MANY, IF NOT most, folks who find Gov. Mark Sanford’s proposal to give tax credits for private school tuition appealing are well-meaning, in my experience. What little they’ve heard about it sounds good enough that they’re for it, without actually being against anyone or anything.

Not so with South Carolinians for Responsible Government, the obliquely named group that is the main South Carolina expression of the national movement pushing “school choice.” Like its e-mails, the blog on the SCRG Web site is salted generously with the “guerrilla tactics” approach of the group’s founder.

For example: On Jan. 28, the weblog referred to Inez Tenenbaum as “Frau Tenenbaum.”

Here’s the context: “Despite all the lies that are being told to the contrary, Milwaukeeans love their school choice plan. (And why not? It increases graduation rates and student achievement. Let’s see Frau Tenenbaum do that!)”

At least, that’s what it used to say. If you look today at http://scresponsiblegov.org/content.asp?catID=8093, it will say (unless it was changed since Friday) “Frau* Madame Tenenbaum,” with the “Frau” marked through with a line. The asterisk leads you to a footnote that says: “For reasons that aren’t clear, Mrs. Tenenbaum didn’t like our use of the German word for ‘Mrs.’ Although we don’t usually yield to the bullying of would-be censors, as a courtesy to Mrs. Tenenbaum, we’ve decided to go with the French.”

But why use a German honorific to begin with? Or a French one? It was just “something different to put on there,” SCRG spokesman Denver Merrill told me Friday. “There was really no other thought put into it. It’s a blog.... It’s edgier.”

Indeed. Much of the material on the blog is a mix of scorn, petulance and outright hostility toward those who defend public education from SCRG’s agenda.

This approach doesn’t seem to be winning over many converts, based on the bill’s lukewarm reception thus far in the Legislature.

It has, however, succeeded in drawing strong responses. Mrs. Tenenbaum’s husband, who is Jewish and mindful of the history of the 20th century, hit the roof over the “Frau” reference. And as he told me, it was he who objected to the reference, not his wife. (To disclose, Samuel Tenenbaum has been a friend ever since we participated in a Catholic-Jewish dialogue group years ago.)

He didn’t object to SCRG. He complained to the governor’s press secretary, Will Folks. He wasn’t the only one. Prominent Columbia attorney Steve Morrison wrote to Mr. Folks as follows (he attributes the misspellings to having hastily thumbed the message out on his Blackberry):

“The folks at scresponsiblegov.org have crossed the line of ordinary human decency in calling Superintendent Tennenbaum ‘Frau Tennenbaum’. This monicker contains the specter of German attrocities, raises the shadow of Nazi totalanarianism.... The term ‘Frau’ is not funny or cute in this context.... Thank you for your urgent attention. Steve”

For his part, Mr. Folks says he told Mr. Merrill of SCRG that “I didn’t think it was appropriate, that we ought to keep it to the issues.” After that, the grudging change appeared on the blog.

(In an e-mail follow-up, Mr. Folks added, “If you are attempting to portray this event as the governor’s office having any sort of influence over the group, I would humbly point out to you that other recommendations I have made to the group have at times not been followed.”)

Mr. Merrill was emphatic that nothing anti-Semitic was intended by the “Frau” reference. In fact, he said, the writer of the item “is Jewish himself.”

“Of course,” he added, “it was supposed to be sarcastic.”

And that’s what infuriates Mrs. Tenenbaum’s husband. “It’s the absolute disrespect. The issue for me is, first, she’s the superintendent of education. She earned that title,” by getting more votes than Gov. Sanford did, he is quick to note.The point, Mr. Tenenbaum says, is that “if you can degrade her, you can degrade public education.” That theory would certainly be consistent with other entries on the group’s blog.

Take, for example, the one of Oct. 12 that says “The education crisis is a hard problem that can’t be fixed by money alone.” I don’t know who disagrees with that, yet the posting goes on to say: “If only the administrators, bureaucrats, and their well-paid pawns would admit it.”

Click on “administrators,” and you find, logically, the Web site of the S.C. Association of School Administrators. Clicking on “bureaucrats” gives you the S.C. School Boards Association. School board members as bureaucrats is a new one on me. Finally, “well-paid pawns” leads you to a page about — guess who — Inez Moore Tenenbaum.

The blog is filled with misrepresentations and convenient omissions, but the most abiding impression is the tone — the dismissive, hostile tone toward public education and its adherents. In this virtual world, the mainstream folks who believe in public schools are seen as a sort of alien, fringe element.

Consider an entry from Jan. 9 titled “Leading Lawmakers Stand up for PPIC” (an entry notable for its lack of reference to actual House leaders). There, among other things, is a link (www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/sunnews/2004/12/26/news/opinion/10500902.htm) to an op-ed piece written by Rep. John Graham Altman attacking the PTA for questioning the bill.

A sample: “The PTA’s radical, pro-tax/anti-reform policy is symptomatic of its strange worldview. The PTA is wedded to a state-run school system that puts bureaucrats in charge instead of parents. It relies on the institution we call ‘public schooling’ to fulfill our ideals of public education.”

Radical? That’s an interesting way for someone who wants to “put parents in charge” to react to the group most dedicated to parental involvement in schools.

None of this is any way to sell an idea. Of course, when the idea is as bad as this one, there may not be a good way to sell it.

Write to Mr. Warthen at bwarthen@thestate.com. Read the whole series thus far at thestate.com. Click on “Opinion,” then on “Our Children, Our Schools.”