THE SUMTER ITEM N.G. Osteen 1843-1936 The Watchman and Southron
FRIDAY, MARCH 27, 2015 H.G. Osteen 1870-1955 Founder, The Item
H.D. Osteen 1904-1987 The Item
|
A11
Margaret W. Osteen 1908-1996 The Item Hubert D. Osteen Jr. Chairman & Editor-in-Chief Graham Osteen Co-President Kyle Osteen Co-President Jack Osteen Editor and Publisher Larry Miller CEO Rick Carpenter Managing Editor
20 N. Magnolia St., Sumter, South Carolina 29150 • Founded October 15, 1894
COMMENTARY
GOP racing form: The first edition
W
ASHINGTON — With Ted Cruz announcing and Rand Paul and Marco Rubio soon to follow, it’s time to start handicapping the horses and making enemies. No point in wasting time on the Democratic field. There is none. The only thing that can stop Hillary Clinton is an act of God, and he seems otherwise occupied. As does Elizabeth Warren, the only Democrat who could conceivably defeat her. On to the GOP.
FIRST TIER 1. Marco Rubio. Trails badly in current polls, ranking seventh at 5 percent, but high upside potential. Assets: Foreign policy looms uncharacteristically large in the current cycle, and Rubio is the most knowledgeable and fluent current contender on everything from Russia to Cuba to the Middle Charles Krauthammer East. The son of Cuban immigrants, he can break into flawless Spanish (so can Jeb Bush) and speak passionately about the American story in a party that lost the Hispanic vote by 44 points in 2012. Liabilities (in the primaries): His Gang of Eight immigration apostasy, though his current enforcement-first position has wide appeal. Second, after Barack Obama, will voters want another first-term senator with no executive experience? (Same for Cruz and Paul.) Major appeal: Fresh, young, dynamic persona is a powerful counterpoint to Clinton fatigue. Odds: 3-1. 2. Jeb Bush. The consensus favorite (though I remain a bit skeptical). Solid, soft-spoken, serious, with executive experience and significant achievements as governor. What he lacks in passion, he makes up for in substance. And he has shown backbone in sticking to his semi-heretical positions on immigration and Common Core. Obvious liability: His name. True, it helps him raise tens of millions of dollars, but it saddles him with legacy and dynastic issues that negate the inherent GOP advantage of running a new vs. old, not-again campaign against Hillary. Odds: 7-2. 3. Scott Walker. A fine record of conservative achievement. Has shown guts and leadership in taking on labor unions and winning three elections (five if you count proxy elections) against highly energized Democrats. Good, rousing speech in Iowa but has stumbled since, flubbing routine questions on evolution and patriotism, then appearing to compare the Islamic State to Wisconsin demonstrators. Rookie mistakes, easily forgotten — if he learns from them. Pandered on ethanol and fired a staffer who com-
plained about Iowa’s unwarranted influence. Sure, everyone panders to Iowa, but Walker’s calling card is standing up to pressure. Most encouraging sign: aAility to maintain altitude after meteoric rise. Numbers remain steady. And his speeches continue to impress. Odds: 4-1.
SECOND TIER 4. Chris Christie. Some politicians have their one moment. Christie might have missed his in 2012 when his fearless in-your-face persona was refreshingly new. Over time, however, in-your-face can wear badly. That plus Bridgegate cost him traction and dropped him out of the first tier. Biggest problem: being boxed out ideologically and financially by Jeb Bush for the relatively-moderategovernor-with-cross-aisle-appeal slot. 12-1. 5. Ted Cruz. Grand, florid campaign launch with matching rhetoric. Straightforward base-oriented campaign. Has developed a solid following. Could break out, especially in debate. 15-1. 6. Mike Huckabee. Great name recognition, affable, popular. But highly identified with social/cultural issues — how far can that carry him beyond Iowa and evangelicals? 15-1. 7. Rand Paul. Events have conspired against him. Obama’s setbacks and humiliations abroad have created a national mood less conducive to Paul’s non-interventionism. His nearly 13-hour antidrone filibuster would not fly today. Is trying to tack back, even signing the anti-Irandeal letter of the 47 senators. Strong youth appeal, though outreach to minorities less successful thus far. Bottom line: High floor of devoted libertarians; low ceiling in today’s climate. 30-1.
LONGER SHOTS 8. Carly Fiorina. Getting her footing. Given current societal taboos, she is best placed to attack Hillary and has done so effectively. Can she do a Huckabee 2008 and, through debates, vault to the first tier? Unlikely. But because she’s talented and disciplined, not impossible. 50-1. 9. Ben Carson. Polling high, but is a novice making cringe-worthy gaffes, for example, on the origins of Islam and on gay choice (“a lot of people who go into prison straight, and when they come out they’re gay”). And not knowing that the Baltic States are in NATO. Truly good man, brilliant doctor, great patriot. But not ready for the big leagues. Chance of winning? Zero.
OTHERS Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and John Kasich — still below radar. If they surface, they’ll be featured in the next racing form. Charles Krauthammer’s email address is letters@ charleskrauthammer.com. © 2015, The Washington Post Writers Group
HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY? Send your letter to letters@theitem.com, drop it off at The Sumter Item office, 20 N. Magnolia St., or mail it to The Sumter Item, P.O. Box 1677, Sumter, SC 29151, along with the writer’s full name, address and telephone number (for verification purposes only). Letters that exceed 350 words will be cut accordingly in the print edition, but available in their entirety at www.theitem.com/ opinion/letters_to_editor.
EDITORIAL ROUNDUP Recent editorials from South Carolina newspapers:
The Times and Democrat of Orangeburg March 24
‘SHINING STARS’ DELIVER MESSAGE ABOUT S.C. STATE As South Carolina State held its Scholarship Gala and Tribute, the reminders of fiscal problems facing the university were not ignored. But the S.C. State mission and achievement of its students were the focal points in an important Saturday night statement about the future. Welcoming scholarship donors and university supporters to the annual event sponsored by the SCSU Foundation, Acting President Dr. Franklin Evans and Foundation Chairman Edward Williams thanked many personally. Evans had a written message: “As the costs of higher education continue to rise across the nation, support is still urgently needed to ensure access to a SC State University degree. It is now more important than ever to raise, invest and steward private funds in the most efficient manner possible.” Williams cited “trials and tribulations of late” but noted that with the assistance of benefactors such as those at Smith-Hammond-Middleton Memorial Center for the gala, “We’ll come through it.” Later, Williams offered proof of the foundation’s commitment to the future of educating students at S.C. State by announcing payment to the university of the third $250,000 installment of a $1 million foundation pledge for student scholarships. Grammy-nominated musician Tony Grant, master of ceremonies and entertainer for the annual event, weighed in on the issue of the university’s future. “South Carolina State University is needed and will remain for generations to come,” Grant said in citing a list of achievements by students, alumni, faculty and supporters. “It remains open.” He later said he would be seeking direct help for the university from the likes of Tyler Perry and Oprah Winfrey. Even foundation board member the Rev. Willie Heggins acknowledged issues facing S.C. State when in a prayer before the meal, he sought guidance for state legislators making decisions about the university. Then came the most important message of the evening, and the one that should reverberate in Columbia as state leaders weigh a course to save the university from its present fiscal crisis. Speaking were “Shining Star” students. Via video interviews, football and academic standout Antonio Hamilton of Johnstone; Baumholder, Germany, native Adrian Juilen, and Orangeburg’s Valerie Nwadeyi offered praises for the university and its impact on their lives. Nwadeyi called the school the “backbone” of her family’s education legacy and a vital player in the future of Orangeburg and South Carolina. First speaking via video and then in person as the representative for S.C. State’s “Shining Stars,” Tamekia Daniels of Hardeeville addressed S.C. State supporters and all South Carolinians amid the present cycle of high-profile problems at her school. S.C. State is about opportunity, she said, with the institution offering her the financial help to make college possible. It is the same for many students, some from troubled backgrounds, who would not have the college opportunity without SCSU and its mission of serving the traditionally underserved. “Many of our parents could not afford to send us to college. Many of us could not be
here without you,” she said in thanking those at the gala. “I assure you, you will see a return on your investment.” And so will all the people of the state through our government’s vital efforts to put the university on a stable course for the future.
The Post and Courier of Charleston March 25
DEMS KILL BILL THAT WOULD TOUGHEN PENALTIES FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING Washington gridlock on immigration, energy, federal spending and health care, though lamentable, is understandable. After all, the two major parties generally favor opposing solutions to the problems raised by those issues. But last week the U.S. Senate couldn’t even pass a bill that rated widespread support across party lines. That legislation would have toughened the penalties for human trafficking and enhanced law enforcement’s capacity to counter it. However, Senate Democrats killed it with a filibuster threat after belatedly realizing that it contained a clause, inserted by Republicans, banning the use of a traffickingvictims compensation fund for abortions other than the types exempted (rape and incest) in the Hyde Amendment. In other words, Democrats killed legislation that would have no practical impact on federal abortion funding. Indeed, it merely reasserts that intent of the Hyde amendment, which has been routinely attached to federal spending bills since its passage nearly four decades ago. John Cornyn, R-Texas, offered to change the wording of the trafficking legislation’s abortion provision by creating an annual appropriation for the compensation fund instead of a separate pool of fees. After Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and other prominent Democrats scrapped the bill, Sen. Cornyn expressed justified frustration by asking: “Can they take ‘yes’ for an answer? We’ve made a proposal to them to give them what they’ve asked for.” And Minnesota’s Sen. Amy Klobucher, the top Democratic sponsor of the bill, like many of her party colleagues evidently didn’t know it included that Hyde Amendment echo. Sen. Klobucher’s spokeswoman told The Associated Press: “The senator takes responsibility for the work of her office and missing the provision, and she is focused on moving forward to find a way to fix the bill and protect victims of trafficking.” As for Democrats’ demands for a confirmation vote on attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, has said he will comply as soon as the trafficking bill is passed. Sounds like a fair, practical compromise to advance two legislative tasks. And The Washington Post editorial board, no hotbed of pro-life or conservative zeal, offered this withering perspective on the needless derailing of the human trafficking bill: “Perhaps Democrats thought they could score political points, or maybe they didn’t want to anger their traditional allies in the abortion rights lobby. Either way, it became depressingly clear that what they weren’t thinking about was the needs of vulnerable people, mostly young women and girls, who are the victims of sex trafficking.” Meanwhile, as Sen. Susan Collins, RMaine, aptly put it: “If we cannot approve a bill to deal with human trafficking, then what will we be able to deal with?” Apparently, not much.