Sticky Top Post

Howdy. We've moved from Cayce, but St. Elizabeth of South Rose Hill or Lizette de Waccamaw de Sud just don't do it for me.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

The Wrong Guy Won

Our incumbent Lieutenant Governor just won the run-off election--so he'll be on the ballot in November for re-election. This is the guy with the traffic and arrogance problems. He became sympathetic after surviving an airplane crash about a month ago.

"I voted for the man on the crutch," said C.A. Gatlin, 71, of Hanahan. "He's been a fellow that's been in the limelight. And even though he's been speeding and stuff like that, who else doesn't?" (The State)

Here's what else you'd know (1) if you lived here, (2) if you watched the main 11 PM newscast in this area and (3) you know something about the local correspondents.

My guess is that at least one of the local media expected the challenger to win. He'd done well in the initial primary (45% to incumbmet's 37%) and lots of folks were put off by the incumbent's behavior. So, WIS sends their "cuter" reporter to the challenger's campaign headquarters. They sent their "senior reporter" to the incumbent's party. They no doubt expected to open with eye candy at the upset winner's site.

We'll see what happens this Fall. I'm most concerned about the moron (IMHO) running for Treasurer.


Napoleon said...

I don't know much about Ravanel, but I did always wonder how he can claim to come form outside the political process. HE'S A RAVANEL. They were all born into the political process (and btw this isn't his first attempt at politics, so he can't really play the part of, oh I'm not a politician: then why did you run for senate)

Napoleon said...

Speeding aside, what are your negative about Andre?

I don't know much about him, but I do know that I'm a fan of lower property taxes. Something he and Gov. Sanford are soon to be providing us.

St. Elizabeth of Cayce said...


1. Congrats for seeing through the "aw shuck, folks, I'm just an outsider wantin' ta do sum good up thar in Klumbya" facade that Ravenel puts up. There's a bridge named for his dad, for pity's sake. I also worry about a developer running an office that deals with state contracts. Ravenel, I am sorry to admit, just doesn't strike me as bright enought to keep track of and avoid conflicts of interest.

Plus, one more commercial where he sez: "I can be advocate for..." would send me over the edge.

2. Andre, Andre, Andre. In him, I see little respect for the dignity of his office. Plenty of interest in the perks of the office (seen in his behavior during the speeding incidents, not just in the fact of speeding.) It's an intangible, but intangibles are the sorts of things that define one's character and fitness to serve.

3. Lowering property taxes: Sanford is an idealogue who won't vary from Libertarian principles. This can be frustrating to the Republicans who elected him and the mixed legislature with whom he should be trying to work.

--He hasn't learned the political values of compromise and patience and I don't know that he'll succeed in lowering taxes in a fair manner until he does.

--A state with a poorly educated populace and an inadequate industrial base doesn't need to skimp on or or cut public education. No one is going to open up a stellar independent school in Barnwell County--so school reforms can't be limited to vouchers to be used by kids in counties with access to better schools.

--The Pee Dee doesn't stop stagnating economically because the governor brings piglets to the capitol, or proposes, but doen't plan for, sale of Mental Health property.

--Huge parts of SC's budget go to federally mandated entitlements--Medicaid & Medicaire are two of the largest. This spending is fixed. I hear nothing from the Governor about how to maintain all of the other essential state services (public health, public order, emergency preparedness & response, etc.) in a budget that would be crippled by proposed tax cuts favoring the suburban voters of Lexington County & the Upstate who propelled him into office.

--Vetoing the entire state budget, rather than making meaningful cuts via the line-item veto, was a stunt that allowed him to appear to make a stand on "waste and corruption" (which he doesn't quantify.)

--The Sanford record does not show his willingness to govern (lead, inspire, manage, whatever meaning you give it.)

Sorry about the rant. Thanks for the question.

voted for Lovelace & Campbell.