Nikki Haley and Will Folks' affair, another example of sex crazy SC Politics

Talk about a shot, literally, heard around the world. It was barely any time after Will Folks issued a statement this morning acknowledging an "inappropriate physical relationship" with Republican legislator and gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley before it was picked up by many outlets, first local, and then regional and finally national with various ideological commentary along the way from both the left and especially the right.

Of course, Will Folks being Will Folks -- his outfit is keeping track of it.

So far the most even keeled analysis is from Michael Dougherty writing for The American Conservative:

South Carolina gubernatorial candidate, Nikki Haley probably had an affair with political blogger, gadfly, and operative Will Folks – who is a one man clearinghouse for Palmetto state rumors. Folksposted this morning that he once had an “inappropriate physical relationship” with the very attractive, and recently-favored Haley. Haley denies it.

I’m told that the affair occurred in 2008 when Folks was working with Haley on her Congressional re-election campaign. Haley was married at the time.

Folks is a former spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford who left after several personal fights and wild political scandals. (He was a useful source in my profile of Gov. Sanford last year.) His reputation since leaving the governor’s office has only increased. He has become South Carolina’s essential political blogger.

In fact, Folks is like the Anna Wintour of South Carolina politics, generally unknown to the larger public, but within the right circles, revered and feared. He is so plugged-in that most political stories in South Carolina appear on his blog before they make the daily papers. I believe he remains a confidential source of advice and comment for Governor Sanford.

At first, I thought that Folks may be pulling his largest stunt ever. Just knowing his character, I believed that he was parodying the style of “affair disclosures.” Also, there is the timing; the primary will be June 8. But I now believe, after speaking with a few South Carolina sources, that Folks had a lawyer go over these words and that he feels genuinely threatened.

After alleging that there is a conspiracy to take down Haley and himself through a by a thousand political cuts, Folks justifies the disclosure by saying, “I refuse to have someone hold the political equivalent of a switch-blade in front of my face and just sit there and watch as they cut me to pieces.” That sounds like Folks.

In judging the veracity of Folks’ admission, it should be noted that Columbia, South Carolina is one of the most treacherous, gossiping, and self-obsessed political capitals on earth. Everyone there talks, and whispers about an affair between Haley and Folks are nearly a year old at this point. Political consultants were wondering two years ago why Haley’s car was so often seen in front of Folks’ home.

Corey Hutchins, a whip-smart, and well-sourced reporter for the Columbia-based alt-weekly, Free Times, reports that Folks admitted to the affair almost a year ago. If true, this would put to rest the defense that these rumors are only coming out because the primary is in two weeks. The AP, the Free Press and other South Carolina sources have been working on this story for over a month, apparently badgering Folks.

Some have speculated that, despite his prior support and work for Haley, Folks is acting out against her social conservatism and her association with Jenny Sanford, whom Folks has battled with since the early days of Gov. Sanford’s first gubernatorial campaign.

That part is true. Folks isn’t exactly Palinesque on the social issues. He writes on his site: “On social issues, we are primarily libertarians but readily admit that Aaron Sorkin and Annie Savoy have corrupted our good girl, Calvinist upbringings.” But there are good reasons to believe his prior (and continuing) support of her candidacy isn’t fake.

Despite his differences with Jenny (and Mark) Sanford, if the Sanford’s are behind a candidate, Folks probably is too. He is a fiscally conservative, and libertarian leaning the type that is coming out to support Haley all cycle. He has worked with her before. And so it is hard not to take this morning’s admission as anything other than genuine.

If this turns out to be true, and I think it will, the affair will be a black mark not only on Haley’s promising campaign, but on Jenny Sanford who is about to launch a book-tour, and Sarah Palin who seems determined to go to the mat for Haley. Unless I’m mistaken it would also be one of the first great adultery scandals for a female politician in the United States.

Mr. Dougherty describes the nature of Columbia to a tee, and to really understand it you have to know how incredibly incestuous and internecine the political class is. When folks recognize and call this entire situation Byzantine, it's really an understatement. In South Carolina even an admission of "truth" by a person as deep in it as Folks has been met with further rumormongering and spin.

For example, by late afternoon a common trope in political circles, that was whispered at the onset this morning, is that Folks was paid off by one of his competitor consultants, Haley even said as much in an interview given this afternoon on WVOC - a right wing radio station in Columbia.

These allegations are just yet another in a string of embarrassments for South Carolina politicians.

It all started with the fall from grace of Governor Mark Sanford, from there it's spiraled out of control.

First we had the Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer proffering up a preemptive defense against the perennial rumors that he's gay, while not addressing the other rumors that he's generally just creepy when he's gawking over the bevy of extremely young women who keep him company in most non business public settings, although I suppose they go hand in hand.

Then there was the romantic imbroglio between Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom and Republican candidate for State Superintendent of Education Kelly Payne.

This was followed up by essentially an oppo-dump by Wes Wolfe on Republican candidate for State Treasurer Curtis Loftis that included storming public court records and accusations of homosexuality and herpes.

Then there was Lindsey Graham being told to "come out" by Tea Party activists rallying against his moderate position on Immigration Reform.

And flying under the radar, being overshadowed by the current scandal, are the rumors that Will Folks posted concerning Republican gubernatorial candidate, and Haley opponent, Gresham Barrett and alleged improprieties he had with a staffer.

And we're not even past the primaries yet....

Election Day Open Thread, Columbia edition

As the old saying goes vote early and vote often.

Polls open at 7am in Columbia, and close at 7pm. Check the State here for a map of polling places. We're voting for Mayor, one at-large member, and districts 1 & 4. The District 2 election is on hold for voting rights violation -- which considering the history of the voting rights act and the persons who are responsible for the violation is ironic.

What's your experience at the polls today. Who are you voting for? See any problems? It's an open thread.

Healthcare, Abortion, individual liberties, and going forward

Protesting against HCR and BHO. Photo: Astrid Riecken/Getty Images

It's been pretty quiet around these parts as I've been thinking about the recent Health care reform law that was signed by President Obama. After more than a year of debates that from the beginning were wildly uncivil and filled with smoke and mirrors the first step of reform has been completed - but the job is far from done.

In the end beyond death panels the two biggest concerns were the supposed loss of liberty with the notion that this is a healthcare take over (which persists in the postmortem of the bill passing) and that this law now somehow expands federal funding of abortion.

The first concern, which is the nebulous argument of the "loss of liberty" is even more nuanced than that about abortion. Many anti-reformist say that this is a Government Takeover of Healthcare, and say that the federal government can't mandate folks buy a private product.

This actually caused a flame war on the facebooks as I was arguing in favor of the mandate on a friend's mother's wall. (My friend's mother supports reform as well).

Current Jurisprudence actually lends to the credibility of the Federal Government not only mandating the purchase of insurance through the commerce clause but taxing individuals for not purchasing it vis - a -vis Congress' constitutional authority to levy a tax, fines, fees, what have you and this particular enumerated power is very broad. I'm not going to spell out all the specifics but through the magic of the internet provide you a link to a .pdf file from Congressional Research Service on the constitutionality of mandates. Enjoy. It's interesting to note that most folks hemming and hawing about loss of personal liberties in the healthcare debates were very quiet and supportive, and still are, of the Patriot act and all the personal liberties it abridged.

And to date I've yet to find anyone who can explain to me how a government telling you to purchase a private product is a takeover of that industry. Anyone care to explain that one?

Now for... abortion. I'm pro life -- any many ways probably more pro-life than my coreligionists, but that can be explained later. The Senate language for community health centers did not provide language which excludes abortion. In every other instance in the senate bill of funding for specific healthcare programs exclusionary language was used. Many on the far right of the pro - life movement pounced on this one line exclusion and the snow ball effect ensued.

In the end this caused a nasty divide pitting the USCCB against a bunch of Nuns and the CHA.

Who's right.

Well many would argue that it's the Bishops, not just because they're bishops, but because they're right. For many Catholics it's a simple matter of obedience, the Bishops' lawyers (who increasingly come from far right blindly ideological organizations) wouldn't advise the Bishops wrongly, and the Bishops wouldn't promulgate their decision based on false or misconstrued information so they must be right... right.

On the other hand you have the nuns who have been driving as far left as they can since the SVC and who are more likely to be seen escorting women to abortion clinics than praying for them or offering them the assistance they would need in prenatal care, while a foil to the Bishops and a P.R. boon for left leaning catholics, substantively because of such escort services don't have much credibility in this argument despite their best intentions and the great works they do helping the poor. And the Catholic Health Association ... well they're a hospital, and like other industries will suffer and benefit under reform, in this case hospitals and physicians will benefit more with federal subsidies so their support of the reform law has the appearance of impropriety.

Let's get one thing straight. All three groups, the Bishops, the Nuns, the hospitals -- wanted to see healthcare reform. All three don't want to see federal funding of abortion, and yet they devolved into a pissing match over the absence of one sentence regarding community healthcare, and then the fall out and recriminations over Bart Stupack getting an executive order reinforcing the language in the senate bill and reaffirming the Hyde amendment.

For my own part, while the E.O. was nice, the critics were right -- it was a piece of fluff. BUT it wasn't fluff because of the Obama is the most pro abortion meme - but because it's unnecessary, Hyde stands.

Simply put there was no abrogation of Hyde in the text of the bill. The mere absence of Hyde like language from the community health centers portion of the bill does not change the fact that funding for community health centers, while now being increased, still goes through HHS contra what Kathleen Parker argues today in the Post. From Mother Jones.

pro-life groups say the funding for the community health centers funding will be exempt from the Hyde Amendment because it's not being spent through the normal appropriations process. It’s true that these funds will reach the centers through a different legislative route, but it doesn’t matter. As Jost has explained in a detailed analysis (PDF), all of the community health clinic money is going to end up in the same "pot" at the Department of Health and Human Services. And, he writes, since all HHS funding “is subject to the Hyde Amendment, these funds cannot be used to pay for abortions."

Kathleen is right about one thing -- they Hyde Amendment is reupped annually on appropriations bills for HHS. But the Amendment applies to all funds at HHS, not just those appropriated at that one time in that one act, otherwise abortion access would already be possible with the subsequent bills that provide extend additional funding to HHS and it's programs.

The bill has passed, the only thing to do now is work on strengthening legislation to protect life and expand coverage while battling costs. Daivd Frum who has received more than his share of flak from the right of his party recognizes this and has come up with some common sense conservative steps going forward that will further reform the system. More and more conservatives are stepping up to bat against the Beck/Limbaugh Tea Party movement, and offering constructive critiques and ways forward. Personally I yearn for further enactments of the Wyden-Bennett proposals for reform, and yearn absolutely yearn for the day when the following four things happen: the employer based health care system is abolished, health insurance companies can sell plans across lines, health insurance companies exemption from anti-trust laws are ended, and when we end the abortion debate once and for all and some smart insurance types come up with an eye-med like company to cover all manner of 'reproductive health,' from birth control and IVF to elective abortions and gender reassignment surgeries.

The FCC must have been watching the happenings in SC

According the Huffington Post, the FCC is unveiling sweeping changes to America's National Broadband Plan. This was a key component of the Obama Administration's Recovery Act. It has the potential to effect more than 100 million households in the country and will increase the connectivity/download speeds to more than 100 megabits per second... that's really really fast.

In their efforts to modernize the plan though it looks like they are mimicking the efforts of South Carolina's legislature.

Over the past three years in South Carolina the legislature has looked for a way to sell off the excess bandwidth of the ETV system. One of the biggest concerns the republican dominated legislature faced was a belief that they must sell the bandwidth into the private market because otherwise it would be government intervention... you know the drill. The plan would have been quietly put through had it not been for the efforts of the Progressive Network and their executive director Brett Bursey. Their efforts though noble, were fruitless and the legislature sold off the bandwidth in two twenty year contracts valuing $143 million.

The two companies who were awarded the contract in October of 2009, Clearwire and BridgeMaxx, have no information about their plans for South Carolina's Broadband Spectrum available on their websites. Other than press releases dated from mid 2009 when the committee recommended the state make the deal with the two companies there's not been a peep.

Hopefully these two companies, who are poised to also reap the benefits of the proposed FCC changes, will be a bit more visible than they have been in the Palmetto State.

Filling out the Census

We got the 2010 Census form in the mail today. I decided to go ahead and fill it out and send it back in. I have an unusual affinity for filling out government documents and sending them in as quick as possible -- my taxes are always done by the first week of February.

I tingled in anticipation as I got to a certain question that listed my relationship to the owner of the house, my partner. We had planned to "gay bomb" the census. (I encourage all of my LGBT friends who live with their partners and consider themselves common law or officially married to do so)

And while our numbers won't be counted in the official tally of married couples, this will be the first census that recognizes us as a category of folks, according to CNN:

The 2010 census is the first that will report the numbers of same-sex couples who describe themselves as married, or more specifically, who use the terms husband and wife.

The number of same-sex couples who identify as married will be released separately from the national count on a state-by-state basis, according to Census Bureau reports.

Those couples will not be included in the official national count of married couples because the Census Bureau does not have time before April to change its editing processes -- which "recode" the answer of any person who says he or she is a spouse in a same-sex marriage to "unmarried partner."

So for now it's symbolic, but what a powerful symbol it'll be. I can't wait to see what the records in South Carolina indicate.

They've bought enough rope

The Financial Times has an interesting article on the Greek Crisis and how it's coming to America. It's worth a read and I'd encourage you to Check it out. The following though reminded me of an historical quote:

the Chinese have sharply reduced their purchases of Treasuries from around 47 per cent of new issuance in 2006 to 20 per cent in 2008 to an estimated 5 per cent last year. Small wonder Morgan Stanley assumes that 10-year yields will rise from around 3.5 per cent to 5.5 per cent this year. On a gross federal debt fast approaching $1,500bn, that implies up to $300bn of extra interest payments – and you get up there pretty quickly with the average maturity of the debt now below 50 months.

Know which quote I'm talking about? It's from Lenin. The Capitalist will sell us the rope with which we will hang them. As for the Chinese, well we know about our delicate relationship with them.

The article argues, almost convincingly, that the Keynesian free lunch does not really exist.

Deficits did not “save” us half so much as monetary policy – zero interest rates plus quantitative easing – did. First, the impact of government spending (the hallowed “multiplier”) has been much less than the proponents of stimulus hoped. Second, there is a good deal of “leakage” from open economies in a globalised world. Last, crucially, explosions of public debt incur bills that fall due much sooner than we expect

I said almost because what Mr. Ferguson fails to mention, and sadly probably on purpose, is that we've been deficit spending for the better part of the last decade. It's called two unfunded wars - which by the way is a foreign investment like international aide if you will... where you give and get nothing in return, the largest (unfunded) entitlement expansion since Medicare - which did nothing to actually address any real costs associated with senior medical care or the price of drugs. It was in fact a give away to the insurance industry. Oh yes and who can forget the tax breaks to correspond with these spending increases... hello!!! Spending increases, not cuts!! You cut taxes you cut spending there's a correlation folks.

$757 billion, the majority of which has yet to still be spent, is still a drop in the bucket compared to the profligate - orgiastic spending spree this country has been on for the last decade.

If we learned anything from OJ Simpson it's that you've got to believe the lie and it must become your truth, so it obviously is for Mr. Fergusun, who's no stranger to revisionism, and his framing of the current mess the world is in. Why after all, they say, should you let the truth come in the way of your smear.

But false premise aside the conclusion that Mr. Fergusun draws is for the most part right.

Explosions of public debt hurt economies in the following way, as numerous empirical studies have shown. By raising fears of default and/or currency depreciation ahead of actual inflation, they push up real interest rates. Higher real rates, in turn, act as drag on growth, especially when the private sector is also heavily indebted – as is the case in most western economies, not least the US.

This administration, unlike the last, shouldn't and can't afford to blithely believe that GDP will continue to grow at a pace constant with inflation. The fear of the Great Recession was real. The damaging spending that we've inflicted this past decade, along with the fear created by the recession has raised real interest rates and growth will probably be lower than expected.

We'll end with Mr. Fergusun who notes,

On reflection, it is appropriate that the fiscal crisis of the west has begun in Greece, the birthplace of western civilization. Soon it will cross the channel to Britain. But the key question is when that crisis will reach the last bastion of western power, on the other side of the Atlantic.

Waldo Lydecker whacks Joe Taylor, FITSNews

Waldo's got a great post up about how abysmally the current Commerce chief has performed at growing the SC economy, and has the most sound, and blunt, critique of this state's economic development strategies:

The fact remains, South Carolina is pursuing out of date strategies to attract companies that just want cheap workers to bolt things together. Screw the residents of the state: give BMW and Boeing land and tax breaks that will take decades to recover even as state services atrophy, look the other way when most of their workers are not real employees but contract workers (hello, BMW), and pray they don't pick up and leave when their factories are fully depreciated and they can get some other state to build them new ones.

Joe Taylor ought to resign in shame over the way he is willing to pimp the citizens of South Carolina. A 21st century economy is not one where your operating principle is to beg companies to come here on the promise you're willing to beggar your constituents' rights to access to redress when they are abused. In the new economy, workers' knowledge and ability to innovate is where the action lies. And they can, even under the Supreme Court's reactionary views, can go where they are most valued and life is most agreeable. Smart people don't migrate to low wage states.

In this century, companies that succeed- and stay- in SC are companies that can persuade their employees to want to live here and stay here. As long as South Carolina is perceived as a racist, reactionary, uniparty, head up its ass, homophobic, misogynist political/business culture, all you can be sure of is that the big, nameplate corporate recruits that enable politicos to declare victory and go home will stay here only as long as it suits them.

Both parties suffer from this mindset in South Carolina. The idea is, if we can bring in companies by throwing money, reforming tort and lowering taxes - then the expanded tax base will maintain the provided services. The fact is, until we invest in the necessary services in this state, educate our children properly, foster homegrown innovation then we'll be an attractive site for expansion, and relocation. We wouldn't have to throw as exorbitant incentives at out of state and international corporations. It'll take a whole lot of institutional reform for which the political will in South Carolina is completely non existent. Sure FITS News can harp about reform, and legislators may pay some election year lip service to it, but they know where their bread is buttered.

Bring on the Trains?

Today President Obama went with Vice President Biden to Tampa to announce an $8 billion dollar investment in Rail Infrastructure through the ARRA.

As many of you know, I love the idea of trains. I love how versatile, and efficient they are as an economic development engine as well as a mode for public transit. So you can imagine how happy I was to hear of the announcement today and the commitment by the President to funding the expansion of high speed rail by budgeting an additional $1 billion dollars every year for the next five years.

So what 31 States get a portion of the $8 billion dollar pie dolled out today? CNN said the approved projects are

• San Diego-Los Angeles-San Luis Obispo in California
• Oakland-Sacramento in California
• Portland-Eugene in Oregon
• Seattle-Portland in Washington and Oregon
• Chicago-St. Louis in Illinois and Missouri
• St. Louis-Kansas City in Missouri
• Minneapolis/St. Paul-Madison in Minnesota and Wisconsin
• Madison-Milwaukee in Wisconsin
• Milwaukee-Chicago in Wisconsin and Illinois
• Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati in Ohio
• Detroit/Pontiac-Chicago in Michigan, Indiana and Illinois
• Tampa-Orlando in Florida
• Raleigh-Charlotte in North Carolina
• Washington-Richmond in the District of Columbia and Virginia
• Raleigh-Richmond in North Carolina and Virginia
• New York City-Albany-Buffalo in New York
• New York City-Montreal in New York and Quebec, Canada
• Boston-New York-Washington in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and the District of Columbia
• Brunswick-Portland in Maine
• Philadelphia-Harrisburg-Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania
• Springfield-East Northfield in Massachusetts
• New Haven-Springfield in Connecticut and Massachusetts

Noticeably absent from the list are any rail projects in South Carolina, although North Carolina has two projects funded as does.... CANADA??!?!?!??

But what about South Carolina? The Charlanta mega region is one of the largest growing economic geographies in the nation, and it includes the upstate of South Carolina! Two years ago I blogged about a little noticed article in The Spartanburg Herald Journal about an effort by SC Public Railways and the Department of Commerce to re evaluate the rail systems in South Carolina, so what was determined?

Well much like the little noticed article in the Herald Journal the produced report, by Wilbur Smith and Associates, received just as little fanfare... actually none, though it contains some golden nuggets for rail enthusiasts and those interested in -- you know economic development, and, oh, job creation.

The report itself is available online in seven parts here (filed under "R") I'll link to the Executive Summary at the bottom of the post. One of the more interesting points from the report on my first glance was

12.1.2 Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor

Route costs for the Upstate line are estimated in a report from U.S. DOT’s Volpe Center at $1.2 to $1.4 billion. Based on 80 percent federal funding and half of the route lying in South Carolina, the state’s share would be approximately $140 million.

12.1.3 Commuter Rail

Charleston has applied to the State Infrastructure Bank for $206 million for capital costs. An active investigation of service between Columbia and Camden is ongoing. Capital costs were estimated at $80 million in a prior study.

I threw the Commuter Rail bit in as a tease, the meat and potatoes is that estimate for the High Speed Rail Corridor. If Obama is budgeting $1 billion every year over the next 5 years, which of the SC Congressional Delegation is going to stand up for our economic interest and push for funding of this vital corridor. And even if they do - will anyone in the General Assembly respond in kind? Rail. Economic Development. Jobs.

SC State Rail Plan Executive Summary

SC Reality TV

I'm not a huge fan of Adam Fogle, or his "Palmetto Scoop" never have been - never will be. But he does manage to get a decent story every now and then. Monday he reported that a reality TV show is probably looking to film in SC soon.

Apparently it's a new season of Oxygen's Bad Girls Club. All I have to say is -- has Joe Taylor heard about this? Per Fogle an ad on Craigslist is soliciting casting recruiters.

But if you want to see a reality show based in Columbia, SC you don't have to even turn on the TV -- just go to Drinking in the Morning where you'll see Aaron Johnson and Grant Robertson, owners of the F Stop in 5 points, doing truly unscripted programing. Seriously, hilarious stuff.

Speaking of Aaron and Grant they're running for Mayor and City Council respectively. What's really interesting is that Mr. Robertson has a fighting chance against incumbent Tamieka Isaac Devine. Devine has been hurt politically, as all incumbents have been, by revelations of the city's fiscal mismanagement and two personal financial scandals last year regarding improper loans through the Sumter Columbia Empowerment Zone.