South Carolina in April

As everybody knows by this point the first Democratic Debate of the 2008 Primary season was last Thursday in Orangeburg, SC. The debate was one of several opportunities the Democratic Candidates had to show their stuff for the early primary state. I had the fantastic opportunity to go to SC and volunteer with the John Edwards campaign Thursday and Friday, so I wanted to share a little of my experience with you guys.

We arrived on Thursday to what can only be described as a carnival-like experience. As we drove in to Orangeburg we immediately spotted the large and unmistakable campaign signs (in my hometown we complain when they go up two months before the election). The wait staff at the local Waffle House seemed unimpressed by the goings on and just hoped to pick up some extra customers. I had suspected that only real political junkies would be excited about the election this far out.

Once we arrived at the SC State campus the carnival atmosphere increased tenfold. Campaigns had tents for volunteer check-in and media vans were everywhere. This scene was nothing compared to what we found in the middle of the campus. There were big satellite trucks, stages for live shows, reporters and anchors everywhere. People all over the campus were wearing the shirts for their favorite “team” and would start calling out to the other side as we walked through the streets. We made our way to the official area for candidate drop-off and visibility. There is no doubt that the Edwards campaign and Obama campaign had worked hard at putting the signs up, but Obama was clearly the sign usage champion. I would hate to know what the Obama campaign spent on those signs that were, in the end, never seen by anyone except those there for visibility.

Next, we went to greet Elizabeth Edwards as she arrived for her Hardball interview. She seemed truly delighted to have a crowd meet her at the door. As always, she was incredibly gracious and fun to see. We followed her over to the stage and managed to get some space to show our JE support. There were a lot of Obama and Hillary supporters at the Hardball interview, but they did not show the enthusiasm for their candidate that the Edwards group showed. Obama’s group was close, but Hillary’s crowd just stayed very quiet for the most part. The most telling part of the interview was when Chris Matthews asked the crowd who planned to vote and everybody screamed, then Elizabeth asked how many were registered and only a small portion responded in the positive.

After the interview we went back to the visibility area to greet Senator Edwards. He was glad to see us and clearly in the “zone” getting ready for the debate. Speaking of the debate, I hardly saw any of it. By the time we got back to our tent and had dinner the debate was beginning. I had a ticket for the simulcast party but it was hot in the building and hard to see the screen. I went back outside and watched on the big screen at the Edwards tent. We were glad to see him be thoughtful in his answers, but the opponents seem to think pausing before an answer to think is a weakness. I guess that is how we got into this war.

Friday, was much more laid back and fun. SC was hosting a Jefferson-Jackson dinner and the Edwards campaign hosted a party across the street beforehand. All of the Edwards supporters were in one location and traveled together to the JJ Dinner. We were led down the street by the Edwards’ then a drum line. We marched as a group into the convention center with a megaphone leading the charge. We definitely picked up crowd and media attention with our efforts.

We made the same entrance into the Clyburn Fish Fry. For those not from SC, Congressman Clyburn has a huge Fish Fry every year. It is the political event in SC. The Edwards folks met early to do visibility on the street (we were very well received). When the candidate arrived we made our drum line-escorted trip into the building. It was like the crowd parted for us just to see what was coming. It was one of the most well planned events of any campaign I have ever been a part of. The Edwards campaign is often overshadowed in the media by the star power of Hillary and the newness of Obama. This was JE’s chance to show everybody he is still a strong player. Congratulations to the campaign advance and volunteer teams for pulling off an amazing event.

Cross posted at BlueNC.

Karl Rove is right

WNCNN crack reporters got this exclusive footage of Karl Rove's appearance before 11th District Republicans Saturday in Henderson County. Click and listen to him explain how Republicans can take back Congress and return to the White House in 2008.

It's entirely possible for you to shape the outcome of this contest by what you do in the months between now and 2008.

Guess what, folks. He's right.

Pat says he's now free to vote his conscience?

Why now? Because he's in the minority

I kid you not. He calls the burden of being in the majority an anchor!

From Anglico at BlueNC:

I missed this story last week, an interesting analysis of how Republicans in the US House of Representatives are feeling "freedom" to vote their consciences now that they're no longer in the majority. Isn't that something? Grown men and women flat out admitting that they haven't been voting with personal integrity for the past six years because they're afraid of @$$holes like Tom Delay and Karl Rove. Disgustible.

Anyway, what does this have to do with North Carolina? Well, not surprisingly, one of the hypocritical Republicans the reporter interviewed is our own little Pat McHenry, who had this choice comment [in the Washington Post]:

"As a junior member, there is a certain amount of liberation in the minority. You have a greater freedom of action, not just in private but in public," said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., another floor warrior. "When you are in the majority, you have a line to toe, and that can be a heavy burden. It's more like an anchor than a line."

Best debate coverage: Comedy

From Fliss, who watched while hosting the usual Thursday night crowd at Asheville's Drinking Liberally:

Now, these were not debates as I understand the term; they were more like a game show or a panel discussion or a really short interview with lots of people, but it was interesting all the same .
. . .
The thing is, at the last election the stupid Dems chickened out and refused to nominate anyone who they thought was in the least confrontational or controversial or anything, really, but bland and annoying and wishy washy. They said someone angry and tough, like Dean, or visionary and smart, like Kucinich, couldn't get elected and I went along with them because I thought they had a handle on this thing called realpolitik which I, a humble dreamer who is only even interested in politics in occasional spurts, do not. Well, fuck that.
. . .
I'm not going along anymore. I want someone angry. I want someone controversial and pissed off who's not afraid to alienate people and ignore his handlers and speak his mind. Not a slick politician like John "Did I Mention That Daddy was a Millworker" Edwards or a tough politician like Hilary "Pearl Collar = Bad, Bad Fashion Choice" Clinton or Barack "I really like him but I don't think he's ready for the presidency just yet" Obama or Whatsisname "Did he really just say that if he'd been in charge at the Bay of Pigs he'd have nuked Cuba? He didn't really just say that, did he? Holy Shit." Richardson or any of the other old party hacks like Dodd, or, for gods' sake, Biden. Joe? Earth to Joe Biden? The original election jokes about you weren't funny when I was in high school, Joe. That was a loooong time ago. This is not the Academy Awards. No one is going to give you a lifetime achievement award for running in every fucking primary since the Taft administration. Give it up. Go back to Delaware and drink yourself to death like a good hack, okay?

Best debate coverage: Drama

And the winner is:

The blogger known as "lcloud," who posted this analysis at her homeblog, Maia Pinion, but it originated as a comment on BlueNC.

She called the debate

psycho drama more than anything else. It certainly wasn't 'debate' by any stretch of the imagination. Each candidate had roles to play.

Here are the highlights:

Gravel spewed out our anger, bellowing fury over the last 6 years of inept government, and in particular the last 5 years of improper, mishandled war . . ."

Kucinich . . . represented conscience, believing that all would be well if we just followed the Constitution, played nice, and ate our veggies . . .

Richardson reminded me of our teenage selves - desperate to be heard, and to make a point, and to score points. (. . . I thought maybe it wasn't him, and that they had already gotten Horatio Sanz to play him.)

Edwards represented the part of the self/society that doesn't always stand out, doesn't always make noise, but usually knows what's right, and does what's right, not because it will be noticed, but because it's right.

Dodd represented the middle manager in all of us that believes we could do a better job than the boss, if we'd only get a chance.

Biden, ah Biden. He is the showman, the ultimate politician. Is that good or bad? Only your subconscious knows for sure.

Obama is the part of us who looks for a better way. We all do, because hell, we've all got a little Gravel in us.

Clinton represented the smart kid; the one who has always gotten straight A's, without studying. She's memorized most of the answers already, so she's pretty sure she can ace this test, too.

McHenry to appear at bogus non-profit

Giuliani, Dole, Burr, Shuler expected

at Civitas Raleigh event

McHenry is one of many elected officials whose presence legitimizes a self-described conservative group known for its partisan activities that violate federal rules for 501(c)3 tax exempt organizations. Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani is expected, as well as senators Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr.

Federal 501(c)3 tax exempt organizations are not allowed to participate in lobbying or partisan activity.

Yet, several who have attended Civitas events agree that the organization leaders don't even try to hide it's partisan political goals. According to one attendee:

At a 2006 Civitas workshop, subjects included how to recruit Republican candidates, how to run Republican campaigns, as well as talking points against the current North Carolina Democratic administration. Civitas President Jack Hawke said he hoped the training would give Republicans "a better understanding of what we're up against." He then joked, "But, of course, we're a nonpartisan organization. Wink. Wink."

11th District Congressional representative (and Democrat) Heath Shuler's appearance is even harder to explain. Here's what Screwy Hoolie reported that Shuler spokesman, Andrew Whalen has said:

“Generally, the idea behind it is that as Democrats we must speak to all people whether we agree with them or not. We can change no minds if we don’t make our case. As I said on the phone when you mentioned the Republican “Machine,” us standing across the street and railing against the machine does nothing, but by crossing the street we can have an effect on that machine. If there is one young person there whose mind opens up after hearing Congressman Shuler speak, we’ve had an important effect.

The problem with Shuler's appearance: we wish he would appear before law-abiding conservatives. We'd love for him to "open minds up" without providing cover for an organization clearly violating federal tax laws.

Dalton, Clary, Kiser mostly funded from non-constituents

State legislators Walter Dalton, Debbie Clary, and Joe Kiser get 73 percent of campaign funds from outside their districts.

Average from inside: $310. Average from outside: $1,148.

That means when an issue you care about comes up (like the current mental health funding crisis), you need to let them know that you expect them to represent YOU and not some group of people who don't live here.

Here's the story, from the INSIDER:

A report from liberal policy group NC PIRG found that 10 of the more powerful state legislators collected, on average, 73 percent of their campaign contributions from sources outside their districts. The report examined the out-of-district fund-raising during the 2006 election cycle by top appropriations chairs and minority leaders -- Reps. Bill Owens, D-Pasquotank; Jim Crawford, D-Granville; Joe Kiser, R-Lincoln; Beverly Earle, D-Mecklenburg; and Debbie Clary, R-Cleveland; and Sens. Phil Berger, R-Rockingham; Kay Hagan, D-Guilford; Linda Garrou, D-Forsyth; Walter Dalton, D-Rutherford; Tom Apodaca, R-Buncombe.

Among the 10, the report found that the average in-district contribution was $310, while the out-of-district contribution was $1,148. Many of the out-of-district contributions came from political action committees. Rob Thompson of NC PIRG said the out-of-district contribution undermine the influence of voters within the district. The group is advocating public financing of legislative campaigns. Thompson acknowledged that the report did not take into account the amount of contributions redistributed by the candidates to other candidates in other legislative districts. That practice is typical of legislators in leadership positions like those selected for the study.(THE INSIDER, 4/26/07).

They get this money because they are in influential positions. If their seats are safe, then they can pass their money on to other legislators, gaining influence with them. That's why it's so important that we keep track of what they are doing. And that we let them know we are keeping track . . .