mostly in private home meetings.

[803metlife]

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama makes his first trip to South Carolina as a presidential candidate today amid much fanfare and many questions. The rally will be held at 5:30 p.m. at the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center.

[GvilleSC]

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama makes his first trip to South Carolina as a presidential candidate today amid much fanfare and many questions. The rally will be held at 5:30 p.m. at the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center.

Hmmm. The Greenville News says 4:30 Link

The State just says 5:30

ok, here we go:

Barack Obama says doors open at 4:30.

And actually the Greenville News went back and edited their story. It now does not give a time. I see confusion taking place in Columbia this afternoon.

[krazeeboi]

Either way, one would be very shortsighted to not arrive early.

[vicupstate]

Hillary Clinton makes her first visit to the state on Monday.

10:00 in Columbia (Allen U.)

1:15 in Florence (Osborne's on Warley St)

6:00 in Charleston (ILA Union Hall)

[krazeeboi]

Interesting blog I came across: Is South Carolina Worthy to Lead the Presidential Primary Process?

[Spartan]

I thought the commentary below the blog was a bit more interesting

As for the commentary itself, I think that we are cetainly worthy. I saw no evidence to the contrary. To say that Iowa or New Hampshire are somehow "veteran" states and are more worthy is just ascinine. More importantly, I think that the notion that somehow Southern states aren't representative of America is just as idioitic. Since when were we not American?

[goodbye]

... Since when were we not American?

And does the high level of growth and innovation across the South not mean anything politically?

[kayman]

I thought the commentary below the blog was a bit more interesting

As for the commentary itself, I think that we are cetainly worthy. I saw no evidence to the contrary. To say that Iowa or New Hampshire are somehow "veteran" states and are more worthy is just ascinine. More importantly, I think that the notion that somehow Southern states aren't representative of America is just as idioitic. Since when were we not American?

I don't believe they are alluding to how the South isn't American. I think what is meant is just that most areas of the South aren't representative of the demographic makeup (culture, ideology, religion, ect.) of the nation as a whole. In reality that is true. Most Southern states lean very far to the right (with expection of NC and FL) than the rest of the nation. The balance of liberal versus conservative is proportionally more conservative than liberal here.

[Spartan]

I'd argue that SC is a good contrast to NH, which has a decidedly liberal leaning and an earlier primary. If thats the standard they want to use (and I agree thats what they are implying), then it should be applied to all, and not just SC.

[whitehourseview]

I'd argue that SC is a good contrast to NH, which has a decidedly liberal leaning and an earlier primary. If thats the standard they want to use (and I agree thats what they are implying), then it should be applied to all, and not just SC.

New Hampshire has a decidedly liberal leaning? I'd put Vermont in that category, but not New Hampshire. I'd call New Hampshire a center right state, based on it's traditional voting with GOP candidates. It has two GOP senators, voted for Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2005, both times by near 50 - 50 margins. The last election swung control of other parts of state government to the Democratic party, but due to the state's libertarian leanings, it's probably the most conservative voting wise of the New England states.

I actually like the old way of primaries, before 2004 election. Three states became crucial: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. All three were small enough, not just geographically, but in terms of population and a media market to allow candidates to flesh out their messages for several months, literally door to door. I remember one day late in 1999, seeing three GOP Presidential candidates almost by accident driving down the road (Bush, Forbes, McCain). It's probably a healthy thing, because the less well funded candidates disadvantages are lessened in smaller states because retail politics matters more.

The three states could be seen as representatives of three large regions of the nation with three different demands on candidates and their campaigns.

But I'm afraid with front loaded primaries, the importance of retail politics in smaller states is quickly coming to an end. With a majority of the votes needed for nomination being decided by Feb. 5th of next year, the candidates who can't make a media and money splash by the fall of this year just won't have a chance.

Almost makes you wish for the days of front porch campaigns and party bosses. At least that was less complicated.

[monsoon]

And does the high level of growth and innovation across the South not mean anything politically?

There is a lot of growth in the South. There isn't much innovative about it however and in fact mostly represents the worst in society. The South represents a big region of votes and I would contend that no president can win the election (this fact is mostly lost on candidates from the NE) without pulling down some Southern states. SC is in many ways a microcosm of the entire South and for that reason its a good testing ground for both parties.

On South Carolina specifically, a lot of stereotypes about the state are coming out as the national news about SC on this election is almost completely about who is going to get the Black vote and who is going to get the religious nutcase vote. I would contend there is more to SC than this but this is what we hear about.

[krazeeboi]

On South Carolina specifically, a lot of stereotypes about the state are coming out as the national news about SC on this election is almost completely about who is going to get the Black vote and who is going to get the religious nutcase vote. I would contend there is more to SC than this but this is what we hear about.

Unfortunately, I agree. But this time around, there seems to be a different spin on things since the religious right still doesn't really have a candidate per se, and we've got a Black candidate whose appeal is very broad, racially speaking--much broader than that of his predecessors in that regard.