Many thanks to April Bailey and the Aiken Standard for this article. I appreciate how fair they have been to me over the years.
Dick Smith
Blog keeps 80-year-old active and in politics | Aiken Standard | Aiken, SC
Posted using ShareThis
Showing posts with label local media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label local media. Show all posts
Monday, February 1, 2010
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Aiken Republican Party Rally for Joe Wilson
Donna and I attended the Joe Wilson Rally today and thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. Approximately 100 to 150 loyal Republicans showed up to pay their respects and listen to Joe as he explained the EMPOWERING PATIENTS FIRST ACT ( H.R. 3400) which is a health care solution proposed by the Republican Study Committee. The act rests on six fundamental health care principles- accessibility, affordability, choice, innovation,quality and portability.Most of all it believes in individuals and the power of free people to make independent decisions not Washington. To learn more about Congressman Wilson's view go here.
A small group of protestors also attended but for the most part quietly displayed their signs.
An impressive array of local TV representatives from ABC, CBS and NBC were also present and I turned the tables on them with the following photo.I promised I would post it.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Create new S.C.Constitution -Jim Wetzel letter
The following letter from Jim Wetzel appears in the Aiken Standard today. I agree with his call for a Constitutional Convention. We should also consider establishing term limits for elected officials.
Create new S.C. constitution
Your Sunday editorial "Legislature rules S.C." is a sad commentary on South Carolina's dysfunctional governmental system. Governor Sanford's principled stand against the Legislature created and stimulus-fueled, unbalanced budget was ill-fated because, as you noted, South Carolina is an inbred legislative state with all of the budget powers in the Legislature, a Supreme Court appointed by the Legislature and a governor with hardly any powers. He couldn't win because, as you observed, the deck was stacked against him by the state's Constitution.
The state's Constitution is an 1890 post-Reconstruction document from a time when the drafters feared that the emancipated blacks might possibly be voter empowered to elect a black governor. The drafters couldn't block that possibility but they could deny power being placed in the hands of any elected governor, whether white or black. Now in the 21st century we maintain and continue to be governmentally crippled by that 19th century, culturally biased curse. With thinking like that no wonder South Carolina has continually maintained its rank near the bottom of the states in lists of achievement.
Apparently, the Aiken Standard likes the legislative state and doesn't seek change in that culturally biased curse because it says things are going to stay that way until the Constitution is changed and advises us not to hold our breath for that to happen. Why is that? Why not move into the 21st century and promote a change in the Constitution that would make the state a manageable citizens' business rather than the legislative fiefdom that it now is?
How about our political clubs and organizations sponsoring a call for a corrective constitutional convention! And the NAACP could do us all, black and white, a big favor by recognizing that the state has a racially inspired Constitution and joining in a call for a reparative constitutional convention. Sponsoring and joining in would be credible post-racial acts good for all and could eliminate any concern about us having to hold our breath.
Jim Wetzel
Aiken
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Aiken Standard Accused of Cheap Shots
The following letter from Scott Singer appeared in the Aiken Standard today.
Quote
On numerous occasions the Standard has espoused the need for us to be civil and tolerant toward others and their point of views and to refrain from personal character attacks. Hence, I found the tone and tenor of today's (May 1)editorial regarding Mark Sanford's refusal to accept the stimulus money under the terms set forth by the Obama Administration to be extremely hypocritical and certainly not in keeping with this purported ideal.
I hope we can agree that reasonable people can draw different conclusions based on a set of facts and circumstances. I for one believe the unparalleled amount of debt we are rolling up as a Nation in the name of "stimulus" is the greatest threat to our long-term prosperity as a people, which if left unchecked will eventually destroy the economic and political fabric upon which America is built. You may disagree. But that makes neither one of us bad people.
To categorically attribute the Governor's position on the stimulus money as an effort "to stroke his 2012 Presidential aspirations..." is simply irresponsible. Need I remind you that this is the man who stepped down as U.S.
Congressman after six years because he said he believed in term limits; the millionaire who slept on a cot in his Congressional office and returned his housing allowance to the U.S. Treasury. Certainly you don't believe Sanford did these things way back in the early 90's in order to score political points. You may not like him, but Mark Sanford is the same man today that he has been throughout his public life; a true leader that does what he thinks is right rather than what is politically expedient.
It appears that in your zeal to support public education (certainly a worthy goal) you have resorted to cheap shots and even seem to be willing to trash the SC Constitution, which vests certain powers in the Office of the Governor.
Categorically dismissing the concerns of fiscal conservatives by attributing the Governor's actions to selfish motives does nothing to build trust and thus in the long run is counterproductive to your ultimate goal.
Quote
On numerous occasions the Standard has espoused the need for us to be civil and tolerant toward others and their point of views and to refrain from personal character attacks. Hence, I found the tone and tenor of today's (May 1)editorial regarding Mark Sanford's refusal to accept the stimulus money under the terms set forth by the Obama Administration to be extremely hypocritical and certainly not in keeping with this purported ideal.
I hope we can agree that reasonable people can draw different conclusions based on a set of facts and circumstances. I for one believe the unparalleled amount of debt we are rolling up as a Nation in the name of "stimulus" is the greatest threat to our long-term prosperity as a people, which if left unchecked will eventually destroy the economic and political fabric upon which America is built. You may disagree. But that makes neither one of us bad people.
To categorically attribute the Governor's position on the stimulus money as an effort "to stroke his 2012 Presidential aspirations..." is simply irresponsible. Need I remind you that this is the man who stepped down as U.S.
Congressman after six years because he said he believed in term limits; the millionaire who slept on a cot in his Congressional office and returned his housing allowance to the U.S. Treasury. Certainly you don't believe Sanford did these things way back in the early 90's in order to score political points. You may not like him, but Mark Sanford is the same man today that he has been throughout his public life; a true leader that does what he thinks is right rather than what is politically expedient.
It appears that in your zeal to support public education (certainly a worthy goal) you have resorted to cheap shots and even seem to be willing to trash the SC Constitution, which vests certain powers in the Office of the Governor.
Categorically dismissing the concerns of fiscal conservatives by attributing the Governor's actions to selfish motives does nothing to build trust and thus in the long run is counterproductive to your ultimate goal.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Free Money
Carl Langley joins the ranks of those who criticize the Aiken Standard for its stand on the Stimulus.To their credit they do publish the criticisms even though they don't always print all of the news. See Jim Wetzel's letter of March 17.
March 18 Letters to the Editor
3/17/2009 2:42 PM
Don't take the bait of 'free money'
The Aiken Standard has now joined Rep. Jim Clyburn among the elite ranks of those condemning Gov. Mark Sanford for snubbing the offer of free stimulus money from Washington.
I realize how hard it is to resist the lure of free money, but Rep. Clyburn, like all liberal Democrats, thinks everything in life is free. I didn't expect that of the Aiken Standard.
For the record, our governor didn't turn down the free money outright. He just wanted to use the funds to help the state offset its debt and for other uses that will not nurture recurring expenditures.
For those less informed than the governor and I, let me remind folks that federal money is often freely given and just as often freely taken away. This leaves the ones foolish enough to fall for the lure fishing about to find ways to deal with the recurring costs. And that means from each budget year to the next and for as far as one can see into the future.
If the federal government would send down the money with an irrevocable guarantee that the cash flow would keep on coming is one thing. But to assure taxpayers they would not be saddled with future costs is a radically different matter.
During my eight years as mayor of New Ellenton I am proud to say I never rose to the bait, whether it be "free money" from state or federal levels. I know how those people operate (all bureaucrats will probably run shell games in the afterlife), and all that is needed is for you to take the bait. Once done you are hooked for keeps.
I have been at odds with the governor on various issues but on this one I am on his side and urging him to stay firm. My message is don't take the bait because the billion dollars you take this year won't be there next year and you will be forced to either raise taxes dramatically or cut costs dramatically. Either way the governor loses because the home folks have short attention spans, forgetting, of course, that Washington started it all.
I can't imagine the Aiken Standard chiding the governor, but I expect no less from Rep. Clyburn. He is fused for life to the public teat and apparently thinks everything (mainly money) is free. I wonder if he has ever held a real job and had to make a payroll. His biography lists him as a lawyer, which serves as a disqualifier immediately when it comes to handling other peoples' (taxpayers) money.
So let us go forth and battle bravely into the teeth of this recession and don't be foolish enough to fall for the old budget gimmick of here you see it and there you don't. You can go fiscally blind that way!
Carl Langley
Aiken
March 18 Letters to the Editor
3/17/2009 2:42 PM
Don't take the bait of 'free money'
The Aiken Standard has now joined Rep. Jim Clyburn among the elite ranks of those condemning Gov. Mark Sanford for snubbing the offer of free stimulus money from Washington.
I realize how hard it is to resist the lure of free money, but Rep. Clyburn, like all liberal Democrats, thinks everything in life is free. I didn't expect that of the Aiken Standard.
For the record, our governor didn't turn down the free money outright. He just wanted to use the funds to help the state offset its debt and for other uses that will not nurture recurring expenditures.
For those less informed than the governor and I, let me remind folks that federal money is often freely given and just as often freely taken away. This leaves the ones foolish enough to fall for the lure fishing about to find ways to deal with the recurring costs. And that means from each budget year to the next and for as far as one can see into the future.
If the federal government would send down the money with an irrevocable guarantee that the cash flow would keep on coming is one thing. But to assure taxpayers they would not be saddled with future costs is a radically different matter.
During my eight years as mayor of New Ellenton I am proud to say I never rose to the bait, whether it be "free money" from state or federal levels. I know how those people operate (all bureaucrats will probably run shell games in the afterlife), and all that is needed is for you to take the bait. Once done you are hooked for keeps.
I have been at odds with the governor on various issues but on this one I am on his side and urging him to stay firm. My message is don't take the bait because the billion dollars you take this year won't be there next year and you will be forced to either raise taxes dramatically or cut costs dramatically. Either way the governor loses because the home folks have short attention spans, forgetting, of course, that Washington started it all.
I can't imagine the Aiken Standard chiding the governor, but I expect no less from Rep. Clyburn. He is fused for life to the public teat and apparently thinks everything (mainly money) is free. I wonder if he has ever held a real job and had to make a payroll. His biography lists him as a lawyer, which serves as a disqualifier immediately when it comes to handling other peoples' (taxpayers) money.
So let us go forth and battle bravely into the teeth of this recession and don't be foolish enough to fall for the old budget gimmick of here you see it and there you don't. You can go fiscally blind that way!
Carl Langley
Aiken
Friday, December 19, 2008
Who was hurt by election calls?
My letter to the editor concerning yesterday's editorial was published in the Aiken Standard today. Thanks to Jeff Wallace for his timely action.
"Who was hurt by election calls?"
"With reference to the editorial concerning election law violations I agree completely that "it is time that laws dealing with election mischief are dealt with as felonies." However, I most emphatically disagree with your statement that the "intended result of the election-eve deception was not realized." Except for Ginny Allen and her-up- till-now undisclosed co-conspirators none of us can know for sure what the intended result was. It should be quite clear to the objective observer that the only person hurt by this reprehensible ploy was Scott Singer. Certainly there was no chance it would in any way affect the outcome of the Whinghter-Ryberg race since the polls showed Ryberg with more than 70 percent of the voters backing him. Ginny Allen, as an astute political operative, certainly knew that a last-minute attempt to hurt Senator Ryberg would be a waste of time and money.
The facts are that Senator Ryberg, upon learning about the fraudulent calls, immediately issued an angry statement denying any responsibility for them and denied supporting any candidate. Senator Ryberg also requested SLED to investigate. As a consequence of this angry statement many voters may have assumed that Scott Singer had sponsored the calls. To correct this misapprehension Senator Ryberg issued another statement on June 12, wherein he "declared his belief that the other candidate for office mentioned in the illegal call, County Councilman Scott Singer, was not involved in the phone call." For some reason this statement was never published in the Aiken Standard. Meanwhile critics used this spurious charge to cut into Singer's well deserved good reputation and high favorability ratings.
I for one am glad SLED has investigated and is continuing to investigate this matter. Let us wait until all the facts are in before we rush to judgment as to the effectiveness of the calls."
"Who was hurt by election calls?"
"With reference to the editorial concerning election law violations I agree completely that "it is time that laws dealing with election mischief are dealt with as felonies." However, I most emphatically disagree with your statement that the "intended result of the election-eve deception was not realized." Except for Ginny Allen and her-up- till-now undisclosed co-conspirators none of us can know for sure what the intended result was. It should be quite clear to the objective observer that the only person hurt by this reprehensible ploy was Scott Singer. Certainly there was no chance it would in any way affect the outcome of the Whinghter-Ryberg race since the polls showed Ryberg with more than 70 percent of the voters backing him. Ginny Allen, as an astute political operative, certainly knew that a last-minute attempt to hurt Senator Ryberg would be a waste of time and money.
The facts are that Senator Ryberg, upon learning about the fraudulent calls, immediately issued an angry statement denying any responsibility for them and denied supporting any candidate. Senator Ryberg also requested SLED to investigate. As a consequence of this angry statement many voters may have assumed that Scott Singer had sponsored the calls. To correct this misapprehension Senator Ryberg issued another statement on June 12, wherein he "declared his belief that the other candidate for office mentioned in the illegal call, County Councilman Scott Singer, was not involved in the phone call." For some reason this statement was never published in the Aiken Standard. Meanwhile critics used this spurious charge to cut into Singer's well deserved good reputation and high favorability ratings.
I for one am glad SLED has investigated and is continuing to investigate this matter. Let us wait until all the facts are in before we rush to judgment as to the effectiveness of the calls."
Friday, October 10, 2008
Aiken County Republican Rally
Last nights old fashioned Republican Rally was a great success and a good time was had by all. The Aiken Standard reported on the event but unfortunately chose to use the word "dozens" to describe the attendance thereby giving the false impression that only a few Republicans turned out for the event. In fact there were around three hundred enthusiastic attendees. On the other hand the Augusta Chronicle also covered the event and gave an accurate, fair and balanced report.which is repeated below:
AIKEN --- Republicans in Aiken County were out in force Thursday night, showing their support for the Grand Old Party and its candidates on the November ballot.
About 300 party members gathered under a tent at the Aiken Horse Park for the county party's first candidate rally.
"This is taking an opportunity to act on people's enthusiasm and excitement," said Dennis Saylor, the local party chairman. "We decided to have a rally to bring people together and let them know that the party's alive." Local Republican government officials and candidates running in the Nov. 4 election attended the rally, including U.S. Reps. Joe Wilson and Gresham Barrett and state Sen. Shane Massey and Greg Ryberg.
Mr. Wilson faces Democrat Rob Miller on the ballot for the 2nd Congressional District; Mr. Barrett is challenged by Democrat Jane Ballard Dyer in District 3; Mr. Massey faces Democrat Greg Anderson in state Senate District 25; and Mr. Ryberg is unopposed in District 24.
With the smell of barbecue wafting through the air and the sounds of the AAA Homeschool Band providing the dinner music, candidates milled through the crowd, shaking hands and politicking.
As the stock market suffered another day of losses, Mr. Barrett pleaded with the crowd.
"Please don't give up on the Republican Party," he said, telling the crowd it was time for the party to take off the gloves and to get back to its roots.
"When we get back to Washington, if we're going to get out of this, we're going to have to start calling out names," Mr. Barrett said.
Mr. Saylor said people seem to be taking an interest in the election, as evidenced by the increase of registered voters.
In Aiken County, registered voters rose from about 81,000 in January to more than 90,000 last week.
Reach Michelle Guffey at (803) 648-1395, ext. 110, or michelle.guffey@augustachronicle.com.
AIKEN --- Republicans in Aiken County were out in force Thursday night, showing their support for the Grand Old Party and its candidates on the November ballot.
Michael Holahan/Staff
U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett chats with other Republicans during Thursday's candidate rally at the Aiken Horse Park.
"This is taking an opportunity to act on people's enthusiasm and excitement," said Dennis Saylor, the local party chairman. "We decided to have a rally to bring people together and let them know that the party's alive." Local Republican government officials and candidates running in the Nov. 4 election attended the rally, including U.S. Reps. Joe Wilson and Gresham Barrett and state Sen. Shane Massey and Greg Ryberg.
Mr. Wilson faces Democrat Rob Miller on the ballot for the 2nd Congressional District; Mr. Barrett is challenged by Democrat Jane Ballard Dyer in District 3; Mr. Massey faces Democrat Greg Anderson in state Senate District 25; and Mr. Ryberg is unopposed in District 24.
With the smell of barbecue wafting through the air and the sounds of the AAA Homeschool Band providing the dinner music, candidates milled through the crowd, shaking hands and politicking.
As the stock market suffered another day of losses, Mr. Barrett pleaded with the crowd.
"Please don't give up on the Republican Party," he said, telling the crowd it was time for the party to take off the gloves and to get back to its roots.
"When we get back to Washington, if we're going to get out of this, we're going to have to start calling out names," Mr. Barrett said.
Mr. Saylor said people seem to be taking an interest in the election, as evidenced by the increase of registered voters.
In Aiken County, registered voters rose from about 81,000 in January to more than 90,000 last week.
Reach Michelle Guffey at (803) 648-1395, ext. 110, or michelle.guffey@augustachronicle.com.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Thank You Aiken Standard
Thank you Aiken Standard for making letters to the editor easily available on line. You have a very fair policy on publishing letters and they need to be available to online readers. I recommend checking out the several interesting letters appearing in todays paper. Just click on the title of this posting to read them all and make comments if you want to.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
AUGUSTA CHRONICLE EDITORIAL ON "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE'
JULY 7, 2008
If you don't subscribe to the Augusta Chronicle the following editorial published today might make you consider doing so. The editorial also appears on THE AUGUSTA CHRONICLE website as a blog and the 124 COMMENTS are, with a few exceptions, well worth reading. The so-called fairness doctrine is scary we must oppose it with all our might. We do not need thought police!
Arrest the speech police
Return to the Fairness Doctrine has chilling implications
Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff
Monday, July 07, 2008
125 comments
Today's quiz: Can you name the country whose new leaders want the government to impose strict government controls on broadcast speech?
Nope. Not Venezuela. Not Cuba. Not even Putin's Russia.
It's the country formerly known as the United States of America.
Some Democrats, who now control Congress and are pining for the White House, want to bring back the Orwellian "Fairness Doctrine," in which the federal government monitors all broadcast speech in the name of "fairness" and decides if stations need to have more opposing viewpoints heard.
Shouldn't the free market decide that?
And has the free market ever done a better job of it?
The Fairness Doctrine was in force from 1949 until 1987, when it was deemed outdated due to the proliferation of consumer choices and, yes, different viewpoints.
The problem is, most of the viewpoints that have flourished since then have been conservative ones. With the explosion of talk radio, the Internet and cable news, conservative views have seen expression as never before -- certainly more so than when three liberal network news operations and the New York Times set the nation's news and analysis tempo.
So, some liberals want the government to step in and demand that successful conservative broadcasts are counterbalanced by an equal amount of liberal views -- because they can't achieve that balance competing on a level playing field.
Again, why not let listeners decide that? Isn't that what they do in a free country?
It is more than a little frightening that such figures as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi support the reimposition of government manipulation of the airwaves under the Fairness Doctrine. She admitted her support in a recent interview. And she refuses to allow a floor vote on a bill prohibiting the doctrine from coming back.
Democratic nominee-to-be Barack Obama has said he "doesn't support" the Fairness Doctrine. But that's different from opposing it. It's possible the tepid "doesn't support it" could change or simply yield under pressure from his Democratic colleagues. And, as columnist and Phoenix radio talk show host Austin Hill notes, Obama once was a huge proponent of spending limits under public financing of presidential campaigns -- until he found he could raise a lot of money and spend it with no limits.
Might he also change his position on the Fairness Doctrine?
Back in broadcasting's infancy, an argument could be made that the limited number of broadcast outlets required some government watchdogging. Now, however, a return to the Fairness Doctrine would be an attempt not to allow more speech, but to rein it in.
That should scare all of us, regardless of our political views.
From the Monday, July 07, 2008 edition of the Augusta Chronicle showYahooAds();
advertisement
If you don't subscribe to the Augusta Chronicle the following editorial published today might make you consider doing so. The editorial also appears on THE AUGUSTA CHRONICLE website as a blog and the 124 COMMENTS are, with a few exceptions, well worth reading. The so-called fairness doctrine is scary we must oppose it with all our might. We do not need thought police!
Arrest the speech police
Return to the Fairness Doctrine has chilling implications
Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff
Monday, July 07, 2008
125 comments
Today's quiz: Can you name the country whose new leaders want the government to impose strict government controls on broadcast speech?
Nope. Not Venezuela. Not Cuba. Not even Putin's Russia.
It's the country formerly known as the United States of America.
Some Democrats, who now control Congress and are pining for the White House, want to bring back the Orwellian "Fairness Doctrine," in which the federal government monitors all broadcast speech in the name of "fairness" and decides if stations need to have more opposing viewpoints heard.
Shouldn't the free market decide that?
And has the free market ever done a better job of it?
The Fairness Doctrine was in force from 1949 until 1987, when it was deemed outdated due to the proliferation of consumer choices and, yes, different viewpoints.
The problem is, most of the viewpoints that have flourished since then have been conservative ones. With the explosion of talk radio, the Internet and cable news, conservative views have seen expression as never before -- certainly more so than when three liberal network news operations and the New York Times set the nation's news and analysis tempo.
So, some liberals want the government to step in and demand that successful conservative broadcasts are counterbalanced by an equal amount of liberal views -- because they can't achieve that balance competing on a level playing field.
Again, why not let listeners decide that? Isn't that what they do in a free country?
It is more than a little frightening that such figures as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi support the reimposition of government manipulation of the airwaves under the Fairness Doctrine. She admitted her support in a recent interview. And she refuses to allow a floor vote on a bill prohibiting the doctrine from coming back.
Democratic nominee-to-be Barack Obama has said he "doesn't support" the Fairness Doctrine. But that's different from opposing it. It's possible the tepid "doesn't support it" could change or simply yield under pressure from his Democratic colleagues. And, as columnist and Phoenix radio talk show host Austin Hill notes, Obama once was a huge proponent of spending limits under public financing of presidential campaigns -- until he found he could raise a lot of money and spend it with no limits.
Might he also change his position on the Fairness Doctrine?
Back in broadcasting's infancy, an argument could be made that the limited number of broadcast outlets required some government watchdogging. Now, however, a return to the Fairness Doctrine would be an attempt not to allow more speech, but to rein it in.
That should scare all of us, regardless of our political views.
From the Monday, July 07, 2008 edition of the Augusta Chronicle showYahooAds();
advertisement
AIKEN STANDARD STRIKES AGAIN
JULY 8, 2008
AIKEN STANDARD STRIKES AGAIN- While explaining his veto of the DNA bill Governor Sanford made the following points:
“There were some other good provisions in the bill that I would like to see passed at some point. I favor prisoners having the right to DNA testing to prove their innocence. There was also a condition that would have allowed family members of missing persons to have their DNA tested against unidentified remains.”
In light of his comments and the main concern of the web author I cannot understand why the Aiken Standard felt the following web posting should be on the front page of its paper today unless it suited their own "political" concerns.
AIKEN STANDARD STRIKES AGAIN- While explaining his veto of the DNA bill Governor Sanford made the following points:
“There were some other good provisions in the bill that I would like to see passed at some point. I favor prisoners having the right to DNA testing to prove their innocence. There was also a condition that would have allowed family members of missing persons to have their DNA tested against unidentified remains.”
In light of his comments and the main concern of the web author I cannot understand why the Aiken Standard felt the following web posting should be on the front page of its paper today unless it suited their own "political" concerns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)