SC Crazy Council Veers Left
Remember the S.C. Policy Council? Yeah … you’re not alone if you answered that question You must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
Remember the S.C. Policy Council? Yeah … you’re not alone if you answered that question You must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
26 comments
I love the way Nikki is staring at Sandford in this picture. Wonder what she’s thinking?
“I wonder what tanning salon he goes to”
ba dum tishhh
…She’s thinking “De Plane Boss De Plane”….and….He brought me to First Class and I gave him some First Class Ass!
Looking at him looking at HER and thinking, “What a jerk.”
I love the way Nikki is staring at Sandford in this picture. Wonder what she’s thinking?
“I wonder what tanning salon he goes to”
ba dum tishhh
…She’s thinking “De Plane Boss De Plane”….and….He brought me to First Class and I gave him some First Class Ass!
Looking at him looking at HER and thinking, “What a jerk.”
When your media staff (The Nerve) came from leftwing media outlets like The State and Free Times…how do you expect to fool anyone that you’re not leftwing, too???
The Nerve is just another version of establishment media…And The Nerve fails because it does what FITS does (bash Republicans)…except the Nerve has no gossip or slime like FITS….
When your media staff (The Nerve) came from leftwing media outlets like The State and Free Times…how do you expect to fool anyone that you’re not leftwing, too???
The Nerve is just another version of establishment media…And The Nerve fails because it does what FITS does (bash Republicans)…except the Nerve has no gossip or slime like FITS….
Kurt Cobain with a scowl.
Kurt Cobain with a scowl.
That’s one happy looking bunch. John Wayne Gacy would fit right in the picture.
That’s one happy looking bunch. John Wayne Gacy would fit right in the picture.
75 percent of the school choice bill is tax credit funded scholarships for poor and crippled kids. The middle class “deductions” are just edge dressing. No mention of this in the Policy Council’s so-called “analysis” of the bill.
75 percent of the school choice bill is tax credit funded scholarships for poor and crippled kids. The middle class “deductions” are just edge dressing. No mention of this in the Policy Council’s so-called “analysis” of the bill.
That is a nasty snarl on Ms. Landess’ face, for sure. A lot of contempt there for something.
Gov. Haley is obviously checking out escape routes thinking, “how the fuck can I get out of here?”.
Gov. Sanford has his pecker in Argentina’s ass.
That is a nasty snarl on Ms. Landess’ face, for sure. A lot of contempt there for something.
Gov. Haley is obviously checking out escape routes thinking, “how the fuck can I get out of here?”.
Gov. Sanford has his pecker in Argentina’s ass.
SCPC “left wing”? Well, maybe the day pigs fly. The national republican party has become like an “irrelevant” drunk holding onto a lamp post, gonads removed by democrats in the last election. Burning up during re-entry. Keep it up, Jim-boy. I love it.
SCPC “left wing”? Well, maybe the day pigs fly. The national republican party has become like an “irrelevant” drunk holding onto a lamp post, gonads removed by democrats in the last election. Burning up during re-entry. Keep it up, Jim-boy. I love it.
The SCPC is a good group that does great work. They are trying to expose corruption and they’re going after the RINOs that run South Carolina. I think this article is way off base.
The SCPC is a good group that does great work. They are trying to expose corruption and they’re going after the RINOs that run South Carolina. I think this article is way off base.
It’s unfortunate, I agree SCPC won’t be able to compete against the new dog.
But FITS assessment SCPC is ‘left leaning’ is personal opinion, NOT reasoned conclusion (look up the diff).
Reasoned conclusion for SCPC decline? Leadership failure. Facts:
1) Organizational basics. Research State Policy Network, how SCPC got started, mission, charter, who can change it. Landress can’t. Claim that SCPC changed alliance is sophomoric.
2) SCPC funding. http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/02/14/12181/donors-use-charity-push-free-market-policies-states. Aspirin for the data headache FITS!!!! Maybe FITS has an ‘inside scoop’ that SCPC is being funded elsewhere and just didn’t say??
3) Core product of think tanks? Analysis. SCPC reports? Conservative. Generally good product. (Didn’t read them FITS?) Landress isn’t SCPC product, she’s supposed to market. I don’t see any evidence Landress markets SCPC product., or, she works to broadening market demand/need, changing report focus to meet customer needs, etc.
4) Involvement in ‘political’ activities damages think tank credibility. Landress recently presented to Spartanburg Tea Party., board member is active in party. Sounds political, no evidence how these activity improves SCPC product. Marketing? Are Tea Party customers? Can’t tell, leadership ineffective. To SonofThunder point, ‘going after RINOs” is political, not credible. Publishing data that exposes waste? Credible.
5) Landress fired crippling shot at SCPC credibility. Don’t think it can recover with Landress in charge. SC gov rated one of country most corrupt. Landress asserted SC gov culture is corrupt. It is a necessary conclusion, then, that she has no rational basis to expect honest services from a gov she asserted is malfunctioning (fouled w/corrupt). Yet, she asked this corrupt gov to investigate and clean itself up (Harrell investigation).
Did gov corrupt culture suddenly go away? No. Is corruption somehow mysteriously blocked from tainting this investigation? No. Can Landress know if the results are tainted or not? No, unless she’s trained in data analysis and understands law ( I see no evidence of either). Her request for a service from an entity she affirms is incapable of delivering it honestly, is typical of inexperienced box thinkers. They seek different results, but they can’t break out of status quo. They do the same thing, invent an irrational justification to expect something different, and try to show how the result is something different.
If Landress asserts the investigation results are crappy or tainted, one can say she’s just being disgruntled. If she supports the results, one can say she’s trying not to look foolish for asking for it in the first place. Not credible.
SCPC meets the criteria of a conservative think tank that does respectable credible work. However, unless Landress is removed from the picture, I believe it likely that SCPC will crash and burn when DeMint’s new group is set up.
It’s unfortunate, I agree SCPC won’t be able to compete against the new dog.
But FITS assessment SCPC is ‘left leaning’ is personal opinion, NOT reasoned conclusion (look up the diff).
Reasoned conclusion for SCPC decline? Leadership failure. Facts:
1) Organizational basics. Research State Policy Network, how SCPC got started, mission, charter, who can change it. Landress can’t. Claim that SCPC changed alliance is sophomoric.
2) SCPC funding. http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/02/14/12181/donors-use-charity-push-free-market-policies-states. Aspirin for the data headache FITS!!!! Maybe FITS has an ‘inside scoop’ that SCPC is being funded elsewhere and just didn’t say??
3) Core product of think tanks? Analysis. SCPC reports? Conservative. Generally good product. (Didn’t read them FITS?) Landress isn’t SCPC product, she’s supposed to market. I don’t see any evidence Landress markets SCPC product., or, she works to broadening market demand/need, changing report focus to meet customer needs, etc.
4) Involvement in ‘political’ activities damages think tank credibility. Landress recently presented to Spartanburg Tea Party., board member is active in party. Sounds political, no evidence how these activity improves SCPC product. Marketing? Are Tea Party customers? Can’t tell, leadership ineffective. To SonofThunder point, ‘going after RINOs” is political, not credible. Publishing data that exposes waste? Credible.
5) Landress fired crippling shot at SCPC credibility. Don’t think it can recover with Landress in charge. SC gov rated one of country most corrupt. Landress asserted SC gov culture is corrupt. It is a necessary conclusion, then, that she has no rational basis to expect honest services from a gov she asserted is malfunctioning (fouled w/corrupt). Yet, she asked this corrupt gov to investigate and clean itself up (Harrell investigation).
Did gov corrupt culture suddenly go away? No. Is corruption somehow mysteriously blocked from tainting this investigation? No. Can Landress know if the results are tainted or not? No, unless she’s trained in data analysis and understands law ( I see no evidence of either). Her request for a service from an entity she affirms is incapable of delivering it honestly, is typical of inexperienced box thinkers. They seek different results, but they can’t break out of status quo. They do the same thing, invent an irrational justification to expect something different, and try to show how the result is something different.
If Landress asserts the investigation results are crappy or tainted, one can say she’s just being disgruntled. If she supports the results, one can say she’s trying not to look foolish for asking for it in the first place. Not credible.
SCPC meets the criteria of a conservative think tank that does respectable credible work. However, unless Landress is removed from the picture, I believe it likely that SCPC will crash and burn when DeMint’s new group is set up.
Nah. Not buying it. Landress and the group have not gone “left wing” at all, but have learned the value of strategic alliances.
Nah. Not buying it. Landress and the group have not gone “left wing” at all, but have learned the value of strategic alliances.