The Other Brooks Brothers and Their Sister, Too. — “Suddenly-relevant”

In 2004, documentarian Morgan Spurlock showed America what happens when we survive on 30 days and 30 nights of nothing but McDonald’s fast food in his film Super Size Me.

It’s a caloric binge that sounds great in the beginning, but after a while, after the gorging and adding the extra weight, we say to ourselves, “This isn’t healthy.”

Spurlock’s Super Size Me can also be viewed as an unintended metaphor for South Carolina’s government spending problem. The state’s politicians may have thought that binging on taxpayer dollars was a good idea, but as we watch state government grow faster than we can pay for it, we now say to ourselves, “This isn’t healthy.”

If you don’t know about the movie, you can watch it HERE (completely legally) for your infotainment.

It’s time for South Carolina can go on a fiscal diet.

– Mary Claire Forrester

The primary is over. The runoffs ran off. The smoke cleared.

Why am I still bothered, though?

I have no problem with all of the boys chest puffing about wins and losses. There was talk of “cupcake” candidates, political novices, and long shots who won.

In the process, The Shot closed its doors.

NOTE: None of us here wanted to see The Shot go. I hated that Tim left South Carolina but was happy that he moved to bigger and better things. It’s just a shame that First Tuesday/Under the Power Lines doesn’t have someone to fill his shoes and that The Shot became a casualty. Even when skewed toward a client, The Shot was at the least entertaining and at the most informative. It gave us here an opportunity to see how everyone else plays off of each other. That’s a gap that won’t be easily filled.

There’s been a lot of recent talk (whether it’s honest or disingenuous, I’m not sure) about third-party and grassroots groups being involved in the primaries. While I usually like what Earl Capps writes (Bo agrees with him more about music), I have a problem with some of his recent posts. He (and others) made a lot of accusations during the primary, said after the primary everyone should come together, and now continue slapping back at the Republicans’ more conservative side in contradiction of what they said needed to be done.

On June 11, Earl drafted a post titled “Time for a Cease Fire?”

He wrote:

“Tonight, we’ve heard from those on both sides who swear they’re not going to quit, not going to budge, and have every reason to believe the fighting will continue. But after what we’ve seen the last few months, we can’t help but believe there has to be a better way.

“We hope we’re not the only ones who feel that way.”

The problem comes with what he wrote in his “Month in Review” where he wrote:

“Millions of dollars later, the SCRG and their backers still came up short. Voters tossed out a rare number of incumbents, but they mostly tended to be of the knuckle-dragging type who didn’t know when to keep their mouths shut or act like civil, law-abiding human beings.”

Maybe it’s just me, but accusations (true or not) and insults don’t seem to resonate as a way to win friends and influence people.

When will the time come to talk about what’s right for South Carolina?

– Mary Claire Forrester

When government works, that’s not always a good thing. That means people are doing things, and when government people do things, it often leads to bad things.

Yesterday was an exception.

Senator Kevin Bryant of Anderson is one of the best the Senate has to offer. We’ve never met, but we’ve seen him in action, and that speaks louder than words (Examples HERE, HERE, HERE).

Even though the legislative year was almost over, he wasn’t going to let it end without continuing to make his promises whole. One promise had to do with a bill he sponsored that would prohibit cities from forcing people outside of the city to agree to annexation in exchange for receiving utilities (S.289). I know it seems like extortion, but it’s a perfectly legal practice in South Carolina.

During yesterday’s session, around mid-afternoon, Senator Bryant offered an amendment to a bill (H.4745) that would add the language from S.289. Senator McConnell was presiding at the time and told Senator Bryant that he would have to rule the amendment out of order because it wasn’t germane to the bill. To fight another day, he withdrew his amendment.

He has his own thoughts on the event HERE, but from my viewpoint it was refreshing to see a legislator working toward his goals until the end.

Now, there’s the more sentimental part of this post.

As the second session of the 117th General Assembly drew to a close yesterday, there was probably no more an emotionally filled room than the Senate chamber as Senator John Drummond of Greenwood exited for retirement at the age of 88.

Whether you agree with his politics or not, he was a grandfatherly figure who is impossible not to like and respect. Even current president pro tempore Glenn McConnell credits the president pro tempore emeritus with teaching him the ropes.

Senator Drummond was the last of the old guard — serving in the legislature from 1965-2008 (House 1965-66, Senate 1966-2008).

With a slight quiver in his voice, Lt. Governor Andre Bauer called upon the senator from Greenwood to gavel the body out of session one last time.

Assuming the chair at 4:58 p. m. before he called the body adjourned, Senator Drummond told his colleagues to watch themselves because he would be watching them and wouldn’t hesitate coming back. He dropped the gavel at 5:00 p. m.

The Senate stood adjourned.

– Mary Claire Forrester

There are some in the South Carolina Senate that apparently didn’t see Wilson’s thought-provoking Pulitzer-worthy (this Pulitzer, not this one) commentary on Monday, which is kind of funny since so many others did — including the folks at FITSNews, SC Hotline and The Shot.

NOTE TO THE FITS GIRLS: OK, so the other guys around here didn’t send your Founding Editor a “nudie pic.” I think Bo posted a shot of my ripped skirt from this year’s Cup. That’s gotta count for something.

In case you’re like the Senate and missed what he said, it was pretty much that the state and its local government counterparts are largely irresponsible when it comes not only to taxation, but to spending.

Well, the self-described “deliberative” body of our legislature had a chance this week to make some changes and move toward limiting state spending.

Boy, did they blow it.

Senator McConnell’s bill (S.718) for a constitutional amendment referendum failed on third reading by a vote of 30-13. In case you’re wondering, it needed 31 votes to pass. Why would any legislator vote against a referendum like that in an election year — especially with the primary coming up in just a couple of weeks?

Here’s who voted how.

The 30 “Yes” votes came from:

Alexander, Bryant, Campbell, Campsen, Ceips, Cleary, Courson, Cromer, Drummond, Elliott, Fair, Gregory, Grooms, Hawkins, Hayes, Knotts, Leatherman, Martin, Massey, McConnell, O’Dell, Peeler, Rankin, Ritchie, Ryberg, Scott *, Setzler, Sheheen, Thomas, and Verdin.

The 13 “No” votes came from:

Anderson, Hutto, Jackson, Land, Leventis, Lourie, Malloy, Matthews, McGill, Patterson, Pinckney, Reese, and Williams.

Congratulations, South Carolina. We’ll continue to have a government that spends money like drunken sailors.

Cheers!

– Mary Claire Forrester

We haven’t made any secret that those of us associated with this blog are fans of Senator Kevin Bryant.

He’s a strong conservative, is always impeccably dressed, and he’s been interesting to follow ever since we watched him take on Senator Hugh Leatherman in February’s free speech debate.

Senator Bryant is thankfully running for reelection and is having a campaign kickoff on Monday, March 17 at 6:00 p.m.

He issued an open invitation for his district to join him at the event.

If you want to go, the event will be at The Corner Bagel Shop located at 715 East Greenville Street in Anderson.

Just e-mail kevin@kevinbryant.com or go to his web site to confirm your reservation.

– Mary Claire Forrester

Tenth Circuit Solicitor Chrissy Adams (covering Anderson and Oconee Counties) is facing opposition this year from a former prosecutor named Sarah Drawdy.

I’ve seen Adams in the news prosecuting some high-profile cases, but until a friend told me I needed to appreciate the entertainment value this race could bring, I never would have thought about it.

Apparently, at least from Drawdy’s side, this is sure to be an ol’ fashioned cat fight like Krystle Carrington and Alexis Carrigton Colby (except this really won’t be anything like that because we’re talking about Oconee and Anderson Counties in South Carolina, not Dynasty).

I wasn’t familiar with Drawdy, but I understand her maiden name was Sarah Ganss which may be familiar to those of you in the Upstate. I was told she did the morning news in the mid to late 90s for WROQ Rock 101 and was also the editor for the conservative The Times Examiner newspaper during the same time.

In any event, while Drawdy seems to be launching a negative campaign right out of the gate (which some are attributing to Adams defeating Drawdy’s old boss Druanne White), Anderson’s daily newspaper, the Independent Mail, may be in blatant violation of SC campaign ethics laws.

The independentmail.com has a list of blogs officially connected with the paper, and they cover a variety of topics. They include Clemson sports, cars, life after college, motherhood, economic development, college life, food, religion, politics, and of course there’s a place for the paper’s editors to sound off.

The most interesting blog though is called “On the Campaign Trail.” According to the blog’s description, “Sarah Drawdy is running for 10th Circuit Solicitor. She agreed to blog about the experiences — good, bad and downright ridiculous — of being a full-time political candidate.“

You know we’re all “Rah. Rah,” 1st Amendment types here, but this is different. While we all believe that Mrs. Drawdy should be able to say what she thinks and run her campaign as she wants, blogging for a newspaper is different than blogging on her campaign or personal site.

Think about it of a minute. What is the purpose of a newspaper? It doesn’t exist so much to inform as it does to make money, and it makes money by selling ads.

Whether it’s a print version or an on-line version, newspapers survive by charging people to sell goods and services through that publication. This includes political candidates. If Catherine Ceips wants to run an ad in the Beaufort Gazette, she’ll have to pay for it. Likewise, if Chrissy Adams wants to buy ad space with the Independent Mail or on independentmail.com, she’ll have to pay.

Why then is Mrs. Drawdy getting what is in essence free promotional space with a for-profit media outlet? At the very least, shouldn’t Mrs. Drawdy have to report that as an “in-kind” donation to her campaign? Then how long would it be before the Independent Mail reached its contribution limit?

I’m not an attorney, and I don’t plan on needing one, but doesn’t the Anderson newspaper’s treatment of that race seem like it pushes the envelope of ethics laws?

At the same time, as an attorney, especially one who aspires to becoming her judicial circuit’s chief prosecutor, wouldn’t you think that Mrs. Drawdy would want to stay away from even the appearance of impropriety?

– Mary Claire Forrester

The crew at The Palmetto Scoop has a good thing going with their “Sunday Guest Post Series.” It’s a good concept, and I hope they keep it alive.

It’s not so much that there’s a light being shown on the political process, and we’re suddenly getting an inside view. Let’s be honest. Everybody knows that Speaker Bobby Harrell is running for governor.

What makes the series concept so good — and I hope to see other sites have similar successes — is that there is now a realization that the Internet isn’t a fad. It’s not going the way of the Pet Rock, 8 Track tapes, and Mr. Belvedere. It’s as close to a living thing as a non-living thing can be.

The web is growing. It’s evolving. It’s not the untamed wild west show it was 10 years ago, and it’s not what it will be one day, but it plays a vital role in how we gather information, exchange ideas, and entertain ourselves.

That’s especially true with politics and current events, and I’m glad to see political officials finally give in. They resisted for a long time but now realize that for the public, more is better.

Give ‘em content and keep ‘em coming back for more.

– Mary Claire Forrester

KSLA-TV is reporting that the federal government issued a warning about potential Botox side effects.

According to the ArkLaTex CBS affiliate, “The Food And Drug Administration says Botox and the similar product Myobloc are being linked to, in some cases, respitory failure and death.”

I’m sorry, but just to remind you, Botox (and Myobloc) are made from Botulism. Shouldn’t that fact alone take away some of the shock that this warning is even issued?

– Mary Claire Forrester

When I turned 11, my parents gave me a new CD Walkman. It doesn’t sound like much today, but then it was a big deal. I was thrilled.

For my party, a bunch of friends came over for a sleepover. We stayed up all night, listened to music, talked, and just had fun.

The experience my parents gave me reminded me a lot of an 11 year old girl in Indiana.

Last Friday, her mom wanted her to have a good time at her party, too. So much so that, according to police, mom gave daughter marijuana (which, if you haven’t heard yet, is now being linked to gum disease), and beer.

WXIN in Indianapolis quotes an investigating detective as saying, “They saw her tip the alcohol beverage up and they saw her inhale what they described as a blunt.”

Good times. Good times.

I think it’s good when parents and their children can spend time together, especially on special occasions like birthdays. Bonding is important.

By the way, I’m still waiting on my pony, Mom.

– Mary Claire Forrester

Like a Reece’s Peanut Butter Cup, something magical happens when qualified women and politics come together. (Note: I stress “qualified” because there’s nothing worse than running on physical attributes instead of merit.)

There’s something different about a female perspective when it comes to public policy that changes the landscape and debate.

A friend showed me a letter she received yesterday that read, “The Southeastern Institute for Women and Politics invites you to join us at a historic event.”

I flipped the card over and noticed that the event is co-sponsored by the “Palmetto Center for Policy Alternatives” (which turned up nothing in a Google search) and the “Palmetto Center for Advocacy” (which I also don’t know anything about).

Aside from a glaring type-o on the invitation’s back (The Southeastern Institute for Women in Publics), what struck me most was a little logo on the bottom of the invitation. I noticed it on the envelope, too.

It was a union “bug.”

“Let me get this straight,” I thought to myself. A group is organizing a political event in SOUTH CAROLINA and it is using UNION VENDORS and letting them PRINT THEIR STAMP? My friend looked at me and said, “I see you noticed it, too. What were they thinking?”

I see her point. If this were something from either an issue’s or a candidate’s campaign, it could have major implications considering the perception of unions in this state.

Anyway, the fundraising event will charge from $100 (in advance) to $125 (at the door) per person to hear from Governor Ruth Ann Minner of Delaware who recently endorsed Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

I see where this group is going, and I don’t like its direction. The Southeastern Institute for Women and Politics claims that it’s nonpartisan, but it definitely has a liberal angle (as if the Democrat consulting group they’re using didn’t give it away).

By the way, why is it that liberals, who are supposed to be the inclusive tolerant ones among us, are always the ones who end up being divisive, segmenting, and excluding?

I don’t understand. With the people we currently have in office and the lack of public participation in the political process, why is it necessary to separate men from women? Shouldn’t it be about issues and ideas? Shouldn’t we be working to educate the public and have an informed electorate involved?

Segmenting candidate recruitment groups like this doesn’t promote quality candidates for office. Instead it says that we should support a candidate because she lacks a certain appendage. It says that we can’t be candidates based on our beliefs. It says that it’s more important to be female than qualified.

It not only sends the wrong message to young girls trying to decide what they want to be when they grow up, it sends the wrong message to the voting public in general.

How about a conservative group that wants to recruit candidates based on qualification and philosophy and not sex or color? Where’s my invitation to their fundraiser?

– Mary Claire Forrester