The Spartanburg Ostrich-Journal

For all his brilliance on fiscal matters, Spartanburg (S.C.) Herald-Journal editorial page editor Mike Smith has always had his head in the sand when it comes to the issue of parental choice.

It’s puzzling, and profoundly disappointing given just how clearly he sees almost every other issue facing the bass-ackwards state of South Cack-i-lacky.

Unlike some SC newspapers, however, Smith (to his credit) has typically refused to let his dumb as dirt position on parental choice cloud his judgment on editorial endorsements.

Or, to put it another way, Smith has never been one to let a single issue dominate his decision-making process to the point that he would support one of the ringleaders of the failed status quo that he claims to be fighting against just because they don’t see eye-to-eye with him on the choice issue.

We said “typically …”

Yesterday was a notable exception, unfortunately, as Smith surprised political observers across the state (and severely damaged his newspaper’s conservative credibility) by suggesting that Spartanburg voters should write-in defeated House candidate Bob Walker instead of voting for conservative Republican Joey Millwood, who ousted Walker from his House seat this June in a tight GOP primary election.

What gives, Mike?

Let’s take a look at some reasons why Spartanburg voters would be crazy to follow Smith’s advice.

First of all, Walker was one of the most fiscally-reckless lawmakers ever to set foot in Columbia. While a growing nucleus of fiscal conservatives were fighting to contain out-of-control government growth, Walker was voting to spend millions on dollars on pet projects. For his efforts, he received a “D” on his 2007-08 fiscal report card from the S.C. Club for Growth.

More troubling, Walker sponsored legislation that would subsidize union activity in our state, basically forcing the taxpayers to pick up the accounting tab for a host of political activities that they may or may not agree with.

On top of that, Walker sponsored a bill that would have gutted academic accountability in our state, a piece of legislation that was so left-of-center even House Speaker Bobby Harrell couldn’t abide by it.

And what, pray tell, was Walker’s excuse when his fellow Republicans called him out for trying to further dumb-down our underachieving public schools? Yeah … he told several of them that he hadn’t actually bothered to read the bill before going around at Democrat Jim Rex’s behest to sign up sponsors for it.

That’s hardly the sort of “effective work in Columbia” that Smith’s endorsement of Walker suggests he has “proven.”

Saddest of all is the fact that Walker – after over a decade of shilling for all the status quo organs that hold our state back – disingenuously attempted to portray himself as a reformer just three months before his June defeat when he joined the so-called “Reform Caucus.”

In case anyone has forgotten, here’s an excerpt from the political consultant’s memo that founded that organization:

This looks to be a terrible year to be an incumbent, as the voters appear to want change. They will be looking for “reformers.”

To combat both Sanford and the “change environment”, the legislature needs to create a “reform” image for itself … separate and apart from Sanford’s efforts.

For these and many other reasons, we humbly submit that Mike Smith’s endorsement of Bob Walker’s sore loser … err, write-in candidacy is every bit as wrong-headed as Walker himself, and that Spartanburg voters would be well-served by electing Joey Millwood.

Smith is still a good guy in our book, but he’s clearly got his head in the sand if he thinks returning Walker to Columbia is “a good choice for effective representation.”

Bob Walker is only a good choice if you want more of the same shenanigans that keep our state ranked first in everything bad and last in everything good, people.

Comments

Trackbacks

• Gluttonous Education Spending News « The Voice for School Choice
• Bob Walker’s Strange Bedfellows :: FITSNews