DOWNLOADS: (129)

PLAYS: (451)

Embed

[H/t Heather]

While I'm not sure there is any replacement for Senator Jim DeMint that I'd consider particularly good, the one Governor Nikki Haley chose is especially bad, I'm afraid.

Representative Tim Scott has a compelling story to tell, which I'm sure contributed to Haley's decision to elevate him to replace DeMint. Via the New York Times:

Mr. Scott, who served on the Charleston County Council for 13 years and in the South Carolina House for two years before he was elected to Congress, noted that he has a different background than many of his future Senate colleagues. Raised by a single mother, he described himself as a lost child who struggled with school and life until a Chick-fil-A franchise owner embraced him as a protégé and taught him conservative principles.

Governor Haley praised Scott for his accomplishments, saying he had "earned" his appointment:

“It is very important to me, as a minority female, that Congressman Scott earned this seat,” Ms. Haley said. “He earned this seat for the person that he is. He earned this seat for the results he has shown.”

Yes, well. Here are some of those results, via ThinkProgress:

Continue reading »

Talk about Southern hospitality! Apparently South Carolina has really rolled out the red carpet for ALEC, carving out a special exemption in the state's lobbying law to allow legislators some very special one-on-one time to plot their state-by-state legislative takeovers. Isn't that just the sweetest thing? Bless their hearts:

ALEC has insisted that it is the victim of a "well-funded, expertly coordinated intimidation campaign." It also denies accusations that it is a lobbying firm pressing state lawmakers to pass conservative legislation, though ethics watchdog group Common Cause has filed a lawsuit with the IRS, alleging that ALEC is a lobbying group and challenging its nonprofit status.

Yet there's no doubt that ALEC is an influential organization among conservative legislators, and that the extent of its reach is just beginning to become clear. It is such an integral group in some circles, in fact, that South Carolina law actually carves out a special ethics exemption just for ALEC.

The state's lobbying law has a section governing how lobbyists can interact with public officials. They cannot, for example, pay for an official's lodging or transportation. However, there are exceptions, one of which is for functions held by ALEC (emphasis added).

[...] ALEC is the only organization to get an individual carve-out in the section.

The outings that ALEC organizes for politicians are essential to its influence. At these retreats, ALEC officials work with state lawmakers to craft new legislation.

As the Post-Courier in Charleston recently reported, some of ALEC's "model laws" have been making their way into the South Carolina legislature. The state passed a voter ID law last year, for example, which had similar language to a model bill that ALEC had proposed.

State Rep. Boyd Brown (D-Fairfield) discovered the exemption in the lobbying law on Wednesday.

"I am disgusted that this group has been specifically exempted from ethics laws in the state of South Carolina," said Brown in a statement. "I am appalled but not surprised that an extremist group such as ALEC wields such influence in the South Carolina General Assembly."

Continue reading »

The hotel has sued the SRLC and its signatory, South Carolina political operative Robert C. Cahaly over the money dispute. The Charleston City Paper wrote a long feature about the issue.

In its federal complaint, the hotel says in March it originally entered into an agreement for the booking which ran from Thurs. Jan. 19 through Sun. Jan. 22. South Carolina political operative Robert C. Cahaly, who is named as co-defendant in the lawsuit, served as the group's signatory. The contract was amended on Dec. 20, 2011.

In the complaint filed in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, the hotel says it has come to believe that the SRLC "was grossly undercapitalized, failed to observe corporate formalities, was insolvent, and was mere[ly] used as a façade for the operations of the defendant Cahaly." In addition it says, "Cahaly, an individual businessman, has sought to hide from the normal consequences of carefree entrepenuring by doing so through a corporate shell.

"Due to their incompetence, the defendants failed to properly plan or manage the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, and it was poorly attended," the hotel says. "The conference was so poorly attended as to cause one Republican candidate, Newt Gingrich, to cancel his appearance.

"Poor attendance caused many of the conference sponsors to leave the conference," it continues. "Poor attendance left the defendants responsible for a significant payment to the plaintiff under the terms of the contract."

The article continues by saying, "at 3:01 p.m., the time when the defendants were due to check out of the hotel, the defendants emailed [hotel] management and cancelled the meeting at which they were supposed to settle the bill." In the email, the SRLC allegedly accused the hotel of difficulties with refunds or adjustments, poor overall treatment and a hotel manager instructing an SRLC staffer to engage in illegal activity, according to the City Paper article.

Sounds more like bitterness over the poor attendance of their conference than mismanagement by the hotel.

Continue reading »

[Washington D.C. – Members of Congress became involved in the Occupy discussion Tuesday as Republican leaders of the House Oversight Committee held a hearing to discover why camping has been allowed at Occupy D.C., McPherson Square.

The hearing room was filled to capacity with a mix of occupiers, media, curious staff members and police officers. The two-hour hearing ranged from Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) calling the whole thing “baffling” to Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a self-proclaimed “old country prosecutor” saying “the battle for this republic is going to unravel if the law… is not enforced.”

The law he was referring to is the ban on camping in some national parks. Gowdy grilled Jonathan Jarvis, the director of the National Park Service on the definition of camping.

Jarvis said it was the act of sleeping or preparing to sleep. Given that definition, Gowdy pressed on by asking why the Park Service hadn’t enforced that law.

Jarvis, who has been NPS director since 2009 and was participating in his first Congressional hearing, said they were using discretion with the unique protest. He told the Republican that the protest was a 24-hour-vigil and that absent an emergency or threat to public health or safety “they must be able to continue their vigil.” He did say that the Park Service would begin enforcing camping regulations there “very soon,” meaning that protesters may be given citations or arrested for sleeping in the park.

Timothy Zick, a law professor from William and Mary, agreed with Jarvis. He told the committee that this protest is different in that it seeks to occupy as part of its First Amendment message.

“No permit is required for a demonstration of this size, and no time requirement,” said Zick, “The agency is in compliance with regulations.”

Lurking in the background of the hearing was Rep. Darrell Issa, the Oversight Committee chairman, who fired the first shots in this debate. In December, he ordered a full investigation into Occupy D.C. McPherson after a group of three hunger strikers affiliated with the movement came to his office asking that D.C. representatives be given the right to vote in the federal government.

He was in top form at the hearing, with his hair slicked and his arrogance on full display. At one point, Congressman Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) said “normally I would like to thank the chair for holding this investigation…” but that the tone was on the wrong track and Issa interrupted to say “you’re welcome." Later, he interrupted D.C.’s non-voting representative Eleanor Holmes-Norton as she lamented the fact that no one from Occupy D.C. was invited to speak on their behalf.

“This is not a country where we talk about people and don’t invite them to defend themselves…” said Norton just before Issa cut in to tell her this hearing was intended to be what would happen with the next set of protesters.

Sam Jewler, an Occupy D.C. protester, said the group had tried to contact every member of the Subcommittee on Health and D.C. in order to put forth a witness for the hearing, but no one responded. Instead him and other supporters had to watch silently as they were talked about at one of the highest levels of government.

“We were not allowed to practice our right to free speech at this hearing,” said Jewler.

Continue reading »

Via the Washington Post:

Across South Carolina on Saturday, voters had said they liked Gingrich’s aggression in debates — believing it would make him the best Republican to take on President Obama in the fall.

“I think Mitt Romney is a good man,” said Harold Wade, 85, leaving a polling place in this picturesque seaside suburb outside Charleston. “But I think we’ve reached a point where we need someone who’s mean.”

That was Gingrich, he said.

“What we need is someone who’s got some brains,” Wade said, explaining his vote for the former speaker. “And we need someone with some guts.”

In the spirit of Newtie, Rick Santorum's honorary Florida chairman said "Gays make God want to vomit," on Sunday, and another Santorum religious fanatic pastor supporter trashed Mormons at a Santorum rally calling them racist. This may not be untrue, but I'm fairly certain Rick Santorum isn't exactly an open-minded, "love everyone" kind of guy either.

Bottom line? Mr. Wade is going to get his wish. I predict that all candidates' gloves will be off. No more Mr. Nice Mitt. No more meek Ricky. Newtie will swagger onto Monday's debate stage wearing everything but the white hood.

They want mean? I think they're about to get it.

DOWNLOADS: (701)

PLAYS: (513)

Embed

During Monday night's South Carolina Republican debate, Rick Santorum told the audience what they wanted to hear about poverty -- that if you're poor in America, it's your own damn fault.

WILLIAMS: Senator Santorum, the Obama administration has not specifically addressed high levels of joblessness and a 25 percent poverty rate in black America. They say they want to fix the economy for all, but given the crisis situation among a group of historically disadvantaged Americans, do you feel the time has come to take special steps to deal with the extraordinary level of poverty afflicting one race of America?

SANTORUM: It’s very interesting, if you look at a study that was done by the Brookings Institute back in 2009, they determined that if Americans do three things, they can avoid poverty. Three things. Work, graduate from high school, and get married before you have children. Those three things…
(APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: Those three things, if you do, according to Brookings, results in only 2 percent of people who do all those things ending up in poverty, and 77 percent above the national average in income.

After which, he might as well have added: "USA! USA! USA!"

Yes. The Brookings paper did include that about poverty. But it also included discussions of the following:

• The extent of mobility --- both within and across generations --- in American society and how it compares to other countries. [Note: it compares very poorly.]
• What has been happening to middle class families in the U.S. in recent decades and the politics of assisting the poor when the middle class itself is foundering.
• The concentration of income and wealth at the very top of the distribution.

Easy to see why Santorum left this stuff out. Since he's laughably claimed that there are no classes in America, he absolutely doesn't want to touch any of this with a ten-foot pole -- especially the last point, since to Republicans, the concentration of wealth at the top is a feature, not a bug.

But I wish Williams would've asked Santorum two simple follow-up questions: why did poverty increase when Republicans were running the country during the 2000s--and why are the most conservative states also the poorest?

DOWNLOADS: (470)

PLAYS: (543)

Embed

Mitt Romney made twin revelations on taxes during last night's GOP debate in South Carolina. First, after previously claiming "I don't put out which tooth paste I use either," Romney suggested he might release his tax returns in April after clinching the Republican nomination. (On Tuesday, Mitt pointed to the source of his cowardice, admitting he "probably" pays only 15 percent on the millions he still earns annually from Bain Capital.) But perhaps more shocking was Romney's casual call for a top income tax rate of 25 percent. That not only contradicts his much-hyped 59-point, 162 page economic plan, but would deliver yet another massive, budget-busting windfall for the wealthy more than twice the size of the Bush tax cuts they already received.

On January 1, 2013, the top income tax rate is scheduled to return from its current 35 percent to the pre-Bush level of 39.6 percent. Romney had proposed extending the 35 percent rate for the top two percent of taxpayers (including those who like himself are among the richest 3,140 Americans). In comparison, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich have called for slashing gilded-class tax rates to 28, 20 and 15 percent, respectively. But when Fox New host Bret Baier asked the candidates "What is the highest federal income tax any American should have to pay," Mitt apparently panicked that his payday for the upper crust was too small:

ROMNEY: I would like 25 percent, but right now it's at 35, so people better pay what is legally required. But ultimately let's get it down to as low as we possibly can, if it's 20, if it's 25 but paying more than 25 percent, I think, is taking too much out of our pockets.

BAIER: So the highest you had was 35?

ROMNEY: Well, that's what the law is right now, but 25 is where I would like to see us go.

Of course, that's not what Romney's economic plan says.

Earlier this month, McClatchy reported that "Romney tax plan would most benefit wealthy." The Center for American Progress explained just how much. While "Romney's plan also gives nearly 60 percent of its benefit to the richest 1 percent of Americans," Mitt's tax cuts for millionaires are "nearly twice the size of those from George W. Bush." And that was before Mitt Romney's spontaneous outburst Monday that he would really like a top rate of 25 and not 35 percent.

Continue reading »

Yet another debate, this one hosted and livestreamed at Fox News. Drinking game suggestions taken below, plus share what you see, and if anyone Tebows on the stage, I'm turning it off.

Debate Open Thread below....

Evidently Eric Holder was not just speechifying when he said the Department of Justice would be looking at Voter ID laws. Last week, South Carolina's draconian and racist Voter ID law discriminates against minority voters.

Via the Washington Post:

In its first decision on the laws, Justice’s Civil Rights Division said South Carolina’s statute is discriminatory because its registered minority voters are nearly 20 percent more likely than whites to lack a state-issued photo ID. Under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, South Carolina is one of a number of states that are required to receive federal “pre-clearance” on voting changes to ensure that they don’t hurt minorities’ political power.

“The absolute number of minority citizens whose exercise of the franchise could be adversely affected by the proposed requirements runs into the tens of thousands,” Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez said in a letter to South Carolina officials.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) called the decision “outrageous” and said she plans to seek “every possible option to get this terrible, clearly political decision overturned so we can protect the integrity of our electoral process and our 10th Amendment rights.”

Awww, Nikki haz a sad. That's too bad, but the South Carolina laws were incredibly draconian, and even when they were challenged, the data they provided to the DOJ excluded over 200,000 voters.

Republican motto: If you can't win elections, steal them.

Via Dave Weigel:

On Monday, a South Carolina Democratic consultant named Tyler Jones took a camera down to the Columbia, S.C. Tea Party rally that Michele Bachmann and Nikki Haley both spoke at.

"I interviewed around 25 people total and probably 75 percent of them said they were supporting Donald Trump," says Jones, "and just about every single person is a birther. I took two hours of footage and chopped it down to six minutes of mind-blowing stuff."

There is nothing I could possibly say that isn't said for me with this video. Yikes. That is all.

[h/t Daily Dish]