Saturday, October 28, 2006

Too bad Jakie did not run

This years Governor's race is shaping up to be almost as boring as the 1990 race between Carroll Campbell and Theo Mitchell. Democrat Tommy Moore, who everyone thought had a chance to make things interesting, has floundered. Governor Sanford's inability to get along with his fellow Republicans has not created the "Republicans for Moore" movement that Hodges had going for him against David Beasley in 1998.

Two recent polls show Governor Sanford ahead by 20 or more points over Moore. That doesn't stop the silly press releases from the Governor's campaign about Moore doing everything from lying to raising taxes on grandma's cigarettes. Those guys are catching a break. They can be silly, stupid, or just do nothing. The Sanford folks have this on in the bag.

Why? For one thing, South Carolina is a Republican state. For another, the Democrats and the Moore campaign have ran a dumb campaign, bless their hearts, as one of their patronizing ads says. Their radio and tv ads are silly, not witty. When a woman faking a deep Southern accent tells us about Mark Sanford, you want to shake your head, and ask, "who came up with that crap?" Then there is the over the top radio ads about Mark Sanford with "Edna from Mississippi" and how Mississippi loves Mark Sanford because he is helping them beat SC in education scores. The accent is so over the top Southern, it is offensive to people in South Carolina and Mississippi alike. Then there is the Ray from Alabama ad, who tells us, with a again over the top redneck voice that Governor Sanford has sent jobs to Alabama. Such ads are as silly as, well suing tv stations for airing your opponents ads, something Governor Sanford's folks threatened to do.

What a boring and silly race for such an important office. The man with great ideas is petty and small and can not seem to get along with anyone. The man with bad ideas, well, his ideas are still bad when it comes to campaigning.

Too bad ole Jakie Knotts did not run for Governor. He probably would not have won. But, his colorful comments would at least made the thing interesting and fun to watch. And, you can bet the only over the top Southern accent in his ads would have been his own.

After watching and listening to the two major party candidates and examining their records in office, I have decided to write myself in for Governor. I could do as well as either on of them. I have ran a small business. I have worked on a farm. I have worked in a cotton mill. I really do love barbecue. I truthfully state that I would wager a barbecue dinner that I have sat in more living rooms in South Carolina then both candidates combined through my job closing real estate refinances in peoples homes. I have read Dale Carnegie, Ronald Reagan, and Barry Goldwater. I believe one can be conservative and be civil.

So, if you are frustrated like me, write in the name of Brian McCarty for Governor. Sure, some say you would be wasting your vote. But, I assure you I have not taken one cent from either Hillary Clinton or Howard Rich. Besides, with ole Jakie not in the race, someone has to stand up for us overweight barbecue lovers from Lexington County. If elected I pledge to ban all silly press releases and political ads from my office. And, uh, a couple of more things, I would propose getting rid of retirement benefits for legislators and put everyone in the Department of Education in Columbia on leave. If after six weeks, schools were still open, I would let those folks go, because it be proven they aren't needed. As for the legislators, it was never meant to be a job with perks. Let them live like the rest of us.

Just something to think about.

Too bad Jakie did not run

This years Governor's race is shaping up to be almost as boring as the 1990 race between Carroll Campbell and Theo Mitchell. Democrat Tommy Moore, who everyone thought had a chance to make things interesting, has floundered. Governor Sanford's inability to get along with his fellow Republicans has not created the "Republicans for Moore" movement that Hodges had going for him against David Beasley in 1998.

Two recent polls show Governor Sanford ahead by 20 or more points over Moore. That doesn't stop the silly press releases from the Governor's campaign about Moore doing everything from lying to raising taxes on grandma's cigarettes. Those guys are catching a break. They can be silly, stupid, or just do nothing. The Sanford folks have this on in the bag.

Why? For one thing, South Carolina is a Republican state. For another, the Democrats and the Moore campaign have ran a dumb campaign, bless their hearts, as one of their patronizing ads says. Their radio and tv ads are silly, not witty. When a woman faking a deep Southern accent tells us about Mark Sanford, you want to shake your head, and ask, "who came up with that crap?" Then there is the over the top radio ads about Mark Sanford with "Edna from Mississippi" and how Mississippi loves Mark Sanford because he is helping them beat SC in education scores. The accent is so over the top Southern, it is offensive to people in South Carolina and Mississippi alike. Then there is the Ray from Alabama ad, who tells us, with a again over the top redneck voice that Governor Sanford has sent jobs to Alabama. Such ads are as silly as, well suing tv stations for airing your opponents ads, something Governor Sanford's folks threatened to do.

What a boring and silly race for such an important office. The man with great ideas is petty and small and can not seem to get along with anyone. The man with bad ideas, well, his ideas are still bad when it comes to campaigning.

Too bad ole Jakie Knotts did not run for Governor. He probably would not have won. But, his colorful comments would at least made the thing interesting and fun to watch. And, you can bet the only over the top Southern accent in his ads would have been his own.

After watching and listening to the two major party candidates and examining their records in office, I have decided to write myself in for Governor. I could do as well as either on of them. I have ran a small business. I have worked on a farm. I have worked in a cotton mill. I really do love barbecue. I truthfully state that I would wager a barbecue dinner that I have sat in more living rooms in South Carolina then both candidates combined through my job closing real estate refinances in peoples homes. I have read Dale Carnegie, Ronald Reagan, and Barry Goldwater. I believe one can be conservative and be civil.

So, if you are frustrated like me, write in the name of Brian McCarty for Governor. Sure, some say you would be wasting your vote. But, I assure you I have not taken one cent from either Hillary Clinton or Howard Rich. Besides, with ole Jakie not in the race, someone has to stand up for us overweight barbecue lovers from Lexington County. If elected I pledge to ban all silly press releases and political ads from my office. And, uh, a couple of more things, I would propose getting rid of retirement benefits for legislators and put everyone in the Department of Education in Columbia on leave. If after six weeks, schools were still open, I would let those folks go, because it be proven they aren't needed. As for the legislators, it was never meant to be a job with perks. Let them live like the rest of us.

Just something to think about.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Bauer the better choice between two unlucky men

The race of Lt. Governor of South Carolina is quickly becoming a race between two unlucky men. Incumbent Lt. Governor Andre Bauer suffered injuries in a plane crash back in May. Bauer's opponent, Democrat Robert Barber recently lost his family owned Bowens Island Restaurant to a fire. The bad luck of both candidates has created news stories that overshadow the issues of the race.

There is nothing new about such sideline stories having prominence in a Lt. Governor's race. In 1994 and 1998 I learned first hand how something like a large plastic cow can get better press than a candidate's position papers. In 1986 and 1990, successful candidate Nick Theodore was better known for his "Hey buddy," greeting and personal charm than about any issues he stood for. In 1978, Nancy Stevenson enjoyed favorable press being the first woman to be a major party nominee for the job.

This year ought to be different. In years past, Lt. Governors have ran for an office that was long ceremony and short of substance. However, that changed when the Department on Aging was put directly under the Lt. Governor. The bad luck stories of the two candidates should not get in the way of examining the record of the incumbent on actually doing the job.

Lt. Governor Bauer is rightly criticized for his dangerous driving, but, as the first Lt. Governor to essentially head a state agency and do the ceremonial duties as Lt. Governor, Bauer has done an outstanding job. The critics of Lt. Governor Bauer dwell on the personal. They call him "immature." They call him "irresponsible." However, they offer little criticism about the actual job he has done. That is telling.

Barber's campaign has aired some rather strong negative ads about the Lt. Governor, citing his speeding behind the wheel and his conversation with highway patrolmen at the scene. I believe the Lt. Governor should take more responsibility for the very high speeds he drove at along I-77. However, Barber's ad shows the conversation between Bauer and a trooper along I-26. In that incident, Bauer was going supposedly 77 in a 65, and got a warning. Barber wants us to believe we would not get such. He is wrong. Everyday people get warnings for such instead of tickets. Such is the shell game of political ads, take the good footage from an incident and talk about one in which you don't have good footage. Regardless, the attack ad is about something personal.

Now, if Barber had ads that said something like, "The Department on Aging is in shambles," or "The Lt. Governor fails to even show up to preside over the senate," Barber's attack ads would have more weight in my eyes. The reason Barber does not run those kind of ads is because he can not truthfully, even when playing by the fast and loose rules of politics.

Like Lt. Governor Bauer or not personally, he has performed the duties of his office well. All Barber has to offer is a record of lobbying and some really good personal attack ads against the Lt. Governor. That makes Lt. Governor Bauer the better choice between two unlucky men. Regardless of who wins, I hope both men have better luck from here on out.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

What a disappointing education debate

South Carolina ETV and The State newspaper sponsored a debate Monday evening between the two major party candidates for Superintendent of Education. The Republican, Karen Floyd and the Democrat, Jim Rex both were disappointing.

Floyd appeared far too slick for my liking. When asked point blank about tax credits for private school tuition, she fudged and went on and on about "choices." Floyd was given a point blank opportunity to say yes or no to tax credits and offer a clear reason why she would support such. Instead she tap danced like a typical politician.

Further, she had cute words for privitizing some education department services, calling it a program calling for "diverse providers."

If you are a conservative and you believe that Karen Floyd is a champion of the more conservative viewpoint on education, this debate should serve as an eye-opener. Time after time, Floyd refused to speak with candor and offer direct reasons for the conservative approach. Even when asked point blank, she stuck to her fuzzy talk. Floyd simply lacked the candor that Governor Sanford has on such issues.

What makes Floyd's performance all the more puzzling is that she has been backed by a national effort to see things like tax credits for private school tuition come into being. When pressed about those campaign contributions, instead of defending the point of view that those contributions are supposedly for, Floyd droned on about Congressman John Spratt's out of state contributions.

If one was looking for someone to carry the private school tuition tax credit issue to a full debate, one was left disappointed by Floyd.

Rex was no better. A product of the education administration bureaucracy he offered more bureaucracy as the solution to some of the state's education woes. To his credit, though, Rex was at least clear about where he stood.

Both candidates ignored the issue that I believe is the biggest cause for lack of achievement in education in South Carolina: the culture of failure in some areas of our state. No amount of money, however directed can fix the problem as long as children are not encouraged to succeed in the classroom by the people around them. To me, as long as that culture of failure continues, the state can spend money on tax credits, new buildings, whatever else, and our performance will still lag behind.

There is one thing to both candidates' credit. They both seem to support the Governor's idea of more equitable public school funding throughout the state. But, again, without the culture change, that will have marginal benefits.

Again, it was a disappointing debate. It pitted a champion of the status quo against a Republican who seemed unwilling to clearly articulate the conservative approach.

Mrs. Floyd said repeatedly that she "had answered the question but not in the way you liked." The "you" she referred to was interchangeable between the moderators and her opponent. By the end of the debate, I included myself in that interchangeable pronoun. I did not like her answers. Just once it would have been refreshing if Floyd would have stated, " yes, I support tuition tax credits, and here's why...."

At this point, Libertarian Tim Moultrie is getting my vote.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

I will go with the accountant versus the Forrest Gump of this year.


Listening to the WVOC radio debate last week between Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom and his opponent Drew Theodore, I kept thinking I had heard someone who sounded like Mr. Theodore. Then it hit me. Drew Theodore on the radio reminded me of Forrest Gump. That slow, deliberate southern speech just was distinct. Listening to the radio broadcast, I kept seeing Forrest Gump whenever Mr. Theodore spoke.
Mr. Theodore did not disappoint. When asked what would be the first thing he would do as Comptroller General, Mr. Theodore said he would hire someone who would know how to run the job day to day. Well, Forrest Theodore, don’t we already have that with General Eckstrom?
The media has had a field day attacking Eckstrom for his use of a state car to visit family out of state. As I stated on this blog repeatedly, those media sources seem to forget how Mr. Theordore’s father, good ole boy Nick Theodore, abused state funded drivers and bodyguards. It is amazing how short some mainstream media memories are.
This is another office that Governor Sanford is correct in calling for the Governor to be able to appoint. However, we have to choose at the polls between the current Comptroller General and his opponent.
As I have in other races, I will approach this race like a Governor who had to appoint the best person for the job. When I do that, it is a clear choice. Mr. Eckstrom stands with the Governor on fiscal matters and showed he learned from his mistakes in his stint as Treasurer. Eckstrom is a CPA who has done the job and done it well, and there is no reason to take the job from him.
Drew Theodore comes from a political family with strong connections in politics and the media. But, Mr. Theodore, the Forrest Gump jokes aside, just does not have the experience for the job. Even he apparently understands that from his debate answer. When a man says his first priority is to hire someone who knows how the run the job he is running for, that is telling.
Eckstrom knows how the do the job. He is doing it. For that reason, I will vote for the boring accountant who is short on charisma but long on expertise for the office he is seeking to be re-elected to. I will leave the Forrest Gump types to the movies. The current Comptroller General, Saturday Night Live jokes aside, has the experience and the record that deserves a return to the office. Eckstrom will be an ally to the Governor, and he is a man who knows the ins and outs of accounting necessary to help South Carolina keep its AAA credit rating. Further, Eckstrom has been a lone wolf crying out about the trouble the South Carolina state retirement system is in. While Eckstrom falls short of my own idea about making South Carolina retirement contribution based instead of benefit based, at least the Comptroller General sees the problem. Mr. Theodore merely gives the people platitudes and empty promises. I guess stupid is as stupid does.
To sum it all up, I will be voting for Richard Eckstrom for Comptroller General, and it took no influence. J

Friday, October 20, 2006

The Treasurer’s Race: a good argument for Sanford’s restructuring

The race for state Treasurer is one that sad to watch, as I commented upon earlier. On the Democratic side, there is the 82 year old incumbent, Grady Patterson, an honorable man who has served his state well. On the Republican side is the darling of the Republican hopes for also rans, and Reagan wannabe, Cousin Arthur Ravenel’s son Thomas. You might remember that Jim DeMint and David Beasley handed Cousin Arthur’s son his hat back in the 2004 United States Senate primary.

Cousin’s Arthur’s son got in the race late, poured in his own money, ran some really good ads, built on his third place Senate race finish and won the nomination for Treasurer going away. All looked good for Cousin Arthur’s son.

Then, Thomas Ravenel got in a pee contest with John Rainey, the Chairman of the Economic Board of Advisors. Watching the two of them spar on television was like watching two mules fight over a turnip. It was interesting for a few minutes, and then you asked yourself, why in the Hell am I wasting my time watching this stuff? Further, I wonder why in the world Thomas Ravenel wasted his time debating a man who is not even on the ballot. Eventually, Ravenel came around and started to ignore Rainey, but only after hiring some consultant to handle his fellow millionaire from the upstate.

Cousin Arthur’s son’s only saving grace is his opponent. Like I said above, Grady Patterson is a good man, a man who has served us well. But, this campaign has been an insult to Patterson’s life of service. This is one race too many for the Treasurer. Like watching Michael Jordan playing for Washington after he retired for the second time, watching Grady in this race is just ugly. From dozing in meetings to telling the State editorial board that Ravenel “makes up stuff,” this campaign has been sad for Mr. Patterson.

If a Governor was picking someone to be Treasurer, chances are he would not pick either candidate. But, alas, we the voters have to pick one. And, as a voter, I have to.

This race has been about the hardest electoral decision I have ever had to make. I do not like Mr. Ravenel’s ideas about investing. I think it is one thing to invest venture capital in high risk items, but another to invest other people’s retirement in such items. Further, I have grown tired of the “self made man” story of Ravenel. I do not doubt his talent helped a good bit. But, Ravenel’s father being a Congressman and longtime respected public servant did not hurt either.

Then there is Grady Patterson. He has a resume most men would kill for to define their lives. Yet, he is making this sad run. His time has past. Even if Patterson somehow wins, he will not be the leader a much younger man could be. Further, far too many Democrats use his office to stay on some sort of payroll.

Therefore, I will be voting for Thomas Ravenel. This is not a ringing endorsement. But, I will caste my vote for him because I believe he will be more in line to what the head of the executive branch wants and the state will no longer be carrying Democratic activists’ payrolls.

It is a tough call. But, I will vote Ravenel. I hope he will keep his word to take the job seriously. My vote is counting on it.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

I will go with Hammond for another four years for Secretary of State

Secretary of State Mark Hammond has had a reputation for being sort of a bland fellow. In his defense, his office is sort of bland on the surface, but important. He has solid record over the past four years as Secretary of State. During the campaign Hammond has provided a more than adequate defense of his record and has espoused clearly his visions for the office. Taking the lead from former Secretary of State Jim Miles, Secretary Hammond has continued to keep the Secretary of State’s office accessible to businesses, non profits and the public. There has been demonstrative progress is making UCC liens available and recorded in a more uniform manner. Hammond has worked with other departments to make the Business One Stop program help people do business in South Carolina. Further, Hammond has continued to keep the public adequately informed of the good and bad non profit organizations in the state by keeping the Scrooge and Angels program strong.

Hammond’s opponent, Democrat Cheryl Footman, is obviously a person with a passion to serve others who has sincere religious faith. She should be commended for being a teacher and for continuing to strive to better herself by working on a PhD while running for statewide office. However, Footman lacks a coherent vision as to why she wants to be Secretary of State. Her answers in a recent debate were long on admirable platitudes but short on substance. Footman would probably have a better chance serving others as she wants to by running for a local office, such as school board, county council or perhaps even State House of Representatives. But, she is just not ready for statewide office. One gets the feeling she is probably in this race to take one for the Democratic team. And, that is an unfortunate waste of her talent.

As with other statewide offices, the idea of making this office appointed has to be addressed. Neither candidate seems to want that to happen. However, if we the voters were to choose these candidates as a Governor would, (based upon the resumes), then Secretary Hammond would be the best choice by far.

As such, I will be voting for Secretary Hammond for re-election.

Now, before some of you think this is going to be some sort of Republican cheerleading forum, there are going to be some offices I address in the coming days and weeks that will surprise you. A lifelong Republican, I am I still undecided in three statewide races, partly because of the influence of out state money and the like. Stay tuned.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

I am not paid, I have not been convicted or ever accused of Domestic violence, and yes, I reminded folks about Nick Theodore.

I could not sleep tonight so I got up and puttered on the computer a bit. I went the ETV website and watched again the debate for Comptroller General. One line from Mr. Theodore stood out to me. He blasted Mr. Eckstrom for hiring someone convicted of domestic violence to attack Mr. Theodore’s family and his “seventy eight year old father.” Well, I don’t know what Mr. Folks, who I assume Mr. Theodore was talking about, has done. I know that I, on this blog, pointed out the hypocrisy of the Theodore campaign.

But, let me be clear. I am on no political payroll. Indeed, I have been on the outside looking in for quite some time now. But, I do think it is hypocritical for Drew Theodore to criticize someone for using a state car when his own father had bodyguards and drivers at state expense, and took those people out of state with him for a purely partisan political event. Since it was my blog that pointed out the hypocrisy, the remarks of Drew Theodore make me angry. If Drew Theodore can not take average folks asking tough questions of him and his father, who he touts for political and fundraising purposes, then he ought not to be in politics.

Now, I don’t condone any personal attacks, such as whether or not Drew Theodore was faithful to his wife or not. Theodore alluded in the debate to that being thrown about. If it is, that’s dirty. But, to equate pointing out the hypocrisy of the Theodore campaign’s stance on usage of government resources to such personal trash is just as dirty by Theodore.

So let me address this directly to Drew Theodore and his campaign. I am on no payroll. I hold no office. I have never been accused of domestic violence in any way, much less convicted of it. I am just a private citizen voicing his opinion. If you folks can not handle a private citizen voicing his opinion on a legitimate issue without lumping that issue with some alleged sleaze you think is going on, then you folks don’t deserve a shot at the dog catcher’s office in my native Honea Path, (my apologies to the dogcatcher), much less a statewide office.

Maybe I have you wrong. If so, post here. Straighten me out. Frankly, I hope I do have you wrong. I would hate to think that the candidate and campaign of any statewide candidacy was so small.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

For Adjutant General, I will be voting for Stan Spears


Over the next few weeks, I will be giving my two cents worth about the statewide political races and few local ones, along with other comments about this and that. I start off the series about political races with the race for Adjutant General. The race pits two good men against one another. Incumbent General Stan Spears has a record to be proud of and his challenger, former First Sergeant Glenn Lindman served our country well in Iraq. Both are good men. One should be elected. That one is General Spears.

In a trying time in our military’s history, transitioning from a Cold War based military to a more flexible military; General Spears has been a steady hand at the top of the South Carolina National Guard and the South Carolina National Air Guard. Under General Spears’s leadership, the guard has continued to meet its retention and recruiting goals, and kept McEntire Air National Guard station open at a time when it seemed ripe for closing. Further, overall performance of South Carolina Guard units in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq has been commendable.

Mr. Lindman has a commendable record. He served the nation with honor in Iraq, earning the bronze star. He also agrees with Governor Mark Sanford that the position of Adjutant General ought to be appointed by the Governor. However, after watching Mr. Lindman in his question and answer session on South Carolina ETV, I got the impression he was more eager to snipe at General Spears than to offer real ideas for the office. There was a rancor present that just does not measure up.

Now, as for the idea of appointed versus elected Adjutant Generals, South Carolina is alone among the fifty states in elected such. General Spears says that is fine and that something should not be taken from the people. Sgt. Lindman disagrees and espouses that he would have a blue ribbon committee decide upon the merits of the appointments to the office. There are legitimate arguments on both sides of this issue. But, I am remindful of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was elected Captain of his Illinois militia (guard) company during the Black Hawk War. Perhaps if it was good enough for Lincoln, it is good enough for General Spears. I have to admit there is something to be said for guard members, and those they know in the community, the voters, in choosing their own leader.

Regardless of the appointed versus elected argument, if one had to look at the resumes of the two contenders and choose one to appoint, that logical choice would be General Spears. The General has done the job well for 12 years and deserves our support to do it for another four.

Friday, October 06, 2006

Over the years, I have been surprised at how Uncle Remus has become the subject of such racial controversy. Liberal African Americans and whites both contend that the Disney character Uncle Remus and his stories of wisdom in the movie "Song of the South" are racist.

Interesting. An wise old man telling stories of wisdom is racist. Yet, stories handed down by oral tradition in the African American community are not. Take for example stories told in the Gullah dialect along the South Carolina coast. The South Carolina state museum has an exhibit that honors such, as it should, by the way.

My roots are Irish to the core. I have heard oral traditions about some of my family members when they went into to Columbia looking for work to see signs that read, "no Irish need apply." My cultural heritage is most well known for some little guy in green looking for a pot of gold. There are Irish folk tales that have been told since the beginning of writing. I am not offended by them being told by a man with a thick Irish accent in movies and other venues.

That is why the furor over Uncle Remus confuses me. Perhaps someone is offended by the way he talked, or the way he was portrayed. But, how could the wisdom of his stories be offensive. The tales of Brer Rabbit are about overcoming adversity, finding a way out of bad situations, and being smarter than those who think they are smarter than you. "Please don't throw me in the briar patch" comes to mind.

Now, I know that slavery is something we in the United States all regret. But, that regret should not prevent us from celebrating the stories and cultural icons that came from it. They have value. Are we to someday put the characters of Alex Haley's Roots on the shelf? Will Chicken George be as political incorrect one day to read about and talk about as Uncle Remus?

The Irish were subject to harsh British rule for hundreds of years. Yet, the telling of stories about the characters of that oppressed time are not offensive to the PC left.

Indeed, literature should be open to all to read and criticize in a free society. Deciding what can not be openly read, discussed or cited for political reasons is a page out of the Communist Manifesto, not the American constitution.

All that said, the remarks made by some liberal blogger and democratic activists about Governor Sanford are out of line. The Governor said he felt like some budget issues were like "dancing with a tarbaby." The word tarbaby made me think of doll made of tar, not a black person. Anyone who thought of a black person first has some issues to deal with.

What really gripes, me, though, is that those who are upset over the word "tarbaby" would likely be the first to laugh at someone being described as "drinking like an Irishman" or having an "Irish temper." There is a double standard and a political ax to grind.

It's okay, though, I suppose. For, God made whiskey and beer so we Irish would not rule the world.

That's called laughing at one's self. You liberals ought to try it. It is as healthy as not smoking.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Washington Times is Right: Hastert should resign, but perhaps Pelosi should too



The conservative newspaper, the Washington Times, issued a damning editorial against Speaker Dennis Hastert for not acting quickly enough in the now famous Foley matter. It appears that the Republican leadership had knowledge that Foley's behavior was not appropriate at the least, and probably perverted. You can see the case made by the conservative Washington Times at http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061002-102008-9058r.html.

Now, while I agree with the Times that Mr. Hastert should resign over this matter, I also think a full investitigation of the Democratic leadership should also take place.

My gut feeling tells me that the Republicans covered up the actions of Foley against teen boys to keep a seat and the Democrats did the same until the past few days to gain one. It is my belief that pure politics, on both sides of the aisle, came before protecting the young people who act as paiges in the United States Congress.

If you doubt this, watch the carefully orchestrated press releases coming out of Pelosi's office and other Democratic campaign arms. They were prepared for this situation. That means, they knew in advance, too.

Nothing takes away from the fact that 54 year old Foley making sexually explicit IM exchanges with a teenage boy is wrong, sick, perverted, etc. I read those IMs posted on ABC news, and was shocked at it. One can not blame alcohol alone on that kind of thing. Foley's checking into to rehab angered me.

That said, the leadership of both parties are equally twisted. For political reasons, they kept their mouths shut until they could either win a seat or strike a political blow.

For that, I want Hastert's resignation, like the Times, but I also want Pelosi's. I want them both to pay the poltical price for playing politics with the safety of teenagers working in the House.

This entire situation is an outrage. It shows us how little our leaders, in both parties care about doing things right, and how much they care about political gain. Where is Ross Perot when you need him? Someone needs to clean the barn out.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Remembering ole Nick Theodore


It has been eight years since I worked for Bob Peeler's re-election for Lt. Governor and twelve years since Peeler's election as Lt. Governor. My, how time flies. It is also has been over twelve years since ole Nick Theodore was Lt. Governor.

Perhaps it is those twelve years or so that cause Drew Theodore to forget his father's use of state drivers and security details and the like. It is has been widely reported in the media that Drew Theodore, the Democratic nominee for Comptroller General, has criticized the current Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom's use of a state car and fuel card to travel out of state to visit family. Even state senator John Land, of all people, has weighed in about the ethics of the matter.

Oh, how they forget. Fourteen years ago, then Lt. Governor Nick Theodore took a rather large security detail to the 1992 Democratic Convention in Atlanta. That's right, state car, state driver, state security all went with ole Nick. I remember it well, even if ole Nick's son doesn't because we on the Peeler campaign made that an issue in 1994, and Peeler promised to go without a driver and detail and put those law enforcement officers back to fighting crime. Peeler reminded voters of that in 1998 when Theodore tried unsuccessfully to get his old job back.

Now, is the son of Nick Theodore trying to take a page out of the campaign playbook that handed his old man a defeat? Or is Drew Theodore's memory just too short to remember his own father's use of state resources? I don't know.

But, I do know this. Having someone like Drew Theodore, who has rode his father's name to get money for his campaign, attack his opponent for doing something less wasteful than Ole Nick used to do, is hypocritical at best. The question I am trying to find an answer to is did Drew ever ride with dad in that state car driven by that state driver back in the day? And, if he did, how does he justify that?