Today, as has been widely reported, national unemployment numbers topped 10 percent for the first time in 26 years. All year, the nation’s sagging economy has been laid at the feet of President Barack Obama by conservatives. The disorganized liberal base points the finger at former President George W. Bush and GOP congressional leadership. But, hey, what about 1983? Will the same conservatives attacking Obama say that the sainted Reagan should be blamed for the conditions of ’83, when he’d been president for over two years, or will they look further back to Carter? At the same time, will liberals give Carter a total pass and unload on Reagan?

It’s nuts. In reality, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Barack Obama get way too much credit, pro and con, for the economy — it’s the same with every president. OPEC’s oil embargo was a more than significant contributor to the economic problems of the ’70s and early ’80s. Historians have written that Richard Nixon probably wouldn’t have been impeached if the economy was doing better. It’s why Carter beat Gerry Ford, and a major reason of why Carter wasn’t reelected. We have our own reasons to dislike Reagan. While he was making sure the rich got richer, our parents, with college degrees, couldn’t find work for a decent amount of time during that ’83 slump. Then there were the S&L scandals, bailouts, &c. that sent our family around the South and us to six different elementary schools in five states. Again, digressing.

The point is, with the exception of starting wars without declaring a state of war, executive orders and general directives to agency heads, the president can’t have that much impact in a short amount of time. If a Republican was in the White House right now, Democrats would be losing their heads over the unemployment rate, burning up DailyKos‘ bandwidth and the like. And so, Republicans are going to rip on Obama. But, it’s all so much bullshit.

There is such a thing as the business cycle. Maybe you’ve heard of it. Since the Depression, the government has done an OK job of managing the system to where the peaks and valleys aren’t that extreme. However, there are no short-term solutions, and any solution won’t come out fully-birthed with a donkey or an elephant emblazoned on it.

Let’s recap: During President Barack Obama‘s health care address, U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson yelled, “You lie!” from the House floor. It shouldn’t have happened, it allowed a lot of people to throw jokes at his expense and poke fun. Great, that’s fine — he brought it on himself. Then, Wilson called Obama chief of staff and professional ball-breaker Rahm Emanuel to apologize.

Seems like that would work. A two-day story.

But, oh, this is American politics, and one turn deserves another, like a never-ending series of attacks reminiscent of August 1914. Liberals fired back, raising bank for challenger Rob Miller‘s campaign. Wilson’s people countered, developing T-shirts and doing fundraising of their own. There were demonstrations and counter-demonstrations. There were clowns. Add into the mix an endless amount of sniping over the Internet.

What is the Democratic majority to do? We thought it was great that the Democrats picked a woman as its first speaker of the house in 12 years. Not so happy that it was Nancy Pelosi. For one reason or another, she never struck us as someone that you’d want in the leadership. But, it is what it is.

Sprinkle into the mix some classic South Carolina battles. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn commented in a story recently that he was none too happy that Wilson held a town hall meeting at Keenan High School, in the Sixth District. Whether that was a part of it or not, it was reported by a Politico reporter on C-SPAN today that Pelosi wasn’t initially behind the idea of a resolution, and it was Clyburn who lobbied for the resolution.

So, there we were, ’round 5 p.m., watching the House going through the roll call vote. In the end, the resolution passed, 240-179. Expect a continuing amount of warring against the 12 Democrats that voted against and the seven Republicans that voted for the resolution, including U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis, who is in a tough primary fight to save his seat.

The play was called by the Democrats, so we’ll analyze what they could, or could not have done, in the situation. There are a number of factors to take into consideration, but it should be split on external and internal lines.

Externally speaking, they should have let it go. Yeah, let the netroots and the grassroots and every other roots complain and raise money and put up blog posts and hold rallies. They do that pretty well. Have the House Caucus issue a statement saying that you deplore the congressman’s actions, but respect his apology, and that it’s the party’s intention to move on and pass meaningful health care reform. Done. The House Dems look good, and seem like they have their eyes on the ball. May cost with the die-hards, but they’re never happy, anyway.

Internally speaking, Pelosi had to act. House Democrats watched for eight years while they saw Republicans hold the line for President George W. Bush. If the Dems didn’t do something that is ultimately a pretty petty thing, it would seem like they were weak. And, this is Washington politics — it’s like the African plains. The weak get eaten by the lions. Also, it was a way of telling Obama that the House has his back. Internal politics, it can be a bastard.

And so it is. In the insular, high school-like world of Capitol Hill, the House Dems didn’t have perspective — at least, that’s the way it looks from South Carolina. They did a very red meat thing in the middle of debating one of the biggest issues of the last century.

So, here we go again. This story will probably run another week or two before the next scandal or catastrophe, and there will be more claims of Marxism and racism thrown around and maybe, at some point, we can finally get to the bottom of the health care problem in our country.

But that didn’t happen today.

During the great gnashing of teeth in the past decade over partisan divide, the “new regionalism” and other such things, a group of young filmmakers left California to document what it all meant. Was it urban v. rural, coast v. midlands, rich v. poor? How much was race involved?

Anyway, with President Barack Obama making a couple big upsets in the last general election to change the traditional look of the map, we decided to go back through and reassess where red v. blue stands in 2009. In our opinion, the battleground is much smaller than people would like it to be. It’s located in Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Missouri, New Mexico and Nevada. Yes, Indiana went for Obama last time, but no matter what the record, the economy or anything else in 2012, we’d still wager it’s unlikely the Hoosier state stays blue. Also, with over half a century of transforming their economies and populations, Virginia and North Carolina are becoming closer in voting pattern to Pennsylvania than Alabama.

So, there’s the map — pick out your own theory. This one has the Democrats with a national electoral edge, but GOP wins in Ohio and Florida and it’s a whole new ballgame. Also, it remains to be seen whether Dems can hold onto the gains they’ve built in Virginia and North Carolina.

The film, “Split: A Divided America.” (Thanks, Hulu.)

Sunday, John O’Connor wrote in The State that Democrats will be looking to hang Gov. Mark Sanford around Republicans’ necks in the statewide elections next year. He also said:

To win a statewide election, a Democratic candidate has to find a special issue — one-term Democratic Gov. Jim Hodges tied his campaign to a lottery for education — while, at the same time, the Republican candidate has to implode, turning off conservative voters.

This did not sit well with S.C. political operative/blogger/woman-about-town Laurin Manning, who wrote:

Elections are full of variables: strength of the candidates, the general climate, the effectiveness of the campaigns (messaging, fundraising, ground game), etc. And no election year is identical to previous ones — as much as reporters want that to be the case for the sake of comparison and analysis.

Sure, it’s challenging for a Democrat to win a statewide election in South Carolina. But the idea that there’s only one way to get from 40% (which a Democrat running statewide with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears can pretty much count on banking) to 51% and it necessarily depends on a confluence of factors that happened to prove a winning formula ten years ago just doesn’t make much sense.

While pointing to the last time Democrats had a solid year in state elections may take a decade’s look back, the proof is in the pudding.

It is generally accepted that for a Democrat to win statewide in South Carolina, they need a record turnout from blacks, over 90 percent of the black vote and about a third of the white vote.

In 1998, Democrats benefited from a number of things: a good year in general, the lottery issue, single-issue voters dissatisfied with Gov. David Beasley (eg. the Confederate flag issue) and absolute shit-tons of money from the video poker lobby.

For example, in a poker game a couple weeks ago, WR went into the final hand with a three of spades and a nine of clubs and decided to go all the way. Four spades came down, and WR won with a flush. That is where the state Democratic Party is every year, and 1998 was one of those years that the flush came down on the river.

Yes, it may not take a single issue to bump the white vote up to 33 percent, but that is needed, along with a slew of other factors that show 2010 will be a tough year for S.C. Dems, no matter how well the national party turns out.

In the past, as in the most recent election cycle, Gov. Mark Sanford used his coterie of independent groups to run ads favorable to his slate of candidates, who were, ironically, running against fellow Republicans.

The Governor has taken to the airwaves again, this time courtesy of his group, “Carolinians for Reform.” Of course, the names and staff for these organizations are basically interchangeable, so the name barely matters.

However, and here is the kicker: CfR was the group Sanford gave state grant money to after the National Governors Association convention. Maybe the Governor does not understand that people know how to use Google (he should probably tell Mr. Kuyk that). Maybe he does not care, period. In the event that taxes may have to be raised, it does not take a brilliant pollster to find out that people would be willing to shell out an extra couple bucks for good schools and secure prisons.

Wonkette is already on top of the matter and reposted the video below.

Interestingly today, Sanford combined this ad with bypassing the S.C. media and going directly to The Washington Post. After a number of years of digesting and dissecting the Governor’s pablum, most journalists in this state have figured out how to separate the wheat from the chaff, and that is not good for Sanford’s ambitions.

So, he went to talk to Chris Cillizza. In the interview, Sanford admitted that the issue was a political loser. But, that is what gets him off. If he really thinks that pulling stunts like this is what is going to get him the Republican nomination in 2012, then he truly is out to lunch. The national Republican Party does not nominate people like Sanford to be its presidential candidate these days. Normally, it is someone who has bided their time (McCain, Dole), an establishment figure (Dole, Bush Sr.) a legacy (Bush Jr.), or preferably a combination of any two of the three factors.

And, has been said many times, Sanford does not play well with others. This appears to be another one of those circumstances.

South Carolina may be entering one of the most politically strange periods in the state’s history. As it stands now, Carol Fowler will be the chair of the S.C. Democratic Party going into the 2010 elections, and, most likely, Karen Floyd will be the chair of the S.C. Republican Party.

At any other time, having two women run the two major parties in a Southern state would be something to celebrate. However, there are a number of people who are apprehensive about the future.

The Democrats
Carol Fowler is, possibly, the worst person Democrats could have running their party. Last year, when Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham was at the most vulnerable point he will be in his career, she failed at both grooming a candidate and recruiting a candidate to run against him.

Democratic insiders would say that she was not that big of a deal in years past, and her marriage to SCDP heavyweight Don Fowler has put her where she is now. Unfortunately for the donkey class, she is running for another term as state chairman and does not seem to have any credible opposition.

In the announcement of Fowler’s intention to run again on Indigo Journal, State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex and House Minority Leader Harry Ott endorsed her candidacy. Maybe they felt they had to. But, one thing is for certain: if Fowler is in her current position next year, Ott will still be in the minority, and Rex will probably be out of a job.

If the Democratic Party in this state wants to be competitive in 2010, they need to overthrow the leadership that has been driving the party into the ground for the past several years.

If they want to remain irrelevant in South Carolina, they can keep doing what they have been doing.

The Republicans
Pick your poison: Spartanburg County chairman Rick Beltram or former Superintendent of Education candidate Karen Floyd. Obviously, Beltram will not be elected. He is too idiosyncratic, and too widely disliked, to win the SCGOP chairman’s job. Hence, Floyd is basically a shoo-in. And, that is a shame for all Republicans.

Floyd was the only statewide Republican candidate in 2006 to lose, and not the least of which because she was wedded to the Howard Rich crew, which pissed off enough Democrats and moderate Republicans to let Rex win.

So, the argument has to be made: if she could not properly manage her own campaign, what would that mean for the SCGOP in the two years she would be chairman?

Conclusion
If South Carolinians rest on their laurels and let these two people run the state’s two major parties over the next two years, it will not be a surprise if we continue to get bad candidates nominated and bad officials elected. Democrats and Republicans need to gain control over their parties and put forth smart partisans who will groom, recruit and get elected the best candidates possible.

The last thing this site wants to do is be another in the innumerable Internet venues assailing Gov. Mark Sanford’s former spokesman for every step he takes. After all, for anyone watching the General Assembly this term, there are a lot more important things to discuss.

However, WR has a short fuse for some things, and one of them is idiocy. Needless to say, when an item is obvious, it will not be ignored.

Let’s go to the audio tape, as Warner Wolf would say. OK, maybe not so much audio, but to the recent archives. A few days ago, Will Folks of FITSNews and Adam Fogle of Richard Quinn & Associates and The Palmetto Scoop went at it about a very old accusation that Folks was doing work, and getting paid by, Sen. Tom Davis of Beaufort.

While Fogle may not have paid attention to anything that has been on the Internet in the past 18 months, it was old news to most people that, at one time, Davis had been the registered agent for Folks’ political consulting firm. It was also known that the two were friendly (and that Davis was involved in the hit list project), so it would only make sense that they worked together.

That is not a big deal.

What may be an issue came up in comments on a post entitled, “More Shocking Gubernatorial Polling!” On it, Folks wrote:

As for Folks’ relationship with Sen. Davis, it is more of a “man crush” than anything else, and his counsel on Tom’s television advertisements (which were actually filmed in Beaufort, Bluffton and Hilton Head Island) was provided on a strictly pro bono basis.

Beside calling the commenter he is replying to retarded, a usual retort that is ironic to people who know a few things, it should be noted that when you provide a service to a candidate, it cannot be pro bono. According to the law, that constitutes an in-kind contribution.

So, when did this contribution happen? According to several Davis reports, there were multiple payments for television advertising.

• 2008.10.17, Starboard Communications, $20,000
• 2008.10.17, Strategic Media Placement, $5,000
• 2008.06.19, Strategy Group for Media, $5,000
• 2008.05.27, Strategy Group for Media, $7,400
• 2008.05.23, Strategy Group for Media, $70,000
• 2008.05.19, Strategy Group for Media, $70,000

Naturally, none of this means that there was an illegal transaction. Folks could have been paid by a number of payments to Starboard, which, more often than not, were referred to by the disclosure reports by the check number, not for why the payment was made. Also, the payment could have come from SGM.

But, either way, the work on behalf of the Davis campaign could not have been pro bono, because such an arrangement is not allowed by S.C. law. It would have required a payment by one of the above firms, or an in-kind disclosure on the form.

As Folks would say, anybody retarded enough to read the S.C. Ethics Commission site would know that.

Jeffery Sewell, S.C. political consultant and noted RINO hunter, recently sent out an email advertising his access to the S.C. Election Commission voter file. In the subject, he writes, “Complete ’08 SCEC file complete with appendeges e.g. no dead, felons etc blah blah…buy from me or pay twice the price…available right now.”

Now, Sewell has been kind to this site in the past, which surely means Wolfe Reports will join the number of recently axed sites from his news aggregator. That is fine. It is only a matter of time until we piss off nearly everyone and find ourselves begging for money for cheap beer like the rest of the homeless in Five Points.

However, how does a guy who has taken pride in going after “Republicans In Name Only” offer his voter file to Democrats? One of the email addresses listed is Jay Parmley, executive director of the South Carolina Democratic Party. Not only that, but Parmley is a member of the RISE SC Facebook group. RISE SC, as you may recall, is totally opposed to school choice, which Sewell says he favors and in which movement he has been involved.

But, that is not all. He has also offered the list to Rick Beltram, chairman of the Spartanburg County Republican Party. It should not take most people long to wonder why a guy who says he is a supporter of Karen Floyd and says she will be the next S.C. Republican Party chairman would be offering his list to one of her opponents.

And, still, there is more. He also offered it to people he called RINOs in the past, like S.C. operatives Rod Shealy and Wesley Donehue. What is not known is if the other people on the listing, like SCGOP chairman Katon Dawson, Richard Quinn & Associates’ Rick Quinn, McAllister Communications‘ Dave Wilson and Starboard Communications‘ Mike Green are considered to be in the same camp as the others, or just open to cut rate voter file access.

Either way, there are more things afoot in S.C. politics than anyone could even imagine.