SC Yellow Dogs

Is SC turning purple? or even blue? Yes, Dan Hoover I believe it is.

Genuine S.C. presidential race looms

Is South Carolina really turning from red to purple? Or even blue?

The depth and intensity of the Palmetto State campaign that handlers of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama say they’re committed to will soon be apparent, as a reality or a bluff.

If it includes a full-blown staff of field organizers, vocal campaign spokesman, in-state advertising and even an occasional visit by the candidate or his wife, Michelle, South Carolina will cease to be a flyover state, one that national Democrats skip in favor of more hospitable territory.

Not that Obama doesn’t have an organization already in place. After all, what were all those pre-presidential primary beauty and barbershop meet-ups for anyway? They certainly didn’t stop after he routed Hillary Clinton here in a pivotal victory.

Obama ahead?

Last week, a Zogby Research Poll showed Obama with a 42-41 percentage point lead over McCain here. It’s been a long time since a Democrat topped a Republican in a South Carolina presidential poll.

The numbers appear to illustrate just one of the difficulties facing McCain: Bob Barr, the former conservative Republican congressman from Georgia running on the Libertarian Party ticket, drew 6 percent.

But South Carolina is a tall order for any Democrat. After all, since John F. Kennedy in 1960, only Jimmy Carter has carried the state for its once dominant party, and that was 32 years ago.

Democrats are banking on what they see as growing disgust with President Bush in what was once “Bush Country,” fueled by a faltering economy, $4-plus gas, an unpopular war in Iraq, and a desire for change as represented by Obama, a first-term U.S. senator from Illinois.

Add intense support among blacks for Obama, new-found enthusiasm among young people, plus less than heartfelt support for McCain from the GOP’s conservative wing and Obama’s allies see the recipe for a historic upset in the GOP’s conservative heartland.

Could be ploy

Of course, it could be a strategic move by a campaign that has money to burn while facing opposition that doesn’t.

One theory goes like this:
* South Carolina was not among the 12 red states his campaign initially identified as ones where it would go head-to-head with Republican Sen. John McCain. Then, last week, Obama allies here announced that the national campaign had committed to a big push in South Carolina, something few Democrats in recent decades have tried.

* Turning South Carolina may not be within the realm of possibility, but with a huge financial edge, Obama can afford to move in, hoping to suck McCain into a fight that would drain his more limited resources from genuine battleground states.

Fifty-state strategy

“The 50-state strategy is for real,” said former Democratic Gov. Jim Hodges last week after returning from a meeting at Obama’s Chicago headquarters.

Remember, a guy named Mike Dukakis once pledged a 50-state campaign that ended up being about 48 states short.

It’s going to be different this time, says Dick Harpootlian, a former state party chairman who joined Hodges for the pilgrimage to Chicago.

“They have an understanding and appreciation for South Carolina,” Harpootlian said, “and don’t forget, we’re the ones who put him back on track after New Hampshire. “We’re pleased, we’ve been ignored here for 30 years.”

What’s changed?

Changing times

Several things, Harpootlian said, from a grim national mood seeping into South Carolina to Obama’s huge and emotional presidential primary turnout here to his campaign’s abundance of financial resources that makes a seemingly long-shot effort appear feasible.

“They have the resources for 50 states,” he said. “What they point out, and it makes some sense, is that it would be wasting resources to not do so (in South Carolina). They’re going to have heavy television in the North Carolina and Georgia markets — Asheville, Charlotte, Wilmington, Augusta and Savannah — and you’ll get a huge bleedover just from the media efforts in those two states. Put a little money in the center of South Carolina and you’ve covered all the media markets,” Harpootlian said.

Obama is expected to fiercely contest North Carolina and Georgia, where the latest polls show him within 2 percentage points of McCain.

Working for Obama, and perhaps down-ballot Democrats, is that this is that rare presidential year when the state party is embracing, not running from, the nominee.

There are skeptics.

Republicans, of course, who cite the party’s overwhelming dominance here and victories in 10 of the last 11 presidential elections. That’s matched by Democrats, who scoff at a paradigm of the past, fixated on a model that no longer works.

McCain’s decision

There’s Larry Sabato, author and presidential scholar at the University of Virginia, who says that “it’s fair to say that if the presidential race is even close in South Carolina, then Obama is running away with it nationally. But I’ve seen no indication yet that it is especially tight in the Palmetto State. I still count this as one of McCain’s base states.”

Although Sabato agrees that Obama’s camp has the finances and personnel to broadly expand the playing field and “play mental games with the McCain campaign, I doubt McCain will bite on this one.”

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs has denied the campaign is anything but serious about winning red states. Gibbs, the spokesman for South Carolina Democratic U.S. Sen. Ernest F. Hollings’ 1998 re-election campaign, told Newsweek, “There’s no time for head fakes.”

Beyond Gibbs, Obama’s national campaign has more than a little South Carolina flair.

Palmetto flair

A number of Hodges’ 1998 and 2002 campaign allies are working for Obama, including John Carson, who ran Hodges’ get-out-the-vote effort, and is national field director, and Rick Wade, who was on the ballot for secretary of state in 2002, and is national outreach coordinator to the black community. Craig Schirmer, who headed Democrats’ coordinated campaign in South Carolina in 1998 and returned in 2007 to run Obama’s primary campaign, plus those in North Carolina and Wisconsin, is a key player.

“They know South Carolina,” Hodges says.

Democratic consultant Bill Carrick recalls 1992 when Bush 41 was pressed to hold the South Atlantic states against then Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. He did, but it didn’t matter.

If that repeats itself, McCain “is in deep trouble because he just doesn’t have the money to compete in as many states as Obama. The money McCain spends in the 2000 and 2004 red states will take money from the traditional battleground states like Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Are you ready for another Bush term?  Well it seems that this is all voters will get if they elect Senator John McCain in the fall. Read this article from the Spartanburg Herald-Journal.

Is McCain Like Bush? It Depends on the Issue
ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON - The Democrats like to say that electing Senator John McCain would usher in the third term of George W. Bush, and they do not mean it as a compliment. The Republicans counter that calling the senator “McBush” is political spin and that Mr. McCain is his own man.

A look at Mr. McCain’s 25-year record in the House and Senate, his 2008 campaign positions and his major speeches over the last three months indicates that on big-ticket issues - the economy, support for continuing the Iraq war, health care - his stances are indeed similar to Mr. Bush’s brand of conservatism. Mr. McCain’s positions are nearly identical to the president’s on abortion and the types of judges he says he would appoint to the courts.

On the environment, American diplomacy and nuclear proliferation, Mr. McCain has strikingly different views from Mr. Bush, and while he shares the president’s goals in Iraq, he was at times an outspoken critic of the way the war was managed.

The disparities between the two are murkier on other issues. On immigration, Mr. McCain started out with Mr. Bush - at odds with the Republican mainstream - by favoring a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants, then backed off and emphasized the border-security-first approach favored by a majority of his party.

When it comes to dealing with terrorism suspects, Mr. McCain has supported imposing tighter rules than favored by the administration on the use of harsh interrogation techniques, but has consistently been with the president on limiting the legal rights of Guantánamo detainees. In one indicator that his view of executive power is moving closer to that of Mr. Bush, his campaign has recently signaled that he believes it was constitutional for the president to authorize wiretaps without warrants to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail.

Mr. McCain has reversed himself on some issues - most notably, embracing the Bush tax cuts now after deriding them initially as fiscally risky and excessively skewed to the wealthy - and continues to adjust his positions on others. On Monday, he said he continued to oppose opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, leaving him at odds with the White House and most of his party, but said he favored giving states more flexibility to decide whether to explore for oil off their coasts.

On balance, the McCain campaign has sought to emphasize the differences between Mr. McCain and the unpopular Mr. Bush rather than the similarities.

“In the last 10 years, he’s been an independent voice for what he thinks is in his country’s best interest,” said Mark Salter, one of Mr. McCain’s closest advisers. “Sometimes it’s brought him into conflict with members of his party and with the president. The Democrats know that.”

Yet while it would be hard to categorize him as a doctrinaire Republican or conservative, Mr. McCain appears to have ceded some of his carefully cultivated reputation as a maverick.

In a CBS News poll two weeks ago, 43 percent of registered voters said they believed he would continue Mr. Bush’s policies, and 21 percent said he would be more conservative in his policies than Mr. Bush. Twenty-eight percent said he would be less conservative than Mr. Bush.

Presidencies are about more than policies, of course, and Mr. McCain would bring a different style, background and world view to the White House should he be elected in November.

Although he once held very different views, Mr. McCain’s biggest similarity to Mr. Bush now is on the economy. Not only does the senator now support making permanent the large Bush tax cuts he once opposed - the $1.35 trillion tax reduction of 2001 and the $320 billion tax cut of 2003 - but he has proposed four major new tax cuts of his own.

Democrats say that those four proposed cuts - a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent, immediate tax breaks for corporate investment, a repeal of the alternative minimum tax and doubling the value of exemptions for dependents to $7,000 from $3,500 - are more regressive than Mr. Bush’s tax cuts because they favor the rich more disproportionately than the president’s reductions did. Mr. McCain’s advisers said his plan would help stimulate job creation by reducing taxes on small businesses, especially those that pay taxes at the personal income tax rate, and would be part of a fiscal plan that would also emphasize reining in the growth of government spending far more than Mr. Bush did.

On health care, Mr. McCain has a market-oriented model similar to the one that Mr. Bush proposed to little effect in 2007. Like Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain would shift the emphasis from insurance provided by employers to insurance bought by individuals, and would offer a tax benefit for families to do so.

“In general, they’re much more similar than different,” said Drew Altman, the president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health research group. “In terms of their goals, they’re more focused on making the market more efficient than in expanding coverage.”

Mr. McCain’s proposal, however, is more progressive in that it offers a refundable credit of $5,000 to families to buy their own insurance, whether or not they pay taxes - in effect, cash. Although experts have questioned whether the $5,000 tax credit would cover the cost of private insurance, they generally say that Mr. Bush’s plan, which offered a $15,000 tax deduction for families buying their own insurance, was more valuable to higher-income people.

On the Iraq war, Mr. McCain has been one of the president’s biggest defenders of its stated rationale: saving the world from Saddam Hussein. Yet he was also an early advocate of increasing troop levels at a time when Mr. Bush was resistant, and was withering, from 2004 on, about Donald H. Rumsfeld, then defense secretary, and what Mr. McCain called Mr. Rumsfeld’s “whack a mole” strategy of moving American troops from one violence-plagued part of Iraq to another.

Like Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain has steadfastly refused to set dates for withdrawals of troops and envisions a long-term American presence in the country. But last month, in the general election battleground state of Ohio, Mr. McCain did a semantic dance and said he expected that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013.

On abortion, Mr. McCain has long been opposed, and is in fact more explicit than the president in his opposition to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. Although Mr. Bush has spoken about changing American “hearts and minds” to build a “culture of life,” Mr. McCain has said directly, in South Carolina in 2007, that Roe v. Wade “should be overturned.”

On judges, Mr. McCain has strongly embraced the judicial philosophy of Mr. Bush and vowed to appoint conservative judges in the mold of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

On gay rights, Mr. McCain voted against a proposed constitutional amendment backed by Mr. Bush banning same-sex marriage, saying that it should be up to the states. Then in 2006, he made it clear how he thought his home state, Arizona, should decide Mr. McCain appeared in a television commercial in support of a state amendment, which ultimately failed, to ban same-sex marriages.

Perhaps Mr. McCain’s biggest departure from the president is on climate change. Mr. McCain has called for mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, unlike Mr. Bush, who says such limits would be bad for the economy. Mr. McCain also supports a “cap and trade” system in which power plants and other polluters could meet limits on heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide by either reducing emissions on their own or by buying credits from more efficient producers.

Mr. McCain, who has a mixed record on the environment in the Senate — he has missed votes on toughening fuel economy standards and has opposed tax breaks meant to encourage alternative energy — has nonetheless tried to highlight what he considers his stark environmental divide with Mr. Bush.

“There is a longstanding, significant, deep, strong difference on this issue between myself and the administration, Mr. McCain said last month.

On diplomacy, Mr. McCain has regularly distanced himself from the go-it-alone unilateralism of the Bush administration.

“We cannot build an enduring peace based on freedom by ourselves, and we do not want to,” Mr. McCain said in a major foreign policy address in Los Angeles in late March. “We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new compact.”

In the same vein, Mr. McCain has significantly broken with Mr. Bush on nuclear security policy. Unlike the president, he supports a legally binding accord between the United States and Russia on limiting nuclear weapons, the elimination of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, a strengthening of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, increased financing for the International Atomic Energy Agency and nuclear talks with China.

On Iran and North Korea, the two nations whose nuclear programs will present the next president with a tough set of options, Mr. McCain has allied himself with the Bush administration. He would refuse to engage in unconditional diplomacy with Iran and would continue to maintain contact with North Korea, primarily through multilateral talks. He has insisted, however, that the United States be able to verify effectively any agreement in which North Korea promises to abandon its nuclear weapons.

From The Hill:

Big tent to get bigger if Democrats want to increase House majority

By Aaron Blake

Democrats picked up two House seats in the last three weeks, but pro-abortion rights and pro-gun control groups are not celebrating just yet.

The pair of wins for socially conservative Democrats in Louisiana and Mississippi highlights a growing effort by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to recruit candidates who fit their districts ideologically rather than those who embrace the party’s policy platform.

The strategy has proven successful thus far in expanding the Democratic majority and promises to continue with a batch of pragmatically recruited candidates.

But it also threatens to dilute the traditional views of a party already balancing a class full of centrist and conservative freshmen elected in districts that lean Republican.

DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) said Democrats are realizing their longstanding claim to be a big-tent party and responding to the realities of the political map.

The former DCCC recruitment chairman has said he has strong candidates in 50 GOP-held districts, almost all of which voted for President Bush in 2004.

“What’s different now is that we are very aggressively recruiting candidates that can win these seats, and that means making sure that we’re not just doing it in word but also in deed,” Van Hollen said.

The concept isn’t new to Democrats. Conservatives like Reps. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) and anti-abortion rights Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) helped deliver the majority in 2006. But party leaders are building on that approach as they look to expand their majorities.

A national map that includes heavily Democratic urban districts surrounded by more-diluted but plentiful conservative-leaning districts has Democrats going further into red territory and more willing to compromise.

Democrats are touting strong anti-abortion rights and anti-gun control recruits in open seats in Alabama’s 2nd and Louisiana’s 4th districts. In the former, Montgomery Mayor Bobby Bright has promised to fight the Democratic Party on those two issues. In the latter, Caddo Parish District Attorney Paul Carmouche features a picture of a girl praying on the front of his website.

The party also has candidates espousing cultural conservative views in Idaho’s 1st district, Alabama’s 5th, West Virginia’s 2nd, and Ohio’s 1st and 16th districts. Several of those races are considered among Democrats’ best pickup opportunities.

The trend isn’t limited to social issues.

In three South Florida districts, Democrats hope to make competitive races with a trio of Hispanic Democrats who, like their GOP opponents, support the Cuba embargo. And the Democrats have high hopes for candidates with business backgrounds in Rep. Tom Feeney’s (R-Fla.) and Rep. Joe Knollenberg’s (R-Mich.) affluent districts.

While there was some outcry over recruits like Casey last cycle — former NARAL President Kate Michelman even threatened to run against him as an Independent — many advocacy groups have become more pragmatic about expanding the Democratic majority, even if it means certain Democrats won’t take their side of an issue.

Paul Helmke, the president of the nonpartisan Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said he understands not all Democrats will see eye-to-eye with his group, but it doesn’t mean he isn’t making progress.

“There have been three specials, and no one talks about Bill Foster in Illinois,” Helmke said, referring to the first Democratic special-election winner, who appears closer to his party on guns than are the other two.

“If Democrats feel they can win races by having someone who talks about gun rights and is not a threat to hunters, we’ve got no problem with that.”

A spokeswoman for NARAL pointed out that the Louisiana and Mississippi seats were already held by anti-abortion rights Republicans and that 33 of 41 House Democrats elected in 2006 were pro-abortion rights.

Even liberal bloggers, who are often critical of Democrats’ efforts on issues like the war in Iraq, appear to be embracing the big-tent concept. Even knowing that newly minted Reps. Don Cazayoux (D-La.) and Travis Childers (D-Miss.) are likely to bring their conservative views to Washington, the cyber-scribes have largely joined the rest of the party in welcoming the newest members.

When they get to Congress, though, Democrats from conservative districts have often found themselves in tough spots.

Republicans have made political theater out of motions to recommit on issues including illegal immigration and guns, forcing the Democrats to either buck their party or buck their constituents. And recently, many Republicans sat out a war-funding vote to highlight the chasm between Democratic leadership and some members for whom a “no” vote could have proven politically difficult back home.

The new class of Democrats is not opposed to taking on the party. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) found that out this week, conceding that her bill to reinstate the federal assault weapons ban is unlikely to pass even next cycle.

Republicans have pointed out in the aftermath of their special-election losses that Democrats in those districts are basically running on GOP platforms — which they say suggests that constituents haven’t deserted Republican values.

“Given what the last two ran on, we could’ve welcomed them into the Republican Conference with open arms,” the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), said last week. “You can get away with that in the short term. I don’t think you can build a stable, long-term majority that way.”

Van Hollen conceded that Cazayoux and Childers will vote their own way on some social issues, but emphasized they will stick with the party on others.

“They are traditional Democrats in the sense that they believe in economic opportunity and support the economic policy agenda of the Democratic Party in terms of shared prosperity,” Van Hollen said. “These are Democrats focused on bread-and-butter issues.”

Beth Padget thinks the South Carolina Democratic Party had a point about filing on Sunday. Here is what she said in a recent blog:

Sometimes it’s fun just to sit at your desk and await the “ping” alerting you to an e-mail. Especially during a super-charged election year.

Well the South Carolina Democratic Party wants you to know their people want to be in church on Sunday morning – not sitting around some office waiting for stragglers to file for office.

All kidding aside, I think the Democrats have a point. After all, this is South Carolina, buckle of the Bible Belt. But we have state laws that set the filing period for candidates running for a bunch of offices. By statute, the candidates file between noon on March 16 and noon on March 30. Well, this year, those dates come on Sundays.

And, I’m not good enough to do the math, but it’s got to be possible for the closing of the filing period to come on Easter Sunday. The opening fell on Palm Sunday this year.

So a short while ago, I get an e-mail from the South Carolina Democratic Party that was really addressed to state Attorney General Henry McMaster. Now, I hadn’t realized that his office had rendered an opinion that to me (if the quote is correct) is pretty unintelligible. It says, according to the Dems release: “I am unaware of any prohibitions to the various committees with whom the statements of intention of candidacy are to be filed receiving such on a Sunday in order to comply with such provision.”

Now, the Dems pretended they understood that sentence, so much so that they fired back, “Unfortunately, this opinion runs counter to South Carolina’s principles, and fails to consider that, when the ‘various committees’ accept filing, actual people have to be present regardless of their preference to be in church.” Now that I can understand. It means lots of people in South Carolina go to church on Sunday, and they’d prefer not having to worry about candidates needing to file for office.

As Carol Fowler wrote on behalf of the S.C. Democratic Party, “Having candidates file for office between 8 a.m. and noon on a Sunday may not be illegal, but it goes against the values of our state, which for a great many of us include Sunday morning worship services. I am disappointed that these values weren’t taken into consideration when you rendered your opinion.”

So, how about this: Change the silly state laws so the filing period doesn’t open and end on a Sunday.

Don’t you think this would be a good idea?

Presidential hopefuls completed a final round of friend-raisers Friday and Saturday in hopes of pulling off a pivotal win in the First in the South primary today. Cameras representing media from all around the globe filled the State’s streets capturing views of all the candidates. After a day with very high turnout and very few problems, election results began unfolding the story.

We’re going to be blogging the CBC Institute/CNN Democratic Debate tonight, join in with us live as we watch and react to what’s going on. You can tune in live at the CNN.com Election Center website.

Six weeks before South Carolina Republicans and Democrats cast their primary votes for president, the races remain very much up in the air.

On the Democratic side, most polls show Sen. Hillary Clinton with a comfortable lead in South Carolina, but some also show her support slipping in Iowa, giving fresh hope to Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, her main rivals.

On the Republican side, what many considered a four-way race between former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson now shapes up as a five-way contest, with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee joining the party.

Huckabee dropped by North Charleston

on Friday as part of a swing through South Carolina.

He came to bask in his rising support and to accept endorsements from Charleston County Council Chairman Tim Scott and from Maurice Washington, chairman of the board of trustees of South Carolina State University.

Huckabee also discussed his nine-point plan for immigration reform, which calls for building a fence along the Mexican border by 2010, hiring more Border Patrol agents, imposing fines on employers who hire illegal immigrants, promoting immigration-law training for local police and modernizing the process of legal immigration.

He said his proposal doesn’t include amnesty and would give those here illegally 120 days to leave the country and apply to return through legal means. Those who don’t leave would be deported and have to wait 10 years to legally return. “It’s not to be harsh but rather it’s to be fair to all,” he said.

Supporters of the Fair Tax, a plan to replace the national income tax with a national sales tax, made up a good-sized chunk of the 100-plus people who crammed into a North Charleston hotel conference room to hear Huckabee.

Charleston County GOP Chairwoman Lin Bennett, a Thompson supporter, noted that Huckabee’s position as the only front-runner who has endorsed the tax gives him a built-in base here. “These Fair Tax people, wherever you go, there are gazillions of them.”

Meanwhile, other candidates are sending spouses here to solidify their support.

Former President Bill Clinton will appear here today, while Thompson’s wife Jeri plans to meet with supporters at 5:15 p.m. Monday at Patriots Point in Mount Pleasant.

Huckabee said he believes his poll numbers have risen recently for several reasons, including his debate performances and a few extended televised interviews. He said martial arts star Chuck Norris’ endorsement helped, noting that almost every television network ran Norris’ endorsement spot for free as a news item, and it was the most watched video on YouTube for two days.

He also joked about another big-time endorser coming to South Carolina: Multimedia star Oprah Winfrey will appear Sunday at Williams-Brice Stadium in Columbia with Obama.

“I respect very much that Senator Obama has Oprah, but in a smackdown, Chuck wins every time,” he said.

While a few polls show Huckabee in the lead in South Carolina, others show a virtual dead heat among several candidates.

“There are a lot of unknowns this year, a lot of new territory,” said College of Charleston political science professor Bill Moore.

“On the Democratic side, the race pits a woman candidate and an African-American candidate,” he said. “On the Republican side, you simply don’t have any one candidate who has captured the imagination of the Republicans. On top of that, everything is front-loaded this year, so it’s just unchartered territory.”

Despite what South Carolina polls show this month, the numbers here likely will change as Iowans hold their caucus Jan. 3, followed by the New Hampshire primary Jan. 8. The GOP primary in South Carolina will be Jan. 19, and the Democratic primary will be Jan. 26.

“What’s going to impact most in South Carolina is what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire,” Moore said. “If Hillary starts to falter, then South Carolina becomes a different ball game.”

Edwards, who was born in South Carolina and has been the top fundraiser among Democrats here, said during a Charleston visit Thursday that he’s not worried about his poll numbers here.

“I’m doing better than I was four years ago at this point, and I won the state four years ago,” he said. “If people in South Carolina know that I come from here, that I will fight for them, that I will stand up for the working, middle-class families that need a chance, we’ll do fine in South Carolina.”

Those early states present even higher stakes for the GOP hopefuls.

“I could see Fred Thompson out of it, or maybe John McCain, by the time they get to South Carolina,” Moore said. “To me, one of the questions that should be asked on every poll is who is your second choice. That can be important as you have people drop out.”
By Robert Behre for The Post and Courier

Columbia College students react to campaign comments

U.S. Sen. John McCain was at a luncheon yesterday at the Trinity restaurant in Hilton Head, SC. to celebrate Veterans Day and campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. But in a meeting with supporters, the U.S. Navy veteran and former prisoner of war was not an “officer and a gentleman.”

A woman asked McCain, “How do we beat the b—-?”

McCain, standing in front of a larger-than-life photo of himself in military aviator gear, laughed.

This Saturday, Nov. 3, Senator John Edwards will host a fundraiser for State Senate candidate Representative Bill Clyburn at a special Richland County Democratic Party breakfast.

Eggs and Bacon with Edwards and Clyburn will be held at Mac’s on Main, located at
1710 Main Street in Columbia. Doors open 9:30 a.m. There is a suggested donation of $25 to help Bill Clyburn win Senate District 25.

Co-Hosts: Steve Benjamin, Mike Evatt, Fayrell Furr, Representative Chris Hart, Representative Lonnie Hosey, Chairman Leon Howard, John and Jill Moylan, Tally Parham, Matthew and Beth Richardson, Representative Bakari Sellers and Pete Strom

During this evening’s debate, we’ve had a round of questioning related to representation. Do you need to be a woman to understand women? African American to empathize with people of color? Hispanic to know our growing hispanic population?

Dear Democratic Colleague:

Yesterday’s Washington Post and Wall Street Journal both have front-page stories about how the public increasingly favors Democrats over Republicans on matters of fiscal responsibility and the federal budget.

Wall Street Journal
“When Americans were asked which party could better deal with national problems, they gave Democrats an edge of 25 percentage points over Republicans on cutting deficits [and] 16 points on controlling federal spending…” (page A14)

Washington Post
“Democrats also have a greater share of the public trust on other key issues, including . . . the economy (18 points) and handling the federal budget deficit (23 points).” (Page A6)

The public’s trust is a validation of Democrats’ fiscal policies. We worked hard to restore fiscal responsibility in the 1990s, maintained that commitment while we were in the Congressional minority, and reaffirmed it this year in the majority. Democrats have long advocated fiscal policies that produce a budget in balance. This year, we passed a budget resolution that reaches balance in 2012 while making strategic investments where they are needed.

In addition, we established a pay-as-you-go principle for all new net mandatory spending and revenue changes. In the face of initial skepticism, Democrats have enforced the pay-as-you-go rule on every bill we have voted to pass this year. Unlike previous Congresses, which enacted expensive tax cuts and entitlement expansions without offsetting the costs, this year we are taking responsibility for our actions now. We are paying as we go, not passing along the cost to our children and grandchildren.

The articles in yesterday’s Post and Journal confirm that the public recognizes our record of fiscal responsibility.

Sincerely,

John M. Spratt, Jr.
Chairman
House Budget Committee

Here’s a quick recap of Gov. John Edward’s speech at the SC Democratic Convention this past Saturday.

An important issue for America & SC is Race and Inequality
There are 2 Americas it’s a fantasy to believe that race hasn’t paid a price in the 2 Americas
We can do it we can do it together.
I want to be President b/c I want everyone in American to have the same chances I have.
There’s a great deal that can be done with the poverty in America.
Raise the min. wage, make it easier to establish unions, make it easier for kids to go to college.
We need to strengthen the American middle class.
On healthcare: We need to make sure that people are taken care of from the time they’re born until the time they die.
We need to get rid of Bush’s tax cuts for the rich.
What are you willing do to do? How much do you love this country?
The world needs to see America as an example for good again.
I’m proud I grew up in a small, rural, mill town in America.
We need a president who will stand up for eco. awareness.
“stand up for family farmers”
We need to show the world who we are. Show our better angles.
America is seen as a bully.
We can’t be a ruler if we’re not strong in ourselves.
Our starting place (America’s image) is to end the bleeding source Iraq.
American people spoke in the last election and they want change (in the war)
Bush is NOT supporting troops in Iraq.
We (in Washington) can’t change America alone. We need you the people in this room.
Because we’re better than this. The world needs to see who we are
Let’s be patriotic to something else besides the war.
I’m making a pledge to you. I will the back to SC together we will win the state of SC

Here’s a quick recap of Gov. Bill Richardson’s speech at the SC Democratic Convention this past Saturday.

They told me I had 10 minutes to tell how I feel about (listed different govt issues)…But I only have 4 words that will cover it all. Elect a Democratic President
I believe any of the delegates can serve in the White House…as my Vice President.
We know the heart and soul of S.C. is blue.
Our nation is divided and we need somebody who can heal.
We are no longer a nation who is ruler
Lists what he will do in the first days of office…
Day one, I’d get us out of Iraq
I worry about our troops, even when they come home.
Day two, I’d announce a plan for energy independence.
I would ask for the whole country to go Green
Al Gore was right and we have to finish it.
The future is in being Green
Day three, I’d devise a plan to revitalize American education
Our teachers don’t get paid what they deserve
Day four, I’d take off b/c I’d need a break…kidding I’d announce the plan for universal healthcare.
Everyone can have the healthcare the President has, b/c everyone deserves it.
We can pay for healthcare by diverting money that goes to Iraq.
Day five, I’d announce a plan for jobs in this country
There is no reason our minimum wage is where it’s at.
Day six, I’d make sure everyone gets a fair shot
We are a party of civil rights…We are a party of believing everybody has a fair shot
I know other candidates who are “rockstars” and I’m not…but I’m working on it.
Elect me b/c I’ve done it. America needs a candidate with experience that I have to do it.
You (S.C) have been the leading light of politics

Ok, it’s not because he’s from Seneca. It’s because he understands working people. So far, it looks like he’s the only presidential candidate who’s going to speak out against President Bush’s frightening trade deal with South Korea. This issue, of course, is totally unrelated to North Korea which is scarier still. But I digress. Without demanding environmental and human rights standards, the proposed treaty is a prescription for disaster - both for South Koreans and South Carolinians. How many more jobs do we need to lose or how much dirt needs to be added to our global air before someone takes a stand? Wall Street? Main Street!

Here’s the link