A Klempsun Student Writes…

I came across this in the House Journal today… I cannot see how it is relevant to South Carolina. What do yall think?

H. 4777 (Word version) — Rep. F. N. Smith: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR MAYOR JOHNNY FORD FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF TUSKEGEE, ALABAMA, AND TO WISH HIM SUCCESS AND HAPPINESS IN ALL HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

The Resolution was adopted.

More importantly, do you have any idea how this was actually adopted by the South Carolina House of Representatives?!? Is this what we elect these people to do?

Kevin R.  (Clemson)

———————————-

You’re right, Kevin. That’s not what we elect legislators to do. You’re also right that H.4777 has nothing to do with South Carolina.

I can tell you that those kinds of legislative pieces pass all the time. They are perks legislators have to generate good will and positive PR.

I can also tell you that since the General Assembly is already in session, if we can keep them passing resolutions that have no effect of law, that can’t increase taxes, that can’t increase spending, that can’t grow government, or that can’t cause any other sort of trouble, I’d rather them do that than find innovative ways to waste another $1.3 billion in reserve revenues.

Thanks for your question, Kevin.

– Wilson Charles

David Wilkins. Funnyman. Ambassador.

Let’s be honest. He probably won’t be America’s Next Top Model. He might be one of the funniest people in Canada, though.

Kudos go to Speaker Ambassador David Wilkins for a recent profile on CBC’s This Hour Has 22 Minutes.

Cast member Mark Critch and a camera crew followed the ambassador from Ottawa to Columbia on a recent trip.

Critch, who has been described as the “Canadian Jon Stewart,” tried his best to bait SC’s former speaker, but he wasn’t successful.

I think when you watch this, you’ll see it as a Stephen Colbert piece where the interviewee couldn’t be brought down. As one person said, “It’s pretty funny stuff.”

The potential 2010 gubernatorial candidate came off in a way most aren’t used to seeing him. One thing’s for sure. America’s ambassador knows Canada.

 

– Alan Wofford

The Rumors are Exagerated.

Contrary to House Judiciary Chairman Jim Harrison, Representative Liston Barfield (R-Conway) remains a thriving member of the South Carolina House of Representatives.

In yesterday’s Judiciary Committee meeting, Chairman Harrison noted a member’s absence to “attend Representative Barfield’s funeral.”

As the gallery (and committee members) gasped, the chairman realized his mistake and clarified that he meant the funeral of Representative Barfield’s father J.T. Barfield, Sr. who passed away this past weekend at the age of 82.

During this time, we want Representative Barfield and his family to know that our thoughts and prayers go out to them and how sorry we are for their loss.

We hope others will share their condolences with the Barfield family, as well. To sign the family’s guestbook, click here.

Memorials may be sent to ATC Christian School, 1672 Hwy. 905, Conway, SC 29526.

– The OBB

We Defer.

With the FITSNews piece dominating blogs today, we’re light posting. We’re still in shock.

After all, this is South Carolina. Don’t we expect more from elected officials here? Oh, yeah. Right. We forgot.

Depending on what’s happening at the Statehouse, we may Twitter, but we know the talk will be across the other blog.

– The OBB

ADDITION: The gals and Will did some solid investigation. They should get some love today. Even BIN should take a day away from unfunny hateratin’ for this one.

What’s Good for the Goose isn’t Good for the Gander.

In yesterday’s The State, columnist John Monk actually surprised me. I knew his piece would blast out-of-state donors, but it wasn’t nearly as biased as anyone would expect from the left-leaning Monk.

Honestly, one of my biggest problems came from the article’s reliance on a mean-spirited, on-again/off-again blogger who blasts conservative policies and shares a name with some of the state’s political talent while having little of the success or notoriety.

According to Monk, Representative Herb Kirsh (D-Clover), who was elected to the House shortly after the earth cooled, wants to place further limits on campaign contributions.

Mr. Monk asserts that New Yorker Howard Rich contributes money to South Carolina political campaigns using various businesses he owns. Representative Kirsh and those who agree with him constantly ask, “Do we want some New Yorker having his say in South Carolina politics?”

I don’t know. After all, Herb Kirsh is from New York City and has had his say in the House since 1979.

His newest bill, which hasn’t even been filed (I’m sensing possible collusion between the Fourth Estate and a certain legislator) would ban contributions from companies owned by the same person to make separate campaign contributions in South Carolina.

That means that the president of Company A who wants to make a company contribution to a candidate because he or she likes that candidate’s position would be barred from political participation if the president of Company B already contributed to that candidate and the companies happened to be owned by the same person.

It’s another bill seeking to limit political participation, but the reason here is transparently self-serving by the legislation’s supporters.

According to Monk’s piece, “(Herb) Hayden, who in 1991 attended legislative hearings on the Ethics Act, said no one then dreamed anyone would use multiple corporations to funnel money to candidates. Kirsh said the loophole allows individuals like Rich, who have multiple corporations, to alter the balance of power in the General Assembly.”

Herb Hayden (Executive Director of the SC State Ethics Commission) is, from what I hear from people in political circles, a genuinely nice guy. I’m going to disagree with him wholeheartedly, though.

The architects of 1991 campaign finance reform legislation left the loopholes in because they would benefit.

Remember, in 1991 we were in the middle of Operation Lost Trust, and the legislature was solidly Democrat. The ethics laws were written in a way that protected Democrat lawmakers. They short-sightedly did not plan for the day when they weren’t on the receiving ends of most of the deep-pocketed donors.

Now that someone is supposedly using the exemptions Democrats created/overlooked, they and the incumbent Republicans who were allegedly “targeted” by these donations are crying, “Foul.”

John Freeman, ethics professor at USC School of Law even agrees that there is nothing illegal about Mr. Rich’s activities, telling Mr. Monk, “I don’t fault Mr. Rich at all.”

I will take issue with one of Mr. Freeman’s statements, though. He said, “It’s one thing when the citizens of a state say we are being ill served by lawmaker X or Y or Z, but when you get a person from a foreign state who maybe has never visited South Carolina trying to influence elections, I’m not sure what that has to do with democracy as opposed to buying influence.”

I think the answer is simple. An incumbent will almost always have the advantage – from the voter base to fundraising. Companies and individuals will more readily support the guy or gal who already has the legislative vote. Where is a challenger to turn to get his or her message to the voters? How about wherever he or she can to find a sympathetic ear and a supportive wallet?

If I’m running for office, I’m going to ask anyone and everyone who will further my campaign, and it shouldn’t be up to the state to keep me from raising money to get out my message. That’s what it has to do with democracy, Mr. Freeman.

Continuing to focus on campaign finance “reform” solely to benefit the current officeholders, no matter what the fake excuse might be, hurts a competitive campaign system. Of course, that’s what Mr. Kirsh and his allies want to keep them in office.

We’ve seen it so many times. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander – as long as the gander never receives the benefits of what the goose gets.

– Wilson Charles

Read by a Rockstar.

If we read the names separately, neither “Nathan” nor “Ballentine” would invoke an image that said, “I kick a__.” Frankly, either sounds like a freshman who got a swirlie from a high school senior.

Together, those names mean something different, though. They demonstrate a record of fiscal responsibility and social conservatism. He’s only been in the House a few years, but much like his classmate Representative Nikki Haley, he’s shown a tremendous amount of independence and is lead by ideology.

By the way, none of us here have never met him. Wilson kind of did once, but it wasn’t a real introduction, so this is all information we’ve heard from people who know him and from what some of us have seen by watching him.

Anyway, apparently Representative Nathan Ballentine recently started reading this little project we’ve put together — not unlike Senator Kevin Bryant.

We collectively wish he liked what we had to say from a policy perspective, but apparently he’s a bigger fan of the Congressman Inglis video our team wrote about on Friday.

On behalf of everyone at The OBB, we appreciate the time you took to stop by, Representative Ballentine. Maintain your ideology, and don’t take your constituents for granted.

Thanks for reading us, too.

– The OBB

Uncomfortable Moment

Remember the old Mounds/Almond Joy commercial? “Sometimes you feel like a nut. Sometimes you don’t,” the jingle went.

Well, there’s a church in Ybor (pronounced “EE-bore”) City, Florida that’s taking that confectionery dichotomy to the next level (and also degenerates this post’s opening lines to 4th grade double entendre) as it brings us, “The 30-Day Sex Challenge.”

Leaders at Relevant Church contend that:

“People are not having enough sex. An epidemic of breakups prove the needs that lead to a great sex life are being overlooked. Dirty dishes, frumpy clothes, and a lack of authentic connections are killing the romance. A great sex life is a challenge and takes focus, determination, and planning. Some say it’s an unrealistic goal, but we disagree. We believe you can have a great sex life, in fact we believe God wants you to have a great sex life.”

The plan is for singles to abstain from intimate encounters for 30 days — even if they are in monogamous, committed relationships. Married couples on the other hand are, shall we say, supposed to work toward a month-long aerobic workout — “exercising” at least once a day.

They will chronicle their physical activities in a journal to track “progress.”

This would normally be something for Bo to write about, but since he would be in the abstinence category for this challenge, and I’m one of the two married guys here, he asked that I post about what could be an interesting month. NOTE: I’m just posting about this program’s existence. I’m not going to chronicle how the Mrs. and I are doing. Writing this is uncomfortable enough. Sorry, Bo.

I don’t remember learning about the Book of Cinemax in Sunday School, and I am relatively certain that the SC Baptist Convention isn’t preaching about this on Sunday night.

In any event (and I promised Bo I would add this since he couldn’t participate) I’m up for the challenge. There. I said it.

Available Web Sites & Downloads:

• 30 Day Sex Challenge
• Emotional Needs Questionnaire
• 30-Day Challenge Guide for Married Couples
• 30-Day Challenge Guide for Singles

– Joe Merchant

That’s Just Not Right.

Once upon a time, Ichabod Crane ran for Congress. He won. He term limited himself out of office.

He ran a few years later. He won again.

He made everybody in his district mad when he criticized the troop surge in Iraq. He admitted he was wrong. People started to like him again.

He was on Colbert’s show. People laughed at him and continued liking him again.

Now he has a fundraiser coming up and put together a video illustrating that he is by far the most tragically white man in America. It’s a great tribute showing that a politician will do anything for a buck.

Until we get a copy of the video, all we can say is go here, and prepare to laugh.

NOTE: To Congressman Inglis’ staff, please throw the video on YouTube (or send it to us) so we can post it here.

– The OBB

POST & COURIER says, “Cockfighting Could Become Felony”

According to the article, “Currently, cockfighting is a misdemeanor with no minimum fine or sentence, and possession is not a crime.”

Hmm. At the very least it should be considered obscene.

– Bo Burdette

Skelton Introduces Ticket Scalping Bill

I’m as serious as the shine on his head.

This morning, Representative B. R. Skelton introduced a bill to legalize ticket scalping in South Carolina.

His bill, H.4739, repeals the sections in the SC Code that 1) make it illegal to purchase tickets with the intention of scalping and 2) make it illegal to sell tickets for more than $1 above face value.

As a noted scholar and Professor Emeritus of Economics at Clemson University, perhaps Dr. Skelton plans a new career facilitating attendance at university sporting events.

– Wilson Charles