The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

VIDEO: ‘They Unleashed a Tiger,’ Haley Tells South Carolina Press Conference

Posted on | May 28, 2010 | 38 Comments

The Republican gubernatorial candidate seemed cheerful and confident in this Friday interview with reporters:

  • About her phone calls with Will Folks: “You can ask any member of my staff. When they work for me, I expect work from them, whether it’s through e-mail or text or anything else. I work my staff hard and I make sure things get done, and so that’s all this is.”
  • Asked if she is contemplating legal action: “I am very focused on this campaign. I am not going to be distracted. . . . Right now, our goal is to get through this election. We will deal with this afterwards in a way that’s appropriate.”
  • Will Folks’ job with her: “He did press communications, he did Web site work, and he also did op-ed material.
  • About Will Folks’ motives: “This is what I will tell you — I was 10 points up in the poll. Y’know, I was ‘Nikki Who?’ before, then I got 10 points up in the poll, then I got 20 points up the poll, then all of a sudden this explodes. I think the people are smarter than this. This came out at the last minute, as it showed that we’re heading into the primary in a very strong way . . . They unleashed a tiger. If anything, I’m more motivated and more focused than I’ve ever been.”
  • Whether the accusations have hurt her campaign: “Not at all. Let me tell you, I am overwhelmed by the support we have had. The phone calls coming into the office have been overwhelming. We have run out of yard signs, we have run out of bumper stickers, and the contributions have been more amazing than ever. I am very grateful to the people of South Carolina for seeing this for what it is and for continuing the support they have given me.”
  • How her husband is handling it: “My husband is great. You know, we have been faithful to each other for 13 years. He is strong. He is my support. He and my kids are going to be with me this weekend, and so we are in a very good place.”
  • Asked if she feels like a victim: “No, I will never call myself a victim. I am somebody who has pushed for good government, and anytime you push the status quo . . . there’s some heat you have to take back. But in the end, it’s going to be the people who win in South Carolina.”
  • Asked about treatment by the media: “I think the media’s doing their job. You know, what I wish is that they would focus back on the fact that the elections of 2010 are really going to matter in an important way. You know, I would ask that they would turn and get back on the issues, but I think the media’s been fine.”

Here is the news report that WCBD-TV did from the press conference, and notice how the editing and the reporter’s descriptions shape the narrative:

A possibly relevant point about those long late-night phone calls. Ask anyone who has ever worked on building a Web site: You try this, update and preview, change that, update and preview, over and over. If Folks was putting together a Web site for Haley, is it possible they were on a call while they experimented with changing the content and appearance of the Web site?

Of course, they could have been having a lover’s quarrel or doing some icky phone-sex thing, but if she was paying him to be a political communications consultant, doesn’t it seem fair to suppose — absent evidence to the contrary — that those phone calls were about politics and communication?

UPDATE: Wow! A poll taken Tuesday, after the Will Folks accusation on Monday, shows Nikki Haley gaining strength — now at 31% compared to 21% for Bauer and 14% for Barrett. According to the Insider Advantage poll, when asked how the allegations affected their views of Haley, 21% said they were less likely to vote for her, while 17% said they were more likely to vote for her. (Call that 17% the “cougar caucus.”) An important note of caution from Bill Davis of the Statehouse News:

Scott Huffmon, a political scientist at Winthrop University who specializes in political polling . . . said the InsiderAdvantage/ Statehouse Report poll may have come too early to accurately gauge the complete effect that the adultery allegations will have on Haley’s campaign. Once the story is fully sunk into the minds of voters, Huffmon said, it may be a different story.
Huffmon added as the story continues to drag out in dribs and drabs, and if no real substantive evidence emerges of an affair, then he expected Haley to benefit from voter backlash, as voters could then become convinced that Haley was the victim.

As always, perception is reality in politics, so if Nikki Haley is perceived as the victim, while Will Folks is perceived as a douchebag (which he is), then it’s a net positive for Haley.

By the way, notice that Bauer is sandwiched between Haley and Barrett in the poll, so if Haley gets taken down a few notches, and Barrett gets the blame — well, cui bono, y’all? Oh, and count me as less-than-amused by the Statehouse News cartoonist’s offering:

C’mon, man. Far be it from me to scream “raaaaacism,” but (a) she’s not that brown and (b) this is South Carolina, besides which (c) the cartoon makes her look ugly, which she’s definitely not. After all, if even the irresistible Will Folks said “I’d hit it” . . .

UPDATE II: Remember how Folks was so totally panicked that Jim Davenport of the Associated Press was asking him questions about the rumor? Well, here is Davenport’s big scary in-depth exposé — all 120 words of it:

COLUMBIA, S.C. — A South Carolina candidate for governor says a blogger is delusional if he thinks records of phone calls between the two support his claim of an inappropriate physical relationship.
Blogger Will Folks claims he had a relationship in 2007 with Republican Rep. Nikki Haley when he was not yet married. Haley is a married mother of two who strongly denies the allegation.
Campaign manager Tim Pearson said Friday that Folks’ phone records showing nearly 700 calls between the two only reflect that Folks was working for the state representative from Lexington.
Haley is one of four Republicans running in the June 8 primary. She has gained recognition and support since being endorsed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

This is why Folks’ panic over the AP story never made sense. Folks has a masters degree in journalism. Surely he should know that an established media organization like Associated Press has these people called “editors,” who aren’t going to let their reporters go hog-wild on a rumor about a douchbag blogger. Otherwise, they’d never have time to report real news.

UPDATE III: Thanks to the alert commenter who calls my attention to a longer version of Davenport’s story with this interesting information:

On Thursday, Folks released hundreds of pages of phone records. An Associated Press analysis of them showed at least 693 calls dating to 2006 between Haley and Folks – almost entirely on their cell phones. . . . .
Most are brief, with many lasting 1 minute, the majority lasting less than 10 minutes and two thirds originating from his phone.

Exactly. He’s calling her twice as often as she’s calling him, and most of the calls are short. Of course, that doesn’t disprove anything, just like the long calls don’t prove anything. The point being that the phone records aren’t “evidence” of Folks’ claim. So we’re still at the “he-said/she-said” stage.

Category: Scandal, South Carolina, Uncategorized, Video

Comments

38 Responses to “VIDEO: ‘They Unleashed a Tiger,’ Haley Tells South Carolina Press Conference”

  1. Mary Beth
    May 29th, 2010 @ 1:52 am

    I’m a website designer/developer, graphic artist and night owl and let me tell you… I can see how people can twist Folks’ bit about the calls as being something untoward, but I can also see the other side.

    I do a lot of work late at night… and I mean after 1 am, 2 am and so forth. And sometimes when working on projects, I do have a client who is awake with me as we work out a problem or come up with a new idea because they’re night owls too and they want revisions made when most people don’t see it happening live.

    Folks is a first class douchenozzle who’s taken a bunch of innuendo and no credibility and added in what could appear to be inappropriate phone calls late at night to make his story seem more legit…that is, if you didn’t understand the nature of being a night owl web designer.

  2. Mary Beth
    May 28th, 2010 @ 8:52 pm

    I’m a website designer/developer, graphic artist and night owl and let me tell you… I can see how people can twist Folks’ bit about the calls as being something untoward, but I can also see the other side.

    I do a lot of work late at night… and I mean after 1 am, 2 am and so forth. And sometimes when working on projects, I do have a client who is awake with me as we work out a problem or come up with a new idea because they’re night owls too and they want revisions made when most people don’t see it happening live.

    Folks is a first class douchenozzle who’s taken a bunch of innuendo and no credibility and added in what could appear to be inappropriate phone calls late at night to make his story seem more legit…that is, if you didn’t understand the nature of being a night owl web designer.

  3. Joe
    May 29th, 2010 @ 2:14 am

    I was dismayed by the press conference vs. the editted version. Thanks for posting that. It is telling.

    I hope the people of South Carolina are smarter than Folks gives them credit for.

  4. Joe
    May 28th, 2010 @ 9:14 pm

    I was dismayed by the press conference vs. the editted version. Thanks for posting that. It is telling.

    I hope the people of South Carolina are smarter than Folks gives them credit for.

  5. yarrrrr
    May 29th, 2010 @ 2:35 am

    Check out the Wayback Machine… there is a huge redesign to her website between Aug 06, 2007 and
    Sep 28, 2007…

    http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.nikkihaley.com

    I’m not sure he had anything to do with web design or development though… does he even do that for his own site? What does he offer with his consulting business? What new copy had to be written for the redesign?

  6. yarrrrr
    May 28th, 2010 @ 9:35 pm

    Check out the Wayback Machine… there is a huge redesign to her website between Aug 06, 2007 and
    Sep 28, 2007…

    http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.nikkihaley.com

    I’m not sure he had anything to do with web design or development though… does he even do that for his own site? What does he offer with his consulting business? What new copy had to be written for the redesign?

  7. Bob Belvedere
    May 29th, 2010 @ 2:59 am

    Great reporting Stacy. Thanks for keeping this Byzantine mess as clear as possible.

    As I read each new posting and update, one word keeps reverberating in my head: sordid.

    It’s not that I’m surprised at any of this – I’ve seen a lot worse up here in the Nor’East – its just that, watching this kind of behavior, makes me despair that we can succeed in our quest to restore our freedoms and liberties.

  8. Bob Belvedere
    May 28th, 2010 @ 9:59 pm

    Great reporting Stacy. Thanks for keeping this Byzantine mess as clear as possible.

    As I read each new posting and update, one word keeps reverberating in my head: sordid.

    It’s not that I’m surprised at any of this – I’ve seen a lot worse up here in the Nor’East – its just that, watching this kind of behavior, makes me despair that we can succeed in our quest to restore our freedoms and liberties.

  9. young4eyes
    May 29th, 2010 @ 3:11 am

    hmmm…Guilty!
    Her answers are adead give-away, with all the hooey about the media focusing on the issues. If her conscience were really guilt free she could easily flip this whole thing to her advantage … My guess is that there is a “there” there,and she knows it and she just might be gambling by calling Folk’s bluff.
    In any case, her answers to the questions just don’t ring of confidence in her innocence.

  10. young4eyes
    May 28th, 2010 @ 10:11 pm

    hmmm…Guilty!
    Her answers are adead give-away, with all the hooey about the media focusing on the issues. If her conscience were really guilt free she could easily flip this whole thing to her advantage … My guess is that there is a “there” there,and she knows it and she just might be gambling by calling Folk’s bluff.
    In any case, her answers to the questions just don’t ring of confidence in her innocence.

  11. yarrrrr
    May 29th, 2010 @ 3:12 am

    It looks like pressomatic who pumped out the design web design… one of the few pictures that still works on the redesigned page is still hosted there…

    http://www.pressomatic.com/nikkihaley/upload/nikki%20floor%20web2.jpg

    http://www.pressomatic.com/content.asp?name=Site&catID=11763&parentID=3691

    Here is what he has under his “design section”… pressomatic could have pumped out the pages while he did the “copy”… or whatever…

    http://www.viewpolitik.com/Pages/Design.htm

  12. yarrrrr
    May 28th, 2010 @ 10:12 pm

    It looks like pressomatic who pumped out the design web design… one of the few pictures that still works on the redesigned page is still hosted there…

    http://www.pressomatic.com/nikkihaley/upload/nikki%20floor%20web2.jpg

    http://www.pressomatic.com/content.asp?name=Site&catID=11763&parentID=3691

    Here is what he has under his “design section”… pressomatic could have pumped out the pages while he did the “copy”… or whatever…

    http://www.viewpolitik.com/Pages/Design.htm

  13. Matt X
    May 29th, 2010 @ 3:29 am

    Geez, now this guy is implying that most white people in SC are racist because of this stupid cartoon. It’s like people are stuck in the 1960’s and don’t understand that SC has changed.

  14. Matt X
    May 28th, 2010 @ 10:29 pm

    Geez, now this guy is implying that most white people in SC are racist because of this stupid cartoon. It’s like people are stuck in the 1960’s and don’t understand that SC has changed.

  15. yarrrrr
    May 29th, 2010 @ 3:45 am

    I skipped over something interesting on this page…

    http://www.pressomatic.com/content.asp?name=Site&catID=11763&parentID=3691

    The same company that got the contract to do that redesign of Hally’s site got the contract to do the site for South Carolinians for Responsible Government…

    http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992912064227409&ShowArticle_ID=11462201080760466

  16. yarrrrr
    May 28th, 2010 @ 10:45 pm

    I skipped over something interesting on this page…

    http://www.pressomatic.com/content.asp?name=Site&catID=11763&parentID=3691

    The same company that got the contract to do that redesign of Hally’s site got the contract to do the site for South Carolinians for Responsible Government…

    http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992912064227409&ShowArticle_ID=11462201080760466

  17. yarrrrr
    May 29th, 2010 @ 3:47 am

    There’s another longer version of that AP story…

    http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_8545/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=Km5DtjPI

  18. yarrrrr
    May 28th, 2010 @ 10:47 pm

    There’s another longer version of that AP story…

    http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_8545/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=Km5DtjPI

  19. Estragon
    May 29th, 2010 @ 6:48 am

    young4eyes ~ Can you be more specific, so you don’t just sound foolish?

  20. Estragon
    May 29th, 2010 @ 1:48 am

    young4eyes ~ Can you be more specific, so you don’t just sound foolish?

  21. Mary Rose
    May 29th, 2010 @ 12:02 pm

    Here’s the thing: I don’t understand how those who had concerns about President Clinton’s sexcapades were told “it doesn’t matter” by those who now claim it does. It seems that the “proof” of such a thing with Haley is dubious at best. I’m hoping it is just a low-rent smear attack.

    I really liked how she emphasized about not being distracted from the prize. Sort of reminded me of Luke as he fought Darth Vader’s attacks of throwing stuff at him. May the force be with her. 🙂

  22. Mary Rose
    May 29th, 2010 @ 7:02 am

    Here’s the thing: I don’t understand how those who had concerns about President Clinton’s sexcapades were told “it doesn’t matter” by those who now claim it does. It seems that the “proof” of such a thing with Haley is dubious at best. I’m hoping it is just a low-rent smear attack.

    I really liked how she emphasized about not being distracted from the prize. Sort of reminded me of Luke as he fought Darth Vader’s attacks of throwing stuff at him. May the force be with her. 🙂

  23. ak4mc
    May 29th, 2010 @ 7:46 am

    young4eyes ~ Can you be more specific, so you don’t just sound foolish?

    <snicker>

  24. ak4mc
    May 29th, 2010 @ 12:46 pm

    young4eyes ~ Can you be more specific, so you don’t just sound foolish?

    <snicker>

  25. Robert Stacy McCain
    May 29th, 2010 @ 2:01 pm

    I don’t understand how those who had concerns about President Clinton’s sexcapades were told “it doesn’t matter” by those who now claim it does.

    Important distinctions that should be noted, lest we forget:

    President Clinton was the defendant in a federal civil-rights lawsuit, accused of sexual harassment of Paula Jones. Based on their own knowledge, the plaintiff’s lawyers subpoenaed Monica Lewinsky for testimony as part of a legal effort to show that the Jones incident was part of a pattern of behavior by Clinton. (A legally authorized inquiry, established by precedent and upheld by courts.)

    Knowing that truthful testimony by Lewinsky would be damaging to his case, Clinton dispatched his lawyer buddy Vernon Jordan to deal with the problem. Jordan arranged with one of Clinton’s campaign donors (CEO of Revlon) to provide Lewinsky with a job in New York. This supplied the pretext for Lewinsky to assert that it would be an unfair inconvenience to compel her to travel to Washington to give a deposition, so that instead Lewinsky signed an affidavit — drafted by Jordan — falsely swearing that she had never had a sexual relationship with the president. The president subsequently testified under oath that he had never had sex with Lewinsky.

    Ergo, the President of the United States — sworn to uphold the laws and constitution — had perjured himself, had suborned perjury by Lewinsky, and had conspired to obstruct justice in a federal civil-rights lawsuit. For those high crimes and misdemeanors, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, and acquitted because the Senate failed to reach the necessary two-thirds vote to convict.

    None of those facts pertain to Folks’ allegation of “inappropriate” contact with Haley. Folks was employed as an independent contractor to Haley’s campaign, not as a government employee. No one has ever accused Haley of sexual harassment, nor has anyone other than Folks accused her of any sexual misbehavior.

    More to the point, in contrast to Bill Clinton — who had been a notorious womanizer long before he became president — Haley has no previous reputation as a person of bad morals. The “inappropriate” behavior claimed by Folks would utterly contradict Haley’s known character, which is not to say it could not be true.

    However, there is an important difference between (a) making an allegation that is consistent with someone’s known character and (b) making an allegation that would tend to defame a person whose reputation is otherwise good. For example, if you were to claim that Hugh Hefner had a wild three-way at the Playboy Mansion last weekend, Hef would have a hard time winning a libel suit against you, even if he could prove that no such three-way occurred. On the other hand, if you claimed that Barbara Mikulski had a wild three-way with two SEIU members at Ocean City last weekend, you’d better have pictures. (Which would be gruesome to behold.)

    See, I spent more than two decades with an Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual on my desk, so I know a thing or two about what is and is not “actionable.” And I also know a thing or two about what is or is not “fair game” in politics.

    Saying that Bill Clinton was a relentless out-of-control poonhound = fair game.

    Saying that you got jiggy with Nikki Haley = not fair game.

  26. Robert Stacy McCain
    May 29th, 2010 @ 9:01 am

    I don’t understand how those who had concerns about President Clinton’s sexcapades were told “it doesn’t matter” by those who now claim it does.

    Important distinctions that should be noted, lest we forget:

    President Clinton was the defendant in a federal civil-rights lawsuit, accused of sexual harassment of Paula Jones. Based on their own knowledge, the plaintiff’s lawyers subpoenaed Monica Lewinsky for testimony as part of a legal effort to show that the Jones incident was part of a pattern of behavior by Clinton. (A legally authorized inquiry, established by precedent and upheld by courts.)

    Knowing that truthful testimony by Lewinsky would be damaging to his case, Clinton dispatched his lawyer buddy Vernon Jordan to deal with the problem. Jordan arranged with one of Clinton’s campaign donors (CEO of Revlon) to provide Lewinsky with a job in New York. This supplied the pretext for Lewinsky to assert that it would be an unfair inconvenience to compel her to travel to Washington to give a deposition, so that instead Lewinsky signed an affidavit — drafted by Jordan — falsely swearing that she had never had a sexual relationship with the president. The president subsequently testified under oath that he had never had sex with Lewinsky.

    Ergo, the President of the United States — sworn to uphold the laws and constitution — had perjured himself, had suborned perjury by Lewinsky, and had conspired to obstruct justice in a federal civil-rights lawsuit. For those high crimes and misdemeanors, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, and acquitted because the Senate failed to reach the necessary two-thirds vote to convict.

    None of those facts pertain to Folks’ allegation of “inappropriate” contact with Haley. Folks was employed as an independent contractor to Haley’s campaign, not as a government employee. No one has ever accused Haley of sexual harassment, nor has anyone other than Folks accused her of any sexual misbehavior.

    More to the point, in contrast to Bill Clinton — who had been a notorious womanizer long before he became president — Haley has no previous reputation as a person of bad morals. The “inappropriate” behavior claimed by Folks would utterly contradict Haley’s known character, which is not to say it could not be true.

    However, there is an important difference between (a) making an allegation that is consistent with someone’s known character and (b) making an allegation that would tend to defame a person whose reputation is otherwise good. For example, if you were to claim that Hugh Hefner had a wild three-way at the Playboy Mansion last weekend, Hef would have a hard time winning a libel suit against you, even if he could prove that no such three-way occurred. On the other hand, if you claimed that Barbara Mikulski had a wild three-way with two SEIU members at Ocean City last weekend, you’d better have pictures. (Which would be gruesome to behold.)

    See, I spent more than two decades with an Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual on my desk, so I know a thing or two about what is and is not “actionable.” And I also know a thing or two about what is or is not “fair game” in politics.

    Saying that Bill Clinton was a relentless out-of-control poonhound = fair game.

    Saying that you got jiggy with Nikki Haley = not fair game.

  27. Joe
    May 29th, 2010 @ 4:08 pm

    young4eyes, I saw your mom hanging out in front of the Piggly Wiggly.

    Even Will Folks did not go after her.

  28. Joe
    May 29th, 2010 @ 11:08 am

    young4eyes, I saw your mom hanging out in front of the Piggly Wiggly.

    Even Will Folks did not go after her.

  29. young4eyes
    May 29th, 2010 @ 4:41 pm

    Oh Joe, you hurt my feeling. I only have one…
    But seriously, I don’t blame you for feeling sore at me after i gave you a thorough ass-whooping in a previous post. You even added a link to your “joke”. Good for you!
    Doesn’t change the fact that ” Darling Nikki” is on the slow roast. And it doesn’t change the fact that your mom WAS seduced by Will Folks. At least she’ in good company. Maybe Folks can be your step-daddy!

  30. young4eyes
    May 29th, 2010 @ 11:41 am

    Oh Joe, you hurt my feeling. I only have one…
    But seriously, I don’t blame you for feeling sore at me after i gave you a thorough ass-whooping in a previous post. You even added a link to your “joke”. Good for you!
    Doesn’t change the fact that ” Darling Nikki” is on the slow roast. And it doesn’t change the fact that your mom WAS seduced by Will Folks. At least she’ in good company. Maybe Folks can be your step-daddy!

  31. ak4mc
    May 29th, 2010 @ 4:48 pm

    Joe, I don’t think that’s his mom. Y4E, I can’t compliment the outfit but the contact lenses seem to work for you.

  32. ak4mc
    May 29th, 2010 @ 11:48 am

    Joe, I don’t think that’s his mom. Y4E, I can’t compliment the outfit but the contact lenses seem to work for you.

  33. Joe
    May 29th, 2010 @ 5:19 pm

    young4eyes, asswhopping? I do not think so. But save those spanking fantasies for your liberal pals.

  34. Joe
    May 29th, 2010 @ 12:19 pm

    young4eyes, asswhopping? I do not think so. But save those spanking fantasies for your liberal pals.

  35. Bob Belvedere
    May 29th, 2010 @ 5:28 pm

    Good response Stacy. Another fact that separates the two situations: there is no evidence that Mrs. Haley has ever said ‘Why don’t you put some ice on it’ to someone she had just raped.

  36. Bob Belvedere
    May 29th, 2010 @ 12:28 pm

    Good response Stacy. Another fact that separates the two situations: there is no evidence that Mrs. Haley has ever said ‘Why don’t you put some ice on it’ to someone she had just raped.

  37. Mary Rose
    May 30th, 2010 @ 2:31 am

    Excellent explanation, Stacy. Thank you. I’m definitely out of my depth when it comes to these types of things. What gets me is how Folks came out with this and yet couldn’t bring any proof to the table. He was like a hit-and-run.

    “We did it, and that’s all I’m going to say about it. Now leave me alone.” Sheesh. What a complete moron.

  38. Mary Rose
    May 29th, 2010 @ 9:31 pm

    Excellent explanation, Stacy. Thank you. I’m definitely out of my depth when it comes to these types of things. What gets me is how Folks came out with this and yet couldn’t bring any proof to the table. He was like a hit-and-run.

    “We did it, and that’s all I’m going to say about it. Now leave me alone.” Sheesh. What a complete moron.