SC

Another Slow (And Liberal) News Day For SC’s MSM

IT’S NOT JUST LEFT-LEANING POLITICIANS WHO ARE “KILLING THE MESSENGERS” NOW Selective journalistic outrage is nothing new in the Palmetto State. Here, status quo politicians (invariably “Republicans”) who perpetuate South Carolina’s anti-competitive business climate, worst-in-the-nation public schools and totally dysfunctional system of government get hall passes for the chronic failure…

IT’S NOT JUST LEFT-LEANING POLITICIANS WHO ARE “KILLING THE MESSENGERS” NOW

Selective journalistic outrage is nothing new in the Palmetto State.

Here, status quo politicians (invariably “Republicans”) who perpetuate South Carolina’s anti-competitive business climate, worst-in-the-nation public schools and totally dysfunctional system of government get hall passes for the chronic failure of their efforts … while those of us calling them out for their corruption and incompetence get fitted for black hats.

The latest example of this trend?  A front page story in La Socialista – a.k.a. The (Columbia, S.C.) State newspaper – which advances the “kill the messenger” narrative being promoted by these fiscally liberal politicians.  The story – written by reporter Gina Smith – decries the “secret groups” with “secret agendas” that ran ads against State Senators Larry Martin and Wes Hayes this year.

In La Socialista‘s world it’s apparently okay for politicians to award themselves lavish benefits that aren’t available to other government employees (and repeatedly fail to disclose these benefits) – but it’s inappropriate for people like this website’s founding editor to criticize them for doing so.

In fact these big-spending, benefit-loving lawmakers – who for years have failed to pass tax relief, market-based education reforms and real government reform – are now joining forces with S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley in an effort to pass legislation aimed at silencing these groups.  And unlike reforms that would benefit your bottom line you better believe that this gag law is going to sail through the S.C. General Assembly.

Haley, incidentally, endorsed Martin’s reelection bid – throwing her support behind the left-leaning former Democrat at a critical point in his campaign.

Wait … why is Haley (who ran for governor in 2010 as a “Tea Party” candidate) now supporting a bunch of fiscally liberal incumbents?  Seriously … didn’t she promise voters that she “wouldn’t stop” until our state had a “more conservative” S.C. General Assembly?

Yup …

Such is life in South Carolina, though, where politicians habitually say one thing and do another – and the mainstream media lets them get away with it.  Hell …  Smith’s story attacking these evil “secret groups” ran just above a puff piece about a government-funded ice skating rink (located in front of a government-funded museum) in downtown Columbia, S.C.

Because why wouldn’t the media praise government subsidize ice skating along with special retirement benefits for State Senators who haven’t even retired yet?

Sadly, we should expect to see more of this waste and unnecessary spending as politicians continue receiving cover from the media outlets that are supposed to be holding them accountable.

***

Related posts

SC

SC Teachers Arm Themselves In Wake Of Shooting

FITSNews
SC

Murdaugh Murders: Curtis Smith’s Attorney Says Accusations Don’t Add Up In Alex Murdaugh ‘Shooting’

Mandy Matney
Headlines

Will Lewis Saga: Emergency Greenville County Council Meeting Scheduled

FITSNews

47 comments

Sumter Conservative November 23, 2012 at 12:28 pm

Smith’s piece was written more like an editorial column than a front page news article.

…just more of the 5th-grade-level journalism that readers of The State have come to know and love.

Reply
Cricket November 23, 2012 at 12:50 pm

I read the P&C. P&C is better because it endorsed Bobby Harrell. Bobby helps the local economy. He made Boeing come to SC.

Reply
CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN November 23, 2012 at 1:12 pm

Cricket,

I’ve got some prime property in the everlades you’d probably be interested in. LOL

Reply
Cricket November 23, 2012 at 1:58 pm

The P&C reported that success story. He’s a small business man. He flies his own plane to visit multi-national companies and tell them about the low cost of S.C. Seventy five percent of the voters in his district re-elected him in a huge landslide. He said in his letter to the editor that Boeing came to SC because of his effort. He’s a hard-working self made entrepreneur. And he’s a christian.

Reply
Do I Know Hooey? November 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm

La Socialista?

Only here would someone find out that the SC Republcan Party

Arguably the most Right Wing Republican state party in the country

Is really composed of a bunch of Socialists!

Hooey is the word

Reply
BigT November 23, 2012 at 1:07 pm

FITS = The State:

They hate Roublicans as much as FITS, and The State just does not like Liberal competition from you…

Reply
Thebeachisback November 23, 2012 at 6:14 pm

Why don’t you define conservative and liberal with a real definition???????

Reply
scmajor November 23, 2012 at 2:26 pm

The state has been dominated by Republicans for what, 25+ plus years and our state is just about last in the nation in everything good? How much longer before “conservative” magic kicks in?

Maybe it is time to try something different, liberal or not. What the “conservatives” preach sure ain’t working.

Reply
BigT November 23, 2012 at 7:31 pm

South Carolina is gaining in population, while the Rust Belt declines. SC teachers are some of the highest paid in the Southeast. We have schools (in non-democrat districts) that are the best in the nation…and before Obama Killed the economy, we were awash in surplus revenue (that Moderate-Libertarian Sanford EFFED up in handling)….

We are at our best when we are most Conservative…We have let too many liberals pose as Republicans…and the idiots in democrat districts keep re-electing poverty and failure…

And FITS is as much of a Liar as any of the RINOs….

Reply
Saluda Rapids November 23, 2012 at 8:02 pm

“We have schools (in non-democrat districts) that are the best in the nation.”

Not that you would know this or care that it is true, but some of the best schools are in democratic districts. Stop lying.

Reply
MountainPenelope November 23, 2012 at 2:48 pm

Funny (not ha-ha) how FITS gets his panties in a wad about outside influences, yet publishes columns by Howie Rich, whose chief mission in life is to destroy public education.

Hypocritical much?

Reply
Johnson November 23, 2012 at 3:16 pm

You can’t destroy what is already destroyed. Tell Zais – and on a local level, Vince Ford – to put all those fat ass consultants in the classrooms.

Reply
Andrew November 23, 2012 at 2:52 pm

I would love to see who funded Folks’ little PAC.

I’m sure since he is dedicated to transparency, he will be happy to show us.

Reply
@BozMartin November 23, 2012 at 3:32 pm

He’s not the gubmint, and he’s not IN the gubmint.

Reply
BigT November 23, 2012 at 7:32 pm

But when he was he and Sanford did a GREAT job didn’t they?

Reply
Silvio Dante November 23, 2012 at 3:31 pm

“And he’s a christian.”

Famous last words.

Reply
@BozMartin November 23, 2012 at 3:38 pm

All you have to do is say you are a Christian and these idiots think your shit doesn’t stink. Having figured that out a long time ago, everybody says it. Some even go through the motions of proving it, like Tom Rice, who started going to church again about the same time he registered to vote for the first time in Myrtle Beach – just coincidentally the same time that the “MB Mafia” decided to run him for congress.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the tea party idiots are the answer either. They all suck.

Reply
Thebeachisback November 23, 2012 at 6:14 pm

Heck, yeah!

Reply
BigT November 23, 2012 at 7:35 pm

Yeah Boz: Everybody “else” in your eyes is a Filthy hypocrite who is hateful and Judgemental….

That’s what you Loathe all Christians and Assure us THEY are all going to H#!!….while you and FITS are so much better than them and above it all…

Nice Theology you practice there…

Reply
@BozMartin November 23, 2012 at 7:47 pm

BigT, go on thinking that I defend Will all the time if it makes you happy. But it’s bullshit. I don’t.

Also, I’ve said nothing at all on this blog, every, about Christians going to Hell. I’m talking about the disgusting phenomenon of people claiming to be Christians for the great political advantage it gives them with voters in SC and elsewhere, regardless of whether or not they practice what Jesus taught. That’s another matter entirely.

Reply
Billy-Bob November 23, 2012 at 6:43 pm

So, Sic, you against transparency?? Pony up the names of your contributors if you’re for transparency!!

Reply
? November 23, 2012 at 7:22 pm

In a free society you are entitled to something called *privacy*.

If you work in govt,which is funded with taxpayer dollars, taxpayers are entitled to every bit of information surrounding the use of your forcibly taken dollars.

Reply
@BozMartin November 23, 2012 at 7:48 pm

Exactly. Agree with Will’s choices on who his PAC funds or not, he is not giving them our tax money and thus has not obligation to disclose the names of doners. End of story.

Reply
BradWarthenSucks November 23, 2012 at 9:05 pm

Don’t worry, in a week The State is going to a subscription based website only. So unless you fork over $8.95/month you don’t get to read their stupidity.

Reply
Mike at the Beach November 23, 2012 at 11:16 pm

And that, as they say, will be that! The beginnning of the end of their mass market relevance (assuming, for the purposes of this conversation, anyway, that they possess that relevance now). Bye-bye!

Reply
Bob Marshall November 23, 2012 at 11:59 pm

I would assume they know what they are doing. Assume = Ass + u + me

Reply
? November 24, 2012 at 10:25 am

Yep, a paywall is only going to hurt them further as time goes on.

Someone came on Will^s site a few days ago suggesting he paywall it…the first thing I though when I read it was *I will bet he is from The State*

Reply
Tired of them all! November 23, 2012 at 9:30 pm

I am so sick and tired of these so-called conservative republican (in-name-only) assholes that are nothing more than self-serving THUGS! I am a conservative INDEPENDENT and I’ve washed my hands of them! You know, after coming in last in everything previously mentioned, I am going to vote for anyone other than a republican. Heaven only knows they have screwed this state for 25 years plus. Democrats give us a decent candidate for governor and I’ll consider voting for him/her. I wish Charleston would get their heads out of their rectum and start with ousting that crook Harrell. Let their heads roll!

Reply
Bob Marshall November 23, 2012 at 10:28 pm

These secret groups had claims in the mailers that were untrue. They did this every week. All you had to do was go to the state’s pension plan web site. There you would see that what they changed was to allow state workers to opt out if they wanted to. Before 2012 Wes Hayes and others had to pay in, so Wes and everyone had to take advantage of the plan. Now those new employees entering the system can take advantage of the pension plan if they decide to. Then the ethics claims were easy to explain. The mailers kept claiming Wes let unethical politicians off with a letter, when only the Attorney General could do more. Most just got upset over the lying and called for a Wes Hayes sign to be placed in their yards. The mailers most likely helped Wes instead of hurting him. They clearly lied and this made Joe Thompson look like a liar. A fool and his money are soon parted.

Reply
hhuuhh?? November 24, 2012 at 10:34 am

What do the victories of Martin and Hayes tell you, Will? Do you think it means the majority of their voters agree, or can live with their positions and how they serve? What else could it be?

Neither of those candidates is “right” enough for your Libertarian branch of the GOP. But, your branch of the GOP is a fringe, like the Christian Right is a fringe. I bet you tend to forget and deny that, living in your “conservative” bubble.

For example, per what I read in a recent WaPo religion piece by a couple of Christian Conservatives, the Christian Right was about 25% of the voters 2 weeks ago out of the roughly 50% of eligible voters who voted. That means the Christian Right is a small part of the eligible voter population. They think they are Nixon’s Silent Majority all over again. They are not. Libertarians are definitely in the single digits from what we see of their vote results.

Minority fringes of a minority party. Why is that so difficult to grasp when the numbers are so clear? Like it or not, by virtue of winning the most votes, Martin and Hayes are mainstream SC Republicans from their districts on opposite sides of the state. And, you and Howie and the Kochs are not. Although the Kochs and Howie think their Cato inspired money can overcome the actual numbers of voters. I hope they blow every dime they have.

I wish you Libertarians had the balls to run as Libertarians and win or lose based on your own ideas, rather than worm your way into a once GOP and destroy it the way that you have…along with the Christian Right. But, the GOP made the deal with you devils, so I guess it’s gotten what it deserved.

Reply
@BozMartin November 24, 2012 at 11:07 am

I don’t think anyone’s ever called Sic a devil that he was not slipping the bone to. Does Mrs. Sic know about your affair?

Reply
? November 24, 2012 at 10:22 pm

The GOP has no one to blame but itself. What group pray tell do you think you can pick up to “win” with or without the Libertarians? lol….Libertarian scapegoats eh? Sure.

Reply
Recovering Lobbyist November 24, 2012 at 11:24 am

Two points:

“left leaning” is a matter of perspective. If you are a right-winger, everyone else looks like a leftie to you.

The State has an agenda. I don’t Lways know what it is. Doesn’t that make their agenda secretive?

Reply
Jan November 26, 2012 at 1:03 pm

No one should have the right to make anonymous donations to a politician or to support a politician or a political party. You have the right to make contributions, but not for your contributions and expenditures to be secret. All contributions and expenditures designed to influence elections should public, and in the the case of Corporate Contributions, the names of the officers, directors, and primary shareholders should of the corporate contributor should be identified, along with what the company does and what government agencies are involved in regulating the industries it is involved in.

In the case of PACs and Super PACs all persons contributing should be identified along with the amount they contributed.

I wholeheartedly support full transparency when it comes to money and politics. I fully disagree with Citizens United. I favor bringing back the fairness doctrine.

Reply
EJB November 26, 2012 at 1:20 pm

I support the anonymous donors in the “secret” groups, whether I agree with them or not, but what amazes me is that a number of folks in these posts seem to be arguing against it while they use pseudonyms to make their points (???). These people have to remain secret or they have no voice. If they are business people their companies can suffer and they would fall on financial hardship just for expressing an opinion. This past election saw much of this with the Democrats and their supporters like MoveOn.org working diligently to find the supporters of conservatives and create commercials with some of the most awful things about those people to shut them up. They would not refute the argument; they attacked the messenger in a horrible fashion. I can’t be hurt for speaking my mind; I’m a lowly worker, good at what I do and inconsequential to the big picture but some of these people would be voiceless without this secrecy. Plus the message they have wouldn’t get out. If their message is faulty, to whomever’s constituents, the message will all flat. Katrina Shealy was helped greatly but it was Knotts’ buffoonish attitude that ultimately sunk him but Shealy needed the help. Harrell won regardless, that’s the way it goes. But to force a segment of the population, even out of state, into silence just because they have the money to get their message out and heard is wrong. Plus this sword cuts both ways.

Reply
? November 26, 2012 at 2:09 pm

You are absolutely right, kudos to you. Anytime you see people wanting to out the “anonymous” you can assure it is for nefarious purposes.

Not only is it a barrier to free speech, it’s indicative to repressive society.

There’s a reason the founders corresponded with aliases, and it wasn’t because they were trying to be cute.

Reply
Jan November 26, 2012 at 2:39 pm

You have got to be kidding! Who is spending money to influence an election is relevant information to the electorate. As an individual the very wealthy have the same rights as the rest of us. They can blog, they can post anonymously on sites like this, they can write letters to the editor if the paper will publish them, etc. But, they know that has no material affect on the election. They want to use their money to influence the election for their benefit and they want to do that without repercussion.

But when they start wielding their monetary power to give themselves more power than the the average Joe on the street, they give up their right to anonymity.

Otherwise we become a nation of one dollar one vote.

It is amazing to me people feel they have no right to know who is giving money to the politicians who will represent them. The right to buy elections and freedom of speech are not the same things. You have the right to speak and the right to speak anonymously. You do not have the right to spend money to influence elections anonymously.

You seem to have no problem with anonymous smear campaigns against politicians.

In the recent election is was very relevant to me that the school voucher proponents were funding attack ads against politicians unrelated to school vouchers in an attempt to get them out of office so they would have a better shot at state money for SC’s worst in the nation private schools. I think they should have to say who they are.

Reply
? November 26, 2012 at 2:45 pm

“Otherwise we become a nation of one dollar one vote.”

lol…we already have this. It’s right out in the open in most cases too.

Come on Jan, wake up. The only reason pols that were “attacked”(with the truth?) want to know who did it is for retribution.

Don’t be naive.

Ultimately the real solution is taking back all the power we’ve given them. I doubt I’ll see that in my liftime, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

Reply
Jan November 26, 2012 at 2:56 pm

BS . If we have one dollar one vote, its time to fight back, and end that system. Eliminating anonymous donations to and ads for and against politicians is part of that process. This money is largely no different than a bribe.

Attacking with the truth?? Whose truth?? The identity of those sponsoring attack ads is relevant to the credibility I give to those ads. Should there be retribution by a politician because someone exercised political speech? No. Should retribution by a politician be illegal? Yes.

Should I have the right to not do business with a person I believe is attempting to influance the election with money. Yes. Should I have the right to know who is giving money to or in support of the people who will represent me and what they expect in return? Hell, yes!!

Reply
Jan November 26, 2012 at 3:01 pm

By the way, as far as private citizens being subject to attack ads because of the money the spend; they have slander and defamation laws to protect them. Politicians have no such protection. They must defend themselves, and they should not have to defend themselves against attack ads by anonymous. Especially when those ads would be given no credence if people knew who was funding them.

Reply
Jan November 26, 2012 at 3:02 pm

Excuse me “attack ads by anonymous donors, trying to hide their real agenda.”

Reply
EJB November 26, 2012 at 3:59 pm

Jan

You point up one very good reason why these need to be allowed when you stated “they can write letters to the editor if the paper will publish them, etc” and many times if its against what the paper wants they don’t print it, silencing of dissent. Next, who gets to decide “when they start wielding their monetary power to give themselves more power than the the average Joe on the street”? I would wager it would be the ones in power, again, silencing dissent. This is a double edge sword. As I want my side to be anonymous I agree that dissenting opinion has the same benefit. There is no lopsided advantage here and as far as “slander and defamation laws to protect them” that too is fallacious, many of these people when they join these debates are deemed to be in the “public” eye and seldom have benefit of such laws, look at Sarah Palin and the constant ruinous attacks she endured with NONE of it true, all the false ethics investigations (17) of which all were found baseless.

To think as you do is to want something that will never be and sticking your head in the sand won’t make it be. I’ve given you examples where all this out of state money, all this great amount of money didn’t necessarily help and one case where it did help but wasn’t the deciding factor, other than giving advertising people a bunch more money in what has to have been an otherwise lean year it hasn’t really done all that much. You can choose to ignore advertisement from groups that don’t identify themselves, anybody can and some do but stopping these groups from speaking is totalitarian and better suited to dictatorships.

Reply
? November 26, 2012 at 4:03 pm

Yep, what EJB said. Caveat Emptor…everything is incumbent on the voter to sort out.(yet another reason that stupid people shouldn’t be allowed to vote, but I digress…in lieu of that it should at least be restricted to those paying the bills)

“BS . If we have one dollar one vote, its time to fight back, and end that system.”

If you look fairly at everything as a whole it’s with us and has been for some time. As Mencken noted:

“Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.”

Reply
Jan November 26, 2012 at 5:35 pm

EJB, People who speak out do not lose the protection of slander and defamation laws until the become public figures. Its actually hard to become a pubic figure. You have to seek it out and typically you have benefited from your notoriety. Otherwise, you are free to voice your opinions and not become a public figure. Especially if you do so anonymously. Sarah Palin is a politician. She has no protection and once you run for an office as high as the office she ran for you can never get that protection back. Generally once a politician always a politician.

As for “when they start wielding their monetary power to give themselves more power than the the average Joe on the street”? That is an easy one. When they start spending money to influence an election. That is when they should lose their right to anonymity.

My right to know who is giving money and support to the people who will represent me and what they expect in return for that money and support is fundamental to a free society and necessary to prevent government corruption. How can I trust a politician supported by a person or persons whose position I vehemently oppose. Why don’t I have the right to know that a person I may support with my vote is receiving money from groups whose positions I oppose. If for example I am a union member, don’t I have the right to know a politician is receiving thousands of dollars from corporations fighting unions? If I am anti-abortion, don’t I have the right to know a politician is receiving thousands of dollars of support from abortion doctors.

Would I have the right to know if the AG of my state is receiving millions of dollars in ads paid for by the head of a Mexican drug cartel?

I do not agree with ?, that we already have a government were one dollar equal one vote. I think if we did this last election would have been very different. That does not mean that people did not try to buy this election; they did, and they wanted to do it anonymously. Mainly because Wall Street types who received billions of dollars in taxpayer bail outs did not want people to see them fighting to maintain their 14% effective tax rate. They failed, but not for lack of trying and if we don’t stop this now, sooner or later they will succeed and we will become a plutocracy.

I simply do not believe people have a right to use money to influence an election anonymously. That leads to corruption and bribery, not honest dissent. No one is silencing dissent. But when you speak with money, you should lose your anonymity.

Reply
? November 26, 2012 at 6:04 pm

*Mainly because Wall Street types who received billions of dollars in taxpayer bail outs did not want people to see them fighting to maintain their 14% effective tax rate. They failed, but not for lack of trying and if we don’t stop this now, sooner or later they will succeed and we will become a plutocracy.*

We ARE a plutocracy. Also, the rich are not getting their taxes raised substantially…it is the middle class. Mark my words. What you guys are begging for is going to fall on your own heads and the rich will side step most of it:

economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/11/neocon-speaks-truth-one-tax-that-is.html

gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-master-of-tax-avoidance.html

Buffett is laughting at all of you. It is sad.

You know who else is laughing? George Soros. He funds all the leftie groups telling everyone not to buy gold…and what is he doing behind the scenes? BUYING HUGE AMOUNTS OF GOLD.

lol…really…you guys are just as bad as the GOPers voting for *limtd govt* types.

You are all your own worst enemies. You get what you deserve.

Reply
Jan November 26, 2012 at 6:14 pm

This is not a lefty proposal. Until last year The Republican Party supported transparency. This year they were paid to abandon that position.

This is common sense. We are not a Plutocracy yet, but we are getting there. This has nothing to do with Soros or Buffet. It has nothing to do with taxation.

This is about a citizens right to know who is paying money to the person he or she is expecting to represent him or her in government. It is relevant to the vote. It is necessary information for a person to make an informed decision on who to vote for. It is necessary information if the common person is to defend himself from corrupt government officials and those who would bribe them.

Reply
? November 26, 2012 at 6:47 pm

*We are not a Plutocracy yet, but we are getting there. This has nothing to do with Soros or Buffet. It has nothing to do with taxation.*

Yes, it does. This is what you wrote:

*That does not mean that people did not try to buy this election; they did, and they wanted to do it anonymously.*

You want to sacrifice privacy on the altar of *honest govt* when we do not have it. We have open manipulators with big power(Buffett, Soros, Kochs) manipulating behind the scenes in big ways…yet you bitch about *anonymous* manipulations while the biggest and worst do it out in the open.

Unbelievable.

Reply

Leave a Comment