Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel rose with an impassioned defense that seemed even to surprise the president.

"I think it's grotesque to say that America is a threat to the peace in the world compared with North Korea, Iran, a lot of countries," Schuessel said. Europe would not enjoy peace and prosperity if not for U.S. help after World War II, he said.

"We should be fair from the other side of the Atlantic," Schuessel said. "We should understand what September 11th meant to the American people."

Got this news today about one of my co-workers at my company:

Dear fellow employees:

U.S. Group, Inc. suddenly lost one of its own this weekend. John Roof, our lead mechanic at the shop, had a heart attack, and passed away on Sunday, June 18, 2006. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his co-workers, his family, and his friends. He will be greatly missed.

Visitation and Viewing will be held on Wednesday evening, June 21, 2006 from 7:00 PM until 8:00 PM, at Barron Funeral Home in Chester, South Carolina.

Graveside services will be held on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 11:00 AM, at Evergreen Cemetery in Chester, South Carolina.

With the recent elections past and a pretty hectic week behind, it's time to re-shift gears and change subjects ... which means "BACK TO THE ROCK AND ROLL!!!"

While there are a lot of AC/DC albums that are unforgettable hard-rockin' classics, one of the best ones is their much-overlooked Flick of the Switch album.

On the heels of their multi-platinum albums For Those About to Rock and Back in Black (which is one of the top ten selling albums of rock history), this album took a different direction, with a raw, faster, and harder-edged sound.

This album was recorded in the Bahamas and was self-produced by AC/DC band members, which probably has much to do with the album's raw-edged sound. The hard guitar sound and raw and powerful vocals that are much of the classic AC/DC sound stand out prominently throughout the album.

My favorite tracks on this album are Flick of the Switch, Guns for Hire, and Rising Power. But there's not a single bad song on this album, so it's an album you don't want to miss. I promise you'll not be able to listen to this album on anything less than full blast!

It sounds like the opposite of a local candidate here in Summerville - Bill Branton, who ran for Governor in 2002 (and lost), ran for re-election as State Senator in 2004 (got 38% there), and now, he's dropping down to a bid for County Council. Ambition in reverse?

Now, off to the races ... see you at the polls on Tuesday!

I was recently in Manning, talking with a statewide candidate. When I mentioned my blog and discussion of statewide races, he got a little testy and said "I don't read those any more", explaining that he only saw them as forums for cheap shots and personal attacks.

I'm sorry he felt that way, but I have to admit that he had a point.

A number of these blogs, such as ones run by Mike Reese, Mike Reino, Lauren Manning, and Sunny Phillips and myself clearly identify who owns/publishes them. The ones who are most vicious in what they have to say, both blog publishers and comment posters, tend to be anonymous (is anyone surprised?). These attacks have included:

• One candidate getting in a bar fight with a legislator,
• A legislator's favorite brand of booze,
• One candidate making shady deals with video poker,
• Another candidate is a really a Democrat and "Satan" himself.

One reason I've hesitated to get into discussion of SC politics on my blog is because I didn't want to get drug through the mud, or have my blog used as an attack vehicle. Since I decided to test the waters, personal attacks, threats, and other childishness that had never been part of the discussion on my blog now pop up in the comments regularly. Some of them I approve, some I don't.

There is nothing wrong with speaking clearly on the issues, but if one is willing to make claims, they need to be able to stand behind them. People have more respect for those who make harsh claims and criticisms when they have the cojones to put their names to them. While some may have legitimate reasons for concealing their identity, others use anonymity as a weapon, not a shield, both as bloggers and posters on blogs.

Let's try to clean up our act.

Based on how media figures are tuning in and getting story leads and inputs from SC blogs that deal with politics, in part or whole, we have the potential to have some real influence out there, broaden the dialogue, and bring some valuable perspectives to the table that wouldn't have been included in the political process before. Those are good things - let's not let the rogues ruin them.

My recent posting on my "None of the Above" decision in the Governor's race has drawn questions from "Daniel". As I've got a big problem with some of the BS and cheap-shotting that takes place in the SC Blogosphere, I try my best to say nothing that I cannot substantiate.

Daniel asked me to back up my remark about the Governor's vetoing items that he'd requested:

Copyright 2005 The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC)
The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC)
May 22, 2005 Sunday FINAL
Edition
SECTION: SECTION A; Pg. 1ALENGTH: 768 words
HEADLINE: Statehouse veto dispute approaching critical mass
AH: Sanford cut $95.9M from budget passed by state Legislature
BYLINE: JOHN FRANK Of The Post and Courier

COLUMBIA--When Gov. Mark Sanford's veto pen met the proposed state budget last week, it slashed some of the governor's own spending recommendations, speared proposals to improve the state's top moneymaking industry and skewered a Senate leader.

Sanford might have used up his last credit with the GOP-dominated Legislature, and he left Charleston's Bobby Harrell bewildered.

"These vetoes make absolutely no sense," said Harrell, the House's lead budget writer.

GOP lawmakers have been reluctant to attack their party leader, but that could change this week. The House Republican Caucus is considering a public denunciation of some vetoes.

"The mistake last year is we went and did our job," said Harrell, referring to the quick override by the House of most of Sanford's vetoes. "This year, we realized we were dealing with a public relations machine, and the people needed to hear both sides."

Caught in the crossfire are dozens of projects and initiatives in the $5.8 billion budget aimed at helping South Carolinians.

Legislative budget writers say quality of life will suffer if the vetoes are sustained, while Sanford believes improving the state's fiscal footing by replenishing trust and reserve funds comes first.

He asked the Legislature to put the $95.9 million in vetoed appropriations toward those accounts.

Lawmakers responded that the governor can veto, but he can't appropriate funds.

In explaining his 163 vetoes, Sanford noted how he struck a number of pet projects in various lawmakers' home districts. But many vetoes would cut deeply into state agencies' operating money, lawmakers said.

More than 40 vetoes strike money for agencies' base budgets, and nearly 60 more would eliminate money for state colleges, Harrell said.

"In order to get to $95 million (Sanford) couldn't find enough pork in the budget to do it, so he had to make deep cuts into agency budgets," Harrell said. "He is striking at the heart of ... a host of agencies that are the core functions of government."

Sanford spokesman Will Folks, in turn, criticized budget writers for giving the Department of Social Services nonrecurring money for operating expenses. "They are not in a position to make that kind of comment," he said.

One veto would redirect $1.8 million from the Clemson extension offices that assist the state's agricultural industry. Officials told lawmakers most offices would have to close if the veto stands.

Another would cut nearly a half million dollars for family health centers that serve small communities. It would force those families and the state to pay more for health care, Harrell said.

By striking deferred maintenance items for state colleges, "it will end up costing the state more money" in the long run, he added. "As a fiscal conservative he should understand that."

Harrell and others are perplexed by Sanford's vetoes of at least 15 items he included in his own executive budget.

"What's up with that?" said Democratic Party Chairman Joe Erwin. "You are for something or you're not."

Sanford had various explanations in his veto message for cutting the money for these projects. Folks said it largely boiled down to the Legislature giving those agencies too much money in other areas."This has a lot to do with how the budget gets rolled up," Folks said. "You have to find something that represents that level of spending (to veto)."

Brian Hicks of The Post and Courier staff contributed to this report.

John Frank covers state politics and the Legislature from Columbia. Contact him at jbfrank@postandcourier.com or (803) 799-9051.

LOAD-DATE: May 31, 2005