When I wrote The School Board Election Quandary -- Part 2 I included my own recommendations. They are:
East Cooper -- Sarah Shad Johnson
West Ashley -- Paul H. Padron
I had not yet decided on the North Charleston race yet, so I am adding that here:
North Charleston -- Vivian Pettigrew
Also, as I said earlier, you are allowed to choose up to two candidates for the two vacant East Cooper seats. I prefer to choose one, as I believe in a close race choosing more than one candidate can take away from a first choice. Others disagree and want to use all allowable votes. If there were a gun to my head and I had to choose a second candidate for East Cooper (and, hey, this is South Carolina so it could happen...) I would choose Jake Rambo. But I really, really want to see Sarah Johnson on the school board, so I will only be voting for her in East Cooper. Up to you.
If you haven't voted yet -- and the big day is next Tuesday -- I hope this has helped.
If you have already voted, kudos. But don't stop now. Pass this information onto friends, family, coworkers, and help them get to the polls.
If there ever was a year we could see our candidates win, this is it. But every vote will matter.
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
Sunday, October 21, 2018
The School Board Election Quandary -- Part 2
They all pretty much say the same thing. They are all there for the kids. Of course, they all want to improve our schools. They all want safe schools, quality education for all our children.
The way they want to get there is the thing.
I wrote in Part 1 of The School Board Election Quandary about the increase in magnet/charter schools and the drain this causes on already limited public school resources. The nice way to say it is "choice" (which we all seem to like when it doesn't refer to women's reproductive rights) but what it really amounts to is privatization, because once you have a charter school, you need somebody to run it. Enter the charter school business, which is booming. You will hear from candidates about spending tax dollars responsibly, but when they promote what is euphemistically called "Achievement School Districts" they are taking responsibility away from local government and handing it over to those who are not bound by state and local rules. And when you are promoting "pro-business" and "public-private partnerships" you are handing over schools to those who are more mindful of the bottom line than the needs of our children.
There are groups here in the Lowcountry that are pro-charter (read, pro-business), and there are groups that promote true public education. I think one of the best guidelines for which school board candidates to support is by who these groups endorse.
The Charleston Chamber of Commerce PAC endorsements have all the right buzzwords, as does their statement of educational goals. It is only when you get to the very last paragraph that they tell you the PAC's real agenda:
The PAC’s mission is to evaluate and support candidates for local and state office who acknowledge, support and actively vote for pro-business policies and legislation.
Which should tell you all you need to know about their endorsements.
Charleston Coalition for Kids is a big player in this year's school board election. Members include some familiar faces, like Joe Riley, as well as Ben Navarro and Anita Zucker, the latter two who the Post & Courier describe as "among the wealthiest people in the state." Their slick promotional video shows mostly white men described as business leaders interspersed with African-Americans described as parents.
Let me just say that we all want our kids to have the best possible education. I can't blame parents for being attracted to the slick promises of corporate education in the guise of charter schools, schools that can be free of burdensome state regulation. But the sad fact is that too many charter schools shake free of those regulations in order to advance profit. And I can't say this often enough: they will be draining the public coffers while they do it.
It is important to note that both the Chamber of Commerce PAC and Charleston Coalition for Kids endorse the same four candidates: Darby, Green, Coats and Mack. What I also find interesting is that both groups are talking about the need for change, yet three of the four endorsements are incumbents. So, the group that is complaining about the path of Charleston County Schools is endorsing the same people that got us here.
On the other hand, there are organizations that are truly dedicated to improving education for all children. They support public schools, and they are aware that we have failing public schools because they have inadequate resources. They know that funneling tax dollars into specialized schools (magnets) and schools that do not have to adhere to state educational guidelines (charters) have drained public school resources even further than our politicians' craze for cutting taxes has done. They provide information and evaluations of candidates online.
The Quality Education Project (QEP) has been active in getting communities involved in advocating for better schools, and in community based research to help determine what is needed. They will be providing within a couple of days evaluations of the school board candidates, which will be invaluable.
The League of Women Voters (LWV) provides at Vote411.org a Voter's Guide which gives you a personalized ballot. You can click on a race, say, "Charleston County School Board East Cooper" and it will give you the candidates and lots of information for each one, including contact information.
And then there are the candidate Facebook pages and websites. It is often as easy as googling the name and scrolling to what is obviously the FB or website. Or you can go to Ballotpedia.org to get a sample ballot, from which you can get website info on a candidate.
That brings us to the voting process. A candidate must live in the district in which they run, but all of us in Charleston County can -- and should -- vote in each district. This year, we will be able to vote as follows:
East Cooper: Choose up to two candidates of the four who are running.
North Charleston: Choose one candidate of the three who are running.
West Ashley: Choose one candidate of the three who are running.
Now, this is important. My friends and I have given this a bit of thought. While you should vote for at least one candidate for each area, if you are allowed more than one vote but you really like one candidate, I believe that using additional votes dilutes your vote. In other words, if you vote for two, you will be essentially splitting the vote and taking a vote away from your favored candidate. Again, this is my take, and I will only be voting for one candidate in each area.
So, who to choose? You will need to make your own informed decisions, but as you know, I am not shy about endorsing a candidate that I believe in. So I will end with my endorsements, and encourage you to check out their websites and make your own decision.
East Cooper -- Sarah Shad Johnson
North Charleston -- I will be waiting to see the QEP evaluations to choose between Linda Mosley Lucas and Vivian Pettigrew. The best info I could find on both was at vote411.org, where you can compare candidates' responses to their questionnaire.
West Ashley -- Paul H. Padron
In conclusion...
I am most specifically making my choices based on each candidate's past involvement and experience in, and commitment to, public schools. While in 2018 our schools are compelled to work with business to some extent, it is really important that business is not running the schools. I want candidates who are not afraid to spend money where it is needed: teachers' salaries, student supplies (including technology and sports), and infrastructure. It is so important that we have strong board members who are willing to fight for a curriculum that is current in the sciences -- who knew we would have to be fighting for the sciences in 2018? We need a board that will support teachers who raise difficult questions in order to develop awareness and critical thinking skills. We need board members who understand how important arts and literature are in growing children into creative and empathic adults.
And we need a board that sets as its priorities not developing special schools, but is determined to make all schools excellent in Charleston County.
One last thing:
School board are the most confusing and muddied races of all. Some vote haphazardly, some not at all. It stands to reason that a united effort for a good candidate can make a difference.
If you found these two blog posts helpful, please pass them along. Spread the word and increase the chances of putting good, pro-public education people on Charleston's school board.
The way they want to get there is the thing.
I wrote in Part 1 of The School Board Election Quandary about the increase in magnet/charter schools and the drain this causes on already limited public school resources. The nice way to say it is "choice" (which we all seem to like when it doesn't refer to women's reproductive rights) but what it really amounts to is privatization, because once you have a charter school, you need somebody to run it. Enter the charter school business, which is booming. You will hear from candidates about spending tax dollars responsibly, but when they promote what is euphemistically called "Achievement School Districts" they are taking responsibility away from local government and handing it over to those who are not bound by state and local rules. And when you are promoting "pro-business" and "public-private partnerships" you are handing over schools to those who are more mindful of the bottom line than the needs of our children.
There are groups here in the Lowcountry that are pro-charter (read, pro-business), and there are groups that promote true public education. I think one of the best guidelines for which school board candidates to support is by who these groups endorse.
The Charleston Chamber of Commerce PAC endorsements have all the right buzzwords, as does their statement of educational goals. It is only when you get to the very last paragraph that they tell you the PAC's real agenda:
The PAC’s mission is to evaluate and support candidates for local and state office who acknowledge, support and actively vote for pro-business policies and legislation.
Which should tell you all you need to know about their endorsements.
Charleston Coalition for Kids is a big player in this year's school board election. Members include some familiar faces, like Joe Riley, as well as Ben Navarro and Anita Zucker, the latter two who the Post & Courier describe as "among the wealthiest people in the state." Their slick promotional video shows mostly white men described as business leaders interspersed with African-Americans described as parents.
Let me just say that we all want our kids to have the best possible education. I can't blame parents for being attracted to the slick promises of corporate education in the guise of charter schools, schools that can be free of burdensome state regulation. But the sad fact is that too many charter schools shake free of those regulations in order to advance profit. And I can't say this often enough: they will be draining the public coffers while they do it.
It is important to note that both the Chamber of Commerce PAC and Charleston Coalition for Kids endorse the same four candidates: Darby, Green, Coats and Mack. What I also find interesting is that both groups are talking about the need for change, yet three of the four endorsements are incumbents. So, the group that is complaining about the path of Charleston County Schools is endorsing the same people that got us here.
On the other hand, there are organizations that are truly dedicated to improving education for all children. They support public schools, and they are aware that we have failing public schools because they have inadequate resources. They know that funneling tax dollars into specialized schools (magnets) and schools that do not have to adhere to state educational guidelines (charters) have drained public school resources even further than our politicians' craze for cutting taxes has done. They provide information and evaluations of candidates online.
The Quality Education Project (QEP) has been active in getting communities involved in advocating for better schools, and in community based research to help determine what is needed. They will be providing within a couple of days evaluations of the school board candidates, which will be invaluable.
The League of Women Voters (LWV) provides at Vote411.org a Voter's Guide which gives you a personalized ballot. You can click on a race, say, "Charleston County School Board East Cooper" and it will give you the candidates and lots of information for each one, including contact information.
And then there are the candidate Facebook pages and websites. It is often as easy as googling the name and scrolling to what is obviously the FB or website. Or you can go to Ballotpedia.org to get a sample ballot, from which you can get website info on a candidate.
That brings us to the voting process. A candidate must live in the district in which they run, but all of us in Charleston County can -- and should -- vote in each district. This year, we will be able to vote as follows:
East Cooper: Choose up to two candidates of the four who are running.
North Charleston: Choose one candidate of the three who are running.
West Ashley: Choose one candidate of the three who are running.
Now, this is important. My friends and I have given this a bit of thought. While you should vote for at least one candidate for each area, if you are allowed more than one vote but you really like one candidate, I believe that using additional votes dilutes your vote. In other words, if you vote for two, you will be essentially splitting the vote and taking a vote away from your favored candidate. Again, this is my take, and I will only be voting for one candidate in each area.
So, who to choose? You will need to make your own informed decisions, but as you know, I am not shy about endorsing a candidate that I believe in. So I will end with my endorsements, and encourage you to check out their websites and make your own decision.
East Cooper -- Sarah Shad Johnson
North Charleston -- I will be waiting to see the QEP evaluations to choose between Linda Mosley Lucas and Vivian Pettigrew. The best info I could find on both was at vote411.org, where you can compare candidates' responses to their questionnaire.
West Ashley -- Paul H. Padron
In conclusion...
I am most specifically making my choices based on each candidate's past involvement and experience in, and commitment to, public schools. While in 2018 our schools are compelled to work with business to some extent, it is really important that business is not running the schools. I want candidates who are not afraid to spend money where it is needed: teachers' salaries, student supplies (including technology and sports), and infrastructure. It is so important that we have strong board members who are willing to fight for a curriculum that is current in the sciences -- who knew we would have to be fighting for the sciences in 2018? We need a board that will support teachers who raise difficult questions in order to develop awareness and critical thinking skills. We need board members who understand how important arts and literature are in growing children into creative and empathic adults.
And we need a board that sets as its priorities not developing special schools, but is determined to make all schools excellent in Charleston County.
One last thing:
School board are the most confusing and muddied races of all. Some vote haphazardly, some not at all. It stands to reason that a united effort for a good candidate can make a difference.
If you found these two blog posts helpful, please pass them along. Spread the word and increase the chances of putting good, pro-public education people on Charleston's school board.
Friday, October 19, 2018
The School Board Election Quandary - Part 1
If you don't have time to investigate those pesky school board elections, you aren't alone. I think too many of us (myself included) have gone into the voting booth embarrassed that we don't have a clue who the candidates are or what they stand for. We choose our candidates as though we are playing Pin the Tail on the Donkey.
And we pretty much end up voting for candidates whose names are most familiar, for some reason we can't quite grasp. The reason ends up being the person with the most signs, or the biggest signs, or the nicest slogan, or the nicest name. We maybe vote for the incumbent, just because their name is most familiar.
Really, there just aren't enough hours in the day. And yet, these races are the ones that turn out to be most critical in our day-to-day lives. They affect not just what is taught in our schools, but the qualifications of who does the teaching, the size of the classes, and the condition of the buildings our kids are taught in.
To make matters worse on election day, we have a system that flummoxed me for years, wherein we all vote for candidates from each district regardless of where we live, and sometimes we vote for one candidate in a district, and other times we vote for more than one. I would not be surprised if some of us just skip over districts we don't reside in because we don't think we really are supposed to be voting for those candidates. It is just befuddling.
So for the past few years, I spend most of my time following other races, and then ask knowledgeable friends what they think of the school board candidates. And then, before I write here about it, I look up the candidates for myself. But the issues behind the candidates turn out to be critical, and yet not all that complicated. The face of the candidate, however, can be entirely different than what that candidate really stands for. And so, that is where we need to begin.
The big battles, no surprise, have to do with magnets/charter schools and eventually, the elephant in the room, segregation. There are zillions of studies of varying quality, and even more zillions of opinions, on the efficacy of magnets and charter schools. And the magic word is "choice."
Here is my two cents.
The best schools have a mix: they teach college and career track students equally well. They provide quality services for special needs students of all types, from academically accelerated (I hate the word "gifted") to those who need extra time and help. They have teachers who have a range of skills and class sizes that will allow those teachers to be most effective. They challenge kids at all levels, and in all kinds of pursuits.
Because this is a huge task, magnet schools seemed to fill some needs some of the time very well. From there, it became easier -- in the short run -- to create a magnet school for a special population rather than incorporate different populations into the community's schools. That means traveling to the school, often many miles away. It means having separate buildings where those special kids are segregated. It means far too many kids aren't getting a broad enough education to be able to evolve as they grow up or as society changes. And it means that kids are coming into contact only with others that share whatever particular learning trait we've decided to feature in that particular school.
Charter schools have different enticements. They happen when a community is unhappy with their schools, and decide they want to take matters into their own hands. They apply and get approval from state and/or county, and then elect their own board, which then makes its own rules and does its own hiring. So, whatever they tell you, a charter school is only as good as the people that are running it. The public relations promotion of charter schools has been intense, from advertising to movies. They, of course, focus on the brilliant successes of the charter schools they highlight. More objective studies report that the success of charter schools is no greater than that of public schools. They both depend on the expertise and, yes, dollars put into them.
The problem with both magnets and charter schools is that they take tax dollars that should be spread equitably across the county, further exhausting public school resources. To be honest, public school funding is a bang-for-your-buck situation. If everyone pays taxes based on what they can afford, and then it is spent equitably across the area, we are more likely to see better schools across the entire area. The way we are doing it now, we are putting more money into some specially designated schools, taking it away from public schools, draining them of resources and making them worse. Which those who support charters and magnets THEN use to further promote the need for charters and magnets, further draining public school resources.... And so it goes.
There is a lot of money going into campaigns that are pushing for school "choice," the advantages of magnets and charters being the major talking point. What it amounts to is that a lot of money will be going from our public schools into private schools, or schools that operate independently of public schools and the school board. Follow the money.
And the candidates who promote "choice" are trained well in using the most enticing words and phrases. But the bottom line is that some -- too many -- of our kids will be left out in the cold after the tax dollars are doled out to the special schools. This is the downward spiral we in Charleston and South Carolina have been experiencing for far too many years, and too many generations of our children. It is time to get back to the goal of real public education with good, well-paid teachers and school programs and campuses that we can be proud of.
I will be talking more about the specific candidates, the groups that are backing them, and that bizarre voting process next.
And we pretty much end up voting for candidates whose names are most familiar, for some reason we can't quite grasp. The reason ends up being the person with the most signs, or the biggest signs, or the nicest slogan, or the nicest name. We maybe vote for the incumbent, just because their name is most familiar.
Really, there just aren't enough hours in the day. And yet, these races are the ones that turn out to be most critical in our day-to-day lives. They affect not just what is taught in our schools, but the qualifications of who does the teaching, the size of the classes, and the condition of the buildings our kids are taught in.
To make matters worse on election day, we have a system that flummoxed me for years, wherein we all vote for candidates from each district regardless of where we live, and sometimes we vote for one candidate in a district, and other times we vote for more than one. I would not be surprised if some of us just skip over districts we don't reside in because we don't think we really are supposed to be voting for those candidates. It is just befuddling.
So for the past few years, I spend most of my time following other races, and then ask knowledgeable friends what they think of the school board candidates. And then, before I write here about it, I look up the candidates for myself. But the issues behind the candidates turn out to be critical, and yet not all that complicated. The face of the candidate, however, can be entirely different than what that candidate really stands for. And so, that is where we need to begin.
The big battles, no surprise, have to do with magnets/charter schools and eventually, the elephant in the room, segregation. There are zillions of studies of varying quality, and even more zillions of opinions, on the efficacy of magnets and charter schools. And the magic word is "choice."
Here is my two cents.
The best schools have a mix: they teach college and career track students equally well. They provide quality services for special needs students of all types, from academically accelerated (I hate the word "gifted") to those who need extra time and help. They have teachers who have a range of skills and class sizes that will allow those teachers to be most effective. They challenge kids at all levels, and in all kinds of pursuits.
Because this is a huge task, magnet schools seemed to fill some needs some of the time very well. From there, it became easier -- in the short run -- to create a magnet school for a special population rather than incorporate different populations into the community's schools. That means traveling to the school, often many miles away. It means having separate buildings where those special kids are segregated. It means far too many kids aren't getting a broad enough education to be able to evolve as they grow up or as society changes. And it means that kids are coming into contact only with others that share whatever particular learning trait we've decided to feature in that particular school.
Charter schools have different enticements. They happen when a community is unhappy with their schools, and decide they want to take matters into their own hands. They apply and get approval from state and/or county, and then elect their own board, which then makes its own rules and does its own hiring. So, whatever they tell you, a charter school is only as good as the people that are running it. The public relations promotion of charter schools has been intense, from advertising to movies. They, of course, focus on the brilliant successes of the charter schools they highlight. More objective studies report that the success of charter schools is no greater than that of public schools. They both depend on the expertise and, yes, dollars put into them.
The problem with both magnets and charter schools is that they take tax dollars that should be spread equitably across the county, further exhausting public school resources. To be honest, public school funding is a bang-for-your-buck situation. If everyone pays taxes based on what they can afford, and then it is spent equitably across the area, we are more likely to see better schools across the entire area. The way we are doing it now, we are putting more money into some specially designated schools, taking it away from public schools, draining them of resources and making them worse. Which those who support charters and magnets THEN use to further promote the need for charters and magnets, further draining public school resources.... And so it goes.
There is a lot of money going into campaigns that are pushing for school "choice," the advantages of magnets and charters being the major talking point. What it amounts to is that a lot of money will be going from our public schools into private schools, or schools that operate independently of public schools and the school board. Follow the money.
And the candidates who promote "choice" are trained well in using the most enticing words and phrases. But the bottom line is that some -- too many -- of our kids will be left out in the cold after the tax dollars are doled out to the special schools. This is the downward spiral we in Charleston and South Carolina have been experiencing for far too many years, and too many generations of our children. It is time to get back to the goal of real public education with good, well-paid teachers and school programs and campuses that we can be proud of.
I will be talking more about the specific candidates, the groups that are backing them, and that bizarre voting process next.
Monday, October 8, 2018
Lindsey v. Women
The thing about the tantrums we saw last week, both from Brett Kavanaugh and Lindsey Graham, was that they both sounded like men who had been spending way too much time with the "president." It makes sense, doesn't it, that if he can get away with it, they can too. And they did.
Women like Susan Collins, who pretend to be pro-women, are really throwbacks, as are any republican women who will tolerate and make excuses for raging men, and minimize the assaults on women. I guess because she is a women, successful in the republican party, she knew to keep her head down, study the notes she was given, and act like she was taking the high road.
The double-talk we heard last week may have taken us by surprise, but shouldn't have. It was the same double-talk we heard during the Clarence Thomas hearing. The woman was confused; the woman allowed herself to be put in that position; the woman waited until she had something to gain (?!) by coming forward when she did; while we sympathize with the woman, we don't believe her. The man is having his reputation destroyed; his family and career are being harmed; his sincerity cannot be doubted. Lies excused, attacks rationalized.
Why wouldn't Kavanaugh stick it out? He had powerful and loud men on his side. Donald Trump has insulted every-damn-body in the world, and knows that they will stand by him as long as he has power to wield. And, like Clarence Thomas in 1991, Kavanaugh ends up not having his family and career destroyed: he ends up with a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.
And then there is Lindsey. He has been taken for a ride -- and not just on the golf course -- more than once by Trump. But he has what Trump preys on: ambition. So he has been strung along since November of 2016, at first tentatively throwing his support, and then with more fervor, no, fever. What we witnessed from Graham last week was nothing short of hysteria. He was indeed crazed.
Like Kavanaugh, he had been spending a lot of time listening to presidential rants and invective, to the point where reason was a distant memory, calm was no longer even in the repertoire.
So it was no surprise that after Graham's rant, women -- and good men -- across the country rose up with outrage. We need to do something NOW, and the passion and determination is NOW.
I was not surprised to receive an email during that time from the South Carolina Democratic Party. What did surprise me was that they were promoting past chair and bombast Jaime Harrison as their choice to oppose Lindsey Graham in 2020.
First of all, I have heard Harrison speak just a few times, including a couple of appearances on Rachel Maddow before the 2016 SC primaries. I may be wrong, but it seems that whatever question he is asked, Harrison will respond with a long-winded replay of who he is and how he got here. Harrison's success as chair can only be summed up by the Democrats' losses in local, state and national government during his reign.
That said, the most important thing about where the party stands today is that they are not RIGHT NOW promoting a woman to run against Lindsey Graham in 2020. With the successes of women running for office across the country, with the rage and determination that resulted from the mockery of a Senate Supreme Court nomination hearing, it never occurred to our state party that Graham's assault was an invitation.
Had the situation been reversed -- and I am happy to say that wouldn't have ever happened -- but if it had -- by the end of the tirade, there would have been meetings and "bindersful of women" to parade in front of the electorate; fund raising emails promising the revenge of victimized women would have gone out in minutes.
While republicans disdain women, they know how to use us. That is why we had a Nikki Haley as governor, but we can't seem to promote and elect a Democratic woman governor. It pains me to say it, but they will use Nikki all the way to the presidency, and she will be happy to be used.
We do have fantastic women on the political stage in South Carolina. While the party might jump on board when they smell success, they don't put their money or their mouth into finding and promoting women that are right here for the running.
We don't just have smart and motivated women, we have organizations right here in South Carolina that will help.
Right off the top, we have South Carolina Democratic Women's Council, and local chapters, including Charleston County Democratic Women. I wish I could say women were well represented on the Democratic Party websites, but you have to look hard to find them. If you want to hook up with the Women's Council or CCDW, your best bet is to look on Facebook.
Then there are the women's action networks that have grown HUGE since 2016. WREN -- Women's Rights and Empowerment Network -- is fighting for women's issues across the state, from wage equality to healthcare to empowering women to seek leadership roles in business and, yes, politics. Emerge America opened its doors in South Carolina in 2017. I can't speak highly enough about the work they are doing to encourage and train women to run for political office. Thinking you can do a better job than the jackasses now in office? Get in touch with Emerge SC. Want to help women who have decided to run? Contact Emerge SC.
And of course we have great groups here in South Carolina like Planned Parenthood Action Fund and the American Association of University Women, both of which can be counted on to promote women in government as well as women's issues in healthcare and education.
Then there are all the women right here, right now, that we should be persuading to take on Lindsey Graham. Just a few names come to mind; I'm sure we can put our heads together and think of lots more:
So, here we are. Do we jump up and down and wave our hands so that our Democratic Party will listen to us? Do we -- both women and men -- insist on being represented equally in government and especially in the Democratic Party?
And most important TODAY, after Lindsey Graham invited us to step up and challenge him, do we find a woman who will fight for us, so that a misogynist like Lindsey will not be holding down that seat and voting against our interests in Congress after 2020?
Write, call, email your state and local Democratic Party. They won't take this step unless it is absolutely clear we will accept no less. Spread the word on Facebook, at home, at work, community meetings.
Finding and supporting a woman to step up and take on Lindsey Graham for Senate in 2020 needs to start now. And it should really be a no-brainer.
It is time for Lindsey to go. And he seems to agree.
Women like Susan Collins, who pretend to be pro-women, are really throwbacks, as are any republican women who will tolerate and make excuses for raging men, and minimize the assaults on women. I guess because she is a women, successful in the republican party, she knew to keep her head down, study the notes she was given, and act like she was taking the high road.
The double-talk we heard last week may have taken us by surprise, but shouldn't have. It was the same double-talk we heard during the Clarence Thomas hearing. The woman was confused; the woman allowed herself to be put in that position; the woman waited until she had something to gain (?!) by coming forward when she did; while we sympathize with the woman, we don't believe her. The man is having his reputation destroyed; his family and career are being harmed; his sincerity cannot be doubted. Lies excused, attacks rationalized.
Why wouldn't Kavanaugh stick it out? He had powerful and loud men on his side. Donald Trump has insulted every-damn-body in the world, and knows that they will stand by him as long as he has power to wield. And, like Clarence Thomas in 1991, Kavanaugh ends up not having his family and career destroyed: he ends up with a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.
And then there is Lindsey. He has been taken for a ride -- and not just on the golf course -- more than once by Trump. But he has what Trump preys on: ambition. So he has been strung along since November of 2016, at first tentatively throwing his support, and then with more fervor, no, fever. What we witnessed from Graham last week was nothing short of hysteria. He was indeed crazed.
Like Kavanaugh, he had been spending a lot of time listening to presidential rants and invective, to the point where reason was a distant memory, calm was no longer even in the repertoire.
So it was no surprise that after Graham's rant, women -- and good men -- across the country rose up with outrage. We need to do something NOW, and the passion and determination is NOW.
I was not surprised to receive an email during that time from the South Carolina Democratic Party. What did surprise me was that they were promoting past chair and bombast Jaime Harrison as their choice to oppose Lindsey Graham in 2020.
First of all, I have heard Harrison speak just a few times, including a couple of appearances on Rachel Maddow before the 2016 SC primaries. I may be wrong, but it seems that whatever question he is asked, Harrison will respond with a long-winded replay of who he is and how he got here. Harrison's success as chair can only be summed up by the Democrats' losses in local, state and national government during his reign.
That said, the most important thing about where the party stands today is that they are not RIGHT NOW promoting a woman to run against Lindsey Graham in 2020. With the successes of women running for office across the country, with the rage and determination that resulted from the mockery of a Senate Supreme Court nomination hearing, it never occurred to our state party that Graham's assault was an invitation.
Had the situation been reversed -- and I am happy to say that wouldn't have ever happened -- but if it had -- by the end of the tirade, there would have been meetings and "bindersful of women" to parade in front of the electorate; fund raising emails promising the revenge of victimized women would have gone out in minutes.
While republicans disdain women, they know how to use us. That is why we had a Nikki Haley as governor, but we can't seem to promote and elect a Democratic woman governor. It pains me to say it, but they will use Nikki all the way to the presidency, and she will be happy to be used.
We do have fantastic women on the political stage in South Carolina. While the party might jump on board when they smell success, they don't put their money or their mouth into finding and promoting women that are right here for the running.
We don't just have smart and motivated women, we have organizations right here in South Carolina that will help.
Right off the top, we have South Carolina Democratic Women's Council, and local chapters, including Charleston County Democratic Women. I wish I could say women were well represented on the Democratic Party websites, but you have to look hard to find them. If you want to hook up with the Women's Council or CCDW, your best bet is to look on Facebook.
Then there are the women's action networks that have grown HUGE since 2016. WREN -- Women's Rights and Empowerment Network -- is fighting for women's issues across the state, from wage equality to healthcare to empowering women to seek leadership roles in business and, yes, politics. Emerge America opened its doors in South Carolina in 2017. I can't speak highly enough about the work they are doing to encourage and train women to run for political office. Thinking you can do a better job than the jackasses now in office? Get in touch with Emerge SC. Want to help women who have decided to run? Contact Emerge SC.
And of course we have great groups here in South Carolina like Planned Parenthood Action Fund and the American Association of University Women, both of which can be counted on to promote women in government as well as women's issues in healthcare and education.
Then there are all the women right here, right now, that we should be persuading to take on Lindsey Graham. Just a few names come to mind; I'm sure we can put our heads together and think of lots more:
SC Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter from Orangeburg
Linda Ketner, who in 2008 nearly defeated 4-term incumbent Henry Brown for US Congress District 1
Margie Bright Matthews, SC state Senator for District 45
State Senator Mia McLeod from Richmond County,
So, here we are. Do we jump up and down and wave our hands so that our Democratic Party will listen to us? Do we -- both women and men -- insist on being represented equally in government and especially in the Democratic Party?
And most important TODAY, after Lindsey Graham invited us to step up and challenge him, do we find a woman who will fight for us, so that a misogynist like Lindsey will not be holding down that seat and voting against our interests in Congress after 2020?
Write, call, email your state and local Democratic Party. They won't take this step unless it is absolutely clear we will accept no less. Spread the word on Facebook, at home, at work, community meetings.
Finding and supporting a woman to step up and take on Lindsey Graham for Senate in 2020 needs to start now. And it should really be a no-brainer.
It is time for Lindsey to go. And he seems to agree.
 |
| "I hope the American people can see through this sham." |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)