Crazyworld

In all the hub-bub that followed Gov. Mark Sanford's admission that he had an Argentine mistress, that he lied to his staff, that he actually saw her more times than he originally admitted, that some of his closest allies and Republican Party leaders have been urging him to resign... there was a promise.

That promise: His public schedule would be released in the future. It's been a busy month and, perhaps to the governor's surprise, other things have been going on. But I seem to remember hearing that timeless word in politics, that such a move would aid in "transparency" and help the governor build back trust.

While the likelihood of that happening is debatable, here goes the governor's schedule as released to the media today. Read below the press release for more on this.

----------

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
MARK SANFORD, GOVERNOR

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:   Joel Sawyer - 803-734-2100 - jsawyer@gov.sc.gov

Gov. Sanford's Public Schedule - Mon., July 13 - Fri., July 17, 2009

Columbia, S.C. - July 13, 2009 - No public events are currently scheduled for this week, but we will advise individually for any event added. Gov. Sanford will be working in Columbia for the week, with intermittent trips to Sullivan's Island.

Meetings and briefings Gov. Sanford will take part in this week include:

- Meeting with staff and First Steps Director Susan DeVenny regarding the potential transfer of the Baby Net program from DHEC to First Steps

- Meeting with new Emergency Management Division Director Ricky Platt, who was named recently to succeed retiring director Ron Osborne

- Briefing by Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom regarding the work of the Stimulus Oversight Task Force

- Briefing by Board of Economic Advisors Chairman John Rainey regarding revenue forecasts in advance of the following week's BEA meeting

- Receive a revenue update from state Department of Revenue Director Ray Stevens

- Receive an economic development briefing from Secretary of Commerce Joe Taylor and Deputy Secretary for New Investment Jack Ellenberg

- Briefing by Department of Social Services Director Kathleen Hayes regarding the upcoming release of an LAC audit of DSS.

-###-

----------

Now, you wouldn't have found this information out by looking at the governor's Web site, as the press release section hasn't been updated in weeks.

But, really, does this go far enough in detailing the governor's schedule?

When I first heard of this, I thought we'd see something more along the lines of a daily itinerary... you know, something with much more useful information. (BECAUSE INFORMATION IS REALLY THE KEY TO TRANSPARENCY.)

I thought we'd see a day-by-day breakdown, specific meetings with specific times, the occasional redacted items that pertained to personal business or things like economic development. Personally, I feel those things should be made public, too, but I'm just one small voice. I also thought travel details would be included -- by car, by plane, whatever.

To me, this isn't transparent. It's translucent at best. (I know I've used that line before somewhere, but -- hey -- it fits.)

But what do you think? Is this enough? Are you comfortable knowing Sanford will receive a handful of briefings this week? Are we in the media too obsessed with this poor man's personal life and need to get one of our own? Let me know. Feedback and (constructive) criticism is always appreciated.

Less than an hour after the State Law Enforcement Division announced that Gov. Mark Sanford did nothing criminal during his tryst with an Argentine woman, S.C. Republican Party Chairwoman Karen Floyd released the following statement:

“I have confidence in the findings of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.  But the fact remains that there is clearly a growing view that the time may have come for Governor Sanford  to remove himself and his family from the limelight, so that he can devote his efforts full-time to repairing the damage in his personal life.”

Also, during (or immediately before) the SLED press conference, news surfaced that the embattled governor would be spending the Fourth of July weekend with his wife and her family in Florida.

One note on Floyd, who runs the Spartanburg-based Palladian Group. Her public relations firm had a contract with Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer -- who would take the reigns of the state if Sanford were to resign, be impeached or be forcibly removed by a select group of constitutional officers.

Palladian Group Chief Operating Officer Angel Cox said in a recent interview that the firm ended its contract with Bauer on Feb. 9 (a few days before Floyd announced her intention to seek state party chairmanship). The two payments from Bauer's campaign to the Palladian Group since then -- about $4,850 on Feb. 13 and $1,500 on March 19 -- were for past services, Cox said.

Bauer's camp has also made payments to the Campaign Connection LLC, according to his first quarter disclosure statements. Floyd said the Campaign Connection was run by people who did freelance work for her in the past and have since struck out on their own.

The Palladian Group is located at 113 W. Main St., Spartanburg. The Campaign Connection is at 115 W. Main St.

This statement just landed in my inbox from S.C. Sen. David Thomas regarding embattled Gov. Mark Sanford:

“With all of the information that has come to light in the past few days, particularly the truth which differed from his original news conference, I believe he should resign. If it is proven that he misused state money to conduct the affair, he should be impeached.”

It should be pointed out that the impeachment process would start in the House, but you get the drift. There is a growing number of state senators calling for Sanford's resignation.

But Thomas is one of several Republicans challenging incumbent U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis -- and Inglis' take on the Sanford affair is quite different.

Inglis also faces four other Republicans: 7th Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy, Wofford College professor Christina Jeffrey, Duke Sandwich Co. owner Andrew Smart and Air Force veteran Jim Lee. No Democrat candidates have formally announced for the seat yet.

I can't find a link to it, so I'm just copying and pasting the e-mail that was just sent out.

----------------

Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell issued the following statement today:
 
"The Governor’s personal failings have become widely known in the last week.  Those personal failings are his alone and we should allow him and his family to deal with them privately.  However, the Governor has offered up details about his indiscretions very publicly and they have been widely reported. Those admissions and the reaction of the public have raised in my mind whether the Governor can effectively lead the state in the days, weeks, and months to come.  The Governor does not need to be a paragon of virtue, but the people need to know that he is trustworthy and he is committed to serving them.

The Governor has admitted he lied to his staff in order to travel out of the country.  In doing that, he left the state with no leadership for five days and with no ability to handle an emergency if one arose.

Now, after his latest admissions, we must wonder has the Governor come completely clean.  Each time the press uncovers a new issue or the Governor volunteers new details, both he and our state are embarrassed.
 
The Governor is to the citizens of this state, the people of the United States, and those around the world the face of our state government.  For people who seek to bring new business or expand existing business in South Carolina, he represents South Carolina.  He can either be a great asset or a tremendous liability.

Neither I nor my colleagues in the General Assembly can require that the Governor resign.  That decision is his alone.    I do believe, however, that the Governor has lost the support of the people that is needed to govern.  Therefore, I would ask the Governor to look in his heart and decide whether with his family situation and the public uproar over what he has done and said locally and nationally whether he can lead our state for the remainder of his term.
 
This is not about Mark Sanford the person.  This must be about the government of South Carolina and making sure it operates effectively for the next 18 months.  He needs to decide immediately if he is an asset or a liability for our state.
 
I would beseech the Governor to do the right thing for himself, his family and our state.  I believe he knows what the right thing to do is and I hope that he will do what is right."

If you saw the wire story we ran in today's paper about embattled S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford, you may have noticed quotes from a few local fellows inserted in. What started out as a localized story (with me helping out master reporter Bob Dalton) quickly turned into an, "OK, this AP story is just too good." So, they took what I had and I was off to work on other things.

But because very few people seem to be defending Sanford these days - and fewer every time he bares his soul in an emotional press conference or interview, it seems - I felt I should post all of U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis' comments on the matter. Inglis makes a case that I think would resonate with some people in this state, particularly the Upstate. My interview with him reminded me of some of the comments a few political experts made a few years ago about the Christian/faith community's ability to forgive. At the time, we were talking about then-presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, but the underlying concept is the same, or at least similar, I think.

Anyway, from the interview...

On Tuesday's breaking news:

“I don’t think these additional meetings with the woman in Argentina, nor the contacts with additional women, change the essential nature of the problem, and that is that Mark has admitted to this infidelity, and now is having to deal with the consequences of that. …And I hope and pray he’s seeking reconciliation with his wife.”

On Sanford's ability to govern while dealing with a personal crisis:

“I don’t think that’s a problem. We are all coping in our private lives with personal issues. That would be like saying Sarah Palin shouldn’t be governor of Alaska because she has a special-needs child. Gov. Palin is coping with a special-needs child. That’s a lot to put on somebody. That’s a lot to put on a marriage. And yet she’s effectively serving as governor of Alaska.”

On whether Sanford can still be effective:

“Mark can be a more effective governor now than he’s ever been. Because now, he may have found the humility that could cause him to be able to see other people’s points of view better. He’s been so certain that it must be his way of restructuring, and his way of dealing with the stimulus, and his way of balancing the budget, that he may now be able to see other people’s perspectives. Because of the humility borne of this humiliation. So, in a strange sort of way, I think it could make the next 18 months the best of his tenure.”

Inglis then talked about the three years following his failed Senate run in 1998, a time he spent “complaining to God.” Through that, he said, he saw his own need for grace, and the need to extend grace to other people.

“That will make you different. And that’s what may happen for Mark Sanford. Everybody sees his need for grace. That may enable him to extend grace to other people. That works on a high spiritual plane, but also works in your daily dealings in politics.”

On the Republican brand:

“This is a great opportunity to lose the rot of self-righteousness — just cut it loose — and say we are not morally superior to the next guy. We are all sinners just like the next guy, in need of grace. Because the whole world sees us as completely not morally superior to anybody.”

Just got a copy of a fundraising letter sent out by the new chairwoman of the S.C. Republican Party, Karen Floyd.

A couple of parts caught my eye.

On the nomination of Sonia Sotomayer:

"Just four months into his term, President Obama has show his allegiance to the Far Left by nominating one of their own, a little-known federal judge named Sonia Sotomayer, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It's not that she's unqualified, although she is.

"It's not that she's a blatantly politically correct choice, although she is.

"It's that her brand of biased touchy-feely social activism from the bench is exactly wrong, diametrically opposed to the Constitution and precisely what's wrong with the Democrats' love for legislating from the bench.

"That's no the American way, it's not how we do things in South Carolina, and there's a rising chorus of conservative voices..."

Now, this kind of firey political rhetoric would be expected from someone in Floyd's position. Just putting it out there for the sake of discussion.

Also, for some reason I've thought a lot lately about a survey of the North Carolina judicial system several years back. I wrote about it at my last job, at The Free Press in Kinston, N.C. The study found that pretty much everyone who had the court rule in their favor thought the justice system treated them fairly. It also found that those who were ruled against thought the justice system was skewed. What a worthless study.

One more excerpt from Floyd's letter (emphasis hers):

"Now our challnege is to raise the money to deliver our message in a loud and conservative voice, and right now, we lack the money to do that. The cupboard is bare."

Further, she asks people to "throw us a financial lifeline" for $100, $250 or $500. She states she's on a mission to raise $200,000 in the next 100 days.

Can't wait to see the disclosure form.

I was out of town on vacation much of last week, but did get a few work-related calls regarding last week's meeting of the (mostly) unified Spartanburg County Legislative Delegation.

There seems to be a lot of attention on longtime state Sen. Glenn Reese, D-Spartanburg, right now -- despite Reese once again working with the majority of his fellow lawmakers from this county.

Reese likely isn't vulnerable to a Republican challenger in 2012. Part of that is the way the district lines are drawn (a very partisan exercise that takes place following each census). Part of it is the fact that probably everyone in Senate District 11 who has graduated high school or college since 1991 has received a congratulatory letter from the senator. And part of it is the push-pull between conservatives and moderates in the northern part of that district is nearly at a standstill, and Reese very well could siphon enough moderate Republican votes to keep him safely in office.

But, the line of thinking among some local Democrats is that the key to beating Reese in a primary is to win enough votes in the overlapping section of House District 31 -- a minority-majority district, and an influential one at that.

There are a lot of activists, preachers, civic leaders and even a few elected officials who call House 31 home. And they're watching Reese.

They're not only watching him because he was the lone Democrat to side with three Republicans in the legislative delegation tug of war that lasted six months, but also because of his role in the appointment of Magistrate Judge Rob Chumley to the bench and the larger overhaul of magistrate court that's expected to play out. How many black magistrate judge candidates has Reese pushed for? Don't be surprised to see that number appear on a campaign piece at some point.

And keep in mind 2012 would be a re-election year for President Barack Obama, should he choose to go that route and successfully navigate his party's primary.

So who could win enough House 31 votes to possibly unseat Reese? Well, state Rep. Harold Mitchell has carried that district handily since entering public office. Some are even looking at Spartanburg County Councilman Michael Brown as a potential successor to that seat should Mitchell ascend to the state Senate. (Brown ran against Mitchell unsuccessfully for that House seat when it was vacated by former Rep. Brenda Lee. The two have since found themselves working together more often than not.)

Now, 2012 is a long time away, and many voters think about only recent events when casting a ballot. Senators, because their terms last four years, have more time for people to forget.

But from what I'm hearing, the powers-that-be in House 31 aren't going to forget anything any time soon.

It’s hard letting go.

Apparently, that’s a lesson former Spartanburg County Republican Party Chairman Rick Beltram hasn’t learned. And from the looks of it, he doesn’t plan to.

Beltram, who lost his bid to retain his seat to new Chairwoman LaDonna Ryggs by a 291-87 vote earlier this month, today said he plans to form a political action committee. The Piedmont Political Forum PAC will encompass all of the Upstate and stretch a bit into North Carolina, he said.

The way it sounds, this is Beltram and those loyal to him setting up an alternate funding stream for candidates who, like him, are not affiliated with the latest incarnation of the county Republican Party.

The PAC will include “a mixed bag of Republicans, going from hard-core Republicans all the way up to those who are just right of center,” he said.

He continued: “The people who will be there will be Republican. And the people who are there will be more concerned with winning elections than spewing out rhetoric. This group will be conservative, but it will not be one that will want to send Lindsey Graham under the bus. It will not be a group that will boo Gresham Barrett.”

Beltram said he is still getting legal advice as to how to set everything up. I’m guessing part of that advice will include how he handles selling services — if he’s even allowed to — to political candidates. I say that because since losing the county party chairmanship, he has referred to state Rep. Steve Parker, R-Spartanburg, as his “client.”

Another detail still being worked out: What donation level will entitle someone to call themselves a “member” of the PAC. Members, Beltram said, will collectively determine which candidates the group supports financially.

The Piedmont Political Forum will hold its organizational meeting at 9 a.m. on May 9 at The Junction Restaurant in Spartanburg. After that, the group will meet monthly for breakfast. The first scheduled meeting is at 9 a.m. on June 13 at the Country Hearth Inn.

Oh, and the PAC’s headquarters will be on South Pine Street, which doubled as the Spartanburg County Republican Party’s headquarters until Beltram lost control of it and kicked everyone out. (His name is on the building’s lease. The party is currently looking for a new HQ, Ryggs has said.)

“People who want a more broad involvement will find this very attractive,” Beltram said.

“I’ve read some of the reviews of what’s going on and would say the more typical Republican voter has gotten scared. I’ve always had an axiom: If you could agree with someone 80 percent of the time, you’re good to go. Now, if you don’t agree with someone 100 percent of the time, you’re a RINO.”

A RINO, of course, is a Republican In Name Only. Local political consultant Kerry Wood has made no bones lately about being in the business of RINO hunting.

Sounds like someone just painted a target on his back...

It’s a wild time to be involved in Republican politics in this corner of South Carolina.

About 300 people packed into the Country Hearth Inn last night, trying to organize their precincts and begin the process of having a say in county and state party leadership. And an estimated 300 people organized earlier this month, in parking lots or anywhere else they could find due to snow- and ice-covered roads.

Spartanburg County GOP Chairman Rick Beltram spent much of the first part of the night screaming into a half-working microphone, trying to corral people from about 80 (out of 92) precincts together to organize. Some in the crowd were disgusted. Others were confused. I heard the phrase "organized chaos" bandied about several times. Most simply wanted to get on with it, get their paperwork filled out and get home.

Beltram is at the center of a political maelstrom right now. He’s seeking re-election as county party chairman -- the vote is April 7 -- and he’s also touring the state in a quest to win chairmanship of the South Carolina Republican Party. The state GOP convention is in May.

He’s facing opposition on both fronts. So far, LaDonna Ryggs, the sitting committeeman for the county GOP and immediate past president of the S.C. Federation of Republican Women, is running against Beltram for his county seat. Gary Coats, head of the local Young Republicans group, is looking at the numbers and deciding whether he wants jump in. At least one other name has been floated.

The statewide race, which has gotten more attention -- though, frankly, it hasn’t gotten as much as I’d have thought -- pits Beltram against Columbia attorney Kevin Hall and Spartanburg businesswoman Karen Floyd.

One strategy that’s playing out is an attempt to knock Beltram out on the county level. The thinking behind this is that would hurt his viability as a statewide candidate.

“The only one who wins if I’m not county chairman is Kevin Hall. Because I’m nullified, and that puts the state party chairmanship in his hands,” Beltram said. “...This is all about Kevin Hall trying to cut me off at the knees.”

(Just a reminder, Beltram has said that if he wins both races, he’ll pick a day about 90 days out to abdicated the county throne so candidates for that seat can mount a campaign.)

Local activist and political consultant Kerry Wood agreed that the anti-Beltram sentiment is causing some people to get involved. Variouos factions are aligning with a single purpose.

But, he said, Hall is sending out materials to people on the precinct level across the state, as anyone in that race should be doing.

“Kevin knows what we’re already doing here, so he doesn’t have to do anything,” Wood said.

Wood added that once Floyd announced she was running, it was clear that the best way oust Beltram was to not cause like-minded activists to choose between her and Hall. There are individuals pushing for one or the other, but the overall effort to remove Beltram from his county seat is one that is hands-off in the state race. For now.

“I’m sure, after the county race is over with, the camps will divide, But we’re all on the same page in this round,” he said.

As for Hall’s master plan, Hall said today, “Rick gives me way too much credit. There are executive committee and chairman’s races in counties all over the state. And I wouldn’t get into the middle of them if my life depended on it. Spartanburg County’s not the only county with open races. It’s common across the state.”

So, on the county level, there are currently two forces for the activists to coalesce around: Beltram and Ryggs.

Beltram has been trying to force a debate with Ryggs since she announced late last week. He’s been blasting e-mails left and right, calling a meeting Tuesday night (March 31).

Ryggs said her schedule won’t allow her to make either of the times Beltram has proposed for a debate that night -- she has a speaking engagement at 7 p.m. -- and said she isn’t entirely comfortable with a participant in a debate being one of the organizers. And, Beltram, following state party rules, wanted to open that night up for any last-minute delegates to sign up for the upcoming convention(s). Ryggs, citing the state code of laws, said that he can’t do that. (The party rules and the code of laws differ. Sounds like an easy housecleaning measure for the Legislature or state party to take up, but neither is likely to do so in time to have an impact here.)

Ryggs said she is willing to debate Beltram, but added, “Rick has been with the county party for 15 years or more. I have been with the county party for 10 years... Most of the people in the county party know us, They know our record, They know our work. We really don’t need a debate. This is a referendum on Rick Beltram.”

She's also questioned whether calling all of the activists out again -- after two relatively large gatherings recently, and the county convention on the horizon -- is asking too much of them. She said she's looking forward to meeting and speaking with them one-on-one or in small groups.

After several phone calls today, it appears the Beltram and Ryggs may have a chance to speak in a forum-like setting at some point next week -- perhaps, even Tuesday night -- but nothing has been confirmed enough for me to announce it here. Ryggs said she's more comfortable when a third party organizes such an event.

Beltram is going forward with a legal notice for his meeting Tuesday, he said. He’s removed the delegate sign-up section of the meeting, but says he will go forward with a debate between candidates for state committeeman (that’s the person who represents the county on the state GOP executive committee -- there are at least two candidates I know of), and go over details for the April convention. He says there also will be a discussion on inclusion and exclusion.

“The meeting will go on,” he said. “This debate has to be in front of delegates to the county convention. Otherwise, it’s a sham.”

He added: “We have a lot of new people in the party. A lot of people don’t know what the chairman does. I don’t think our records have been discussed at all in public. And we need to be able to be asked questions by people in the room. The delegates to the county convention need to have the opportunity to have a real debate prior to the convention so a simple two- or three-minute speech at the convention isn’t going to sway anyone’s vote. Rick Beltram is not afraid of his record, and Rick Beltram believes a debate is the only fair thing for the Spartanburg County Republican Party.”

I asked Beltram if he thought his approach to having a debate could be seen as bullying his opponent. (It seemed a legitimate question considering he attached personal e-mails between himself and Ryggs to next week’s meeting announcement.)

“I hope it’s being seen as I remember the open hostility toward Lindsey Graham when he wouldn’t debate Buddy Witherspoon.” Beltram said. “And the same people who were pretty much on Buddy Witherspoon team are pretty much against me. So, it’s interesting in one case an incumbent like Lindsey Graham won’t debate a challenger, but to think for a challenger to ignore a debate with the incumbent is inappropriate or is bullying? No. I would think she would applaud my efforts to be out there and spend time debating a challenger.”

Asked about his support for Ryggs, Wood said, “I know her to be conservative and I know her to be honest. LaDonna doesn’t have it in herself to manipulate anyone.”

I should point out that not everyone is part of one faction or another. I talked with activists last night who are supporting Beltram for the county spot but Floyd for state chair, for instance. There are those supporting Ryggs’ county bid and are indifferent to whether that hurts Beltram’s state chances. There are people publicly supporting candidates who say privately they will vote differently.

Ryggs, in a phone interview today, said, "I've been publicly neutral in the state race... and I intend to stay that way. If elected chair, I believe you have to stay that way. I don’t know that us taking Rick out helps Kevin. I don’t know that it helps Karen. I don’t know that it makes a difference. This is about us giving our county party back to the people."

I had a long conversation with Ryggs, and between that and the notes I’m still wading through from the state GOP chairman candidate’s forum, there’s tons more to say. There’s a lot the candidates have to say about issues, about the party platform, about the way the party organizations are run. But as Wood’s comment above indicates, these candidates’ personal qualities, characteristics, methods and personalities seem like they’ll be just as much of a factor as delegates cement their support.

I’ll try to get into this further later this week.

Edit: Title change and some minor additions at 8:39 p.m.

This turned out to be a fun question Monday. I thought it was necessary because supporters of former presidential candidate Ron Paul plan to turn out en masse to impact county and, if Spartanburg is any indication, state Republican Party leadership. Also, Howard Rich has been the subject of numerous stories (here's one), given the amount of money he's able to spend promoting his definition of school choice.

Q: I'm going to name two names. Tell me how they may have helped or hurt the S.C. Republican Party: Ron Paul and Howie Rich.

Spartanburg businesswoman Karen Floyd: "Both actually broaden the texture of our fabric for the state of South Carolina. Take Ron Paul first. The man is absolutely maverick. If you watched his campaign, some of the principles he stood by,  the way he articled them... The way he mobilized the tea party, his fundraising was innovative. It was everything we talk about as Republicans that we need to do. And I honor them. Howie Rich is a philanthropist out of New York City that has an absolute belief in school choice. He found the state of South Carolina a place to infuse his capital, a place to put his money where he thought was important. And again, I honor that. That's what democracy is. And if anyone says otherwise, then we'll limit ourselves as a party and as a people. I say the more the merrier. It enriches us all."

Columbia attorney Kevin Hall: "Ron Paul is a tremendous conservative voice. I disagree on issues from time to time. But to have a voice to speak to the constitutional strength of our country, and to the truth of the Constitution, made the debate of our presidential candidates who ultimately were contending for the nomination better. As I said before, primaries are good. A range of views is good. Ron Paul made the debate better. I'll remind you of Steve Forbes when he ran. None of us thought Steve Forbes was going to win. Steve Forbes knew he wasn't going to win. But he made everybody better, because he forced rational discourse on economic  issues. When he left the scene, our party wasn't so good on economics anymore, so he did help us. With regard to Howie Rich, I feel very similar to Karen on this. We have a process people have to disclose their contributions in this context. And people can draw their conclusions from that. He obviously is a pro-school choice champion. Much as Karen said, the more the merrier. The greatest, broadest debate – all out in the sunlight – is good for our party."

Spartanburg County GOP Chairman Rick Beltram: "In May 2007, we had a debate in Columbia, and Ron Paul made some pretty strong comments about 'blowback' as it referred to President Bush. And whether it's President Bush or President Obama now, I have the ultimate respect for whoever is president. This year, we took a bus load of people to the inauguration. Did I vote for Obama? No. Did I want him there? No. But folks, he is our president. So, I took offense at Ron Paul's comments. Jason took these notes and didn't publish the story until July 4, 2007. Within moments, my cell phone, my e-mail lit up from Ron Paul people literally all over the world fussing at me for what I was doing. And I said, 'Well, here's what I heard, here's what everybody else heard. But I'll back up and give Dr. Paul an opportunity to come to Spartanburg and talk to our GOP group' And we made a little money on the deal. We had a nice luncheon over at the Summit Pointe. At the end of the afternoon, I asked the Ron Paul campaign people, Tell me how many times Dr. Paul has spoken before a GOP organization, whether it's county, state or municipal. You know what the answer was? We're the first one. When Ron Paul came back in December 2007, I asked the same question. How many have you spoken to? Two. Spartanburg and Spartanburg. So, my record shows, even though I might not agree with somebody, he was running as a Republican, and we did give him the courtesy of being here. As far as Howard Rich, again, if somebody wants to put money into campaigns here, that's certainly their choice. I want it disclosed. I want full transparency of money coming in and going out. But also folks, how long has it been that lobbyists, trial attorneys, large attorney groups have been pumping money into not only Democrat campaigns, but some of the Republican campaigns. So only this time does Howard Rich get push back because the trial attorneys aren't the only ones giving big money. So, again, bring the money in, but I want it fully disclosed coming in and going out."

Full disclosure: The comments Beltram referred to, if I recall correctly, were from an interview I did over the phone with him as he was leaving the May debate. The unused portion of those notes sat in my stack of things to get to. Coming up on July 4, that seemed like a fun time to talk about liberty and politics and all that jazz. I had no idea it would blow up the way it did. As far as Beltram's comments about Spartanburg being the only organization to host Paul, though, I'm not entirely sure that's accurate. I'm sure there are plenty in the Ron Paul Army willing to correct him on that point, though, if it's untrue.

School choice was mentioned casually a few times Monday night, as it was here, but didn't take up a significant amount of time -- which, quite frankly, surprised me. I thought we were going to have to wrestle the candidtes away from the topic onto others.

Regarding this matter, though, all three candidates were asked if there was any language in the current S.C. GOP platform that they disagreed with. All said no.

The language regarding school choice:

"We support the concept of “school choice” and affirm the right of parents to home-school their children or send them to private or parochial schools of their choice. We embrace the healthy competition that will result from a comprehensive school choice plan that includes the private sector, and believe such a system should be instituted from kindergarten through 12th grade. In addition to improving public school performance, a system of school choice that includes tax credits, scholarship granting organizations and vouchers would offer more compassionate and better opportunities for all children in South Carolina."