Carolina Politics Online

A few weeks back I sent out some candidate questionnaires to the 13 candidates running for Congress in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District.  They were lengthy and very detailed and I felt would be a great source of information on each candidate running in both the Republican and Democratic primaries.

Unfortunately, to date I have only received one back.  I am disappointed in the response because I am not one to give softball questions (which may be why I only got one back) and I think these questionnaires could be used as excellent educational resources for those of you wanting to read up on the candidates running.  But, without further ado, here are the responses from Republican candidate Paul Thurmond.  It’s a long read, but well worth it.  If you wanted to know it, the answer is probably here.

Health care and insurance costs have been rising steadily each year.  What is your opinion of the current proposal that is currently being reconciled between the House and Senate?  What, if anything, would you propose differently to help bring down health care costs?

I cannot and will not support a plan, like the one offered by Congressional Democrats that is currently being considered.  Should either the current House bill or Senate Bill be enacted before I am elected, I will work to repeal these bills when I get to office.

The current proposals, increase government control while doing nothing to address the biggest problem with our system- rising costs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Obama Administration’s own actuaries have said that the Democrats’ plan would raise costs for American families, and raise the amount we spend on health care in general.

Instead of forcing people into plans they may not want and out of the plans they currently enjoy, we should enact real reform that decreases costs for all Americans while focusing on patients instead of government. I would support a plan that increases the number of insured Americans while decreasing the cost everyone pays.  Such a plan will include reforming allowing people to buy plans across state lines, and providing states the tools necessary to lower health care costs. Unfortunately the Democrats’ plan does none of these.

Do you feel that the Federal government has an obligation to provide a public health insurance option for those who cannot obtain their own?

Long ago, our government created health care systems to provide quality care for the elderly, and the chronically poor.  These long-standing commitments cannot now be broken.  That said, we also must recognize the reality that currently nearly half of the funding spent on health care is spent by the federal government, and that spending is increasing at a rate much higher than the dollars being spent by the private sector.

If another government run insurance plan were created, what little health care cost containment we have now, would be completely lost and we would forever surrender 1/6^th of our economy to the Federal government.  What we should do, instead, is focus on lowering the cost of health insurance so that those who cannot afford it now can do so in the future.

The current Congress has come under heavy scrutiny over its spending practices.  The current National Debt is over $12 trillion and the debt ceiling was recently raised to over $14 trillion.  Does this concern you?  Why or why not?

The current Democrat controlled Congress and White House makes the fundamental mistake of thinking that they can spend our way out of the current recession.  They spent 2009 passing trillion dollar bill, after trillion dollar bill and when President Obama’s budget, the health care bill and the cap-and-trade bills are combined they have threatened to raise taxes by $3.6 trillion over the next decade.

This spending and taxation are unsustainable, we must enact across the broad cuts in spending and taxation.  On the spending side, Congress needs to sunset duplicative government programs, eliminate under-performing agencies, and address the runaway spending of entitlements.  On the tax side, we must create an environment where small business is allowed to expand, hire more employees and become more profitable.

For the 2009 fiscal year 62% of the Federal budget was allocated towards Social Security, Medicare, and defense, the three biggest expenditures of the Federal government by far.  These percentages are increasing each year.  How can the Federal government continue to fund these programs at their current rate particularly with Medicare having a projected insolvency date of 2017 and Social Security in 2037? (these figures come from a May 13, 2009 publication in the Wall Street Journal)

There is not a government program more important to the future of our nation than the Department of Defense, Social Security and Medicare are individually.   One of the explicit powers of the Federal government mentioned in the Constitution is providing for the common defense and as I said previously, we have made long-term commitments to our senior citizens, and I will not allow these commitments to be broken.

However, the fact that these programs are important does not mean they are without waste, fraud and abuse.  Congress must take a line-by-line review of these programs in order to eliminate these cost overruns.  The savings we see from these cuts must not be used to pay for new Federal spending.

At a time when our servicemen and women are putting themselves in harm’s way in order to protect our freedom and security, we must cut carefully.  Ensuring we do not repeat the mistakes of the 1990s where the Defense budget was cut to the point that we found ourselves unable to effectively protect our servicemen and women after September 11^th.  In fact, defense spending, as a percentage of GDP, has been falling since the 1960s.

The world has been witnessing increased aggression from nations like Iran and North Korea. Do you agree with the idea of the Monroe Doctrine that the United States has an obligation to police the world against these types of perceived threats?

As the last remaining Superpower, the United States has a responsibility to deal proactively with nations that have the potential to harm our citizens or international stability.  In many corners of the world, the only appeal for peace understood by dictators is a stern call from our Secretary of State, or a United States aircraft carrier, parked off their coast.

While I am uncertain if any appeal will be heard by the current rulers of Iran and North Korea, we must use all available options to calm the threat posed by these rouge states.  In doing so, military force should be the last resort, used only when international dialog, economic sanctions and all other options have been proven fruitless.

Were Israel to launch an attack against Iran over their goal of uranium enrichment capabilities, how should the U.S. respond?

Israel is the United States top ally in the Middle East and I am deeply concerned about an Iranian regime that continues to defy the United Nations and the international community by developing a nuclear weapons program.  I support all international efforts to eliminate this development that poses a grave threat to Israel and to the United States. I support every option available to prevent Iran from achieving success with its nuclear weapons program and would have co-sponsored and supported the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, and the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.  I support Israel’s right to determine its security needs by its own standards.  I also find it unhelpful for other governments, such as Russia and China to conduct back door dealings with Iran and at the same time try to dictate when Israel should or should not use force.

South Carolina’s unemployment rate is over 12%.  What can the government do to bring that number down and help put people in our state back to work?

Government should not be in the business of job creation.  Government should be in the business of creating the environment where small businesses are allowed to flourish by giving them the tools to succeed.  I would advocate allowing credit to be made more available to small businesses as well as encouraging small business tax credits.  I would also work to defeat harmful policies such as climate taxes, cap-and-trade, card check and government run health care legislation that have frozen the level of confidence that small business have which has resulted in small businesses not hiring new employees.  Also transportation and infrastructure projects would immediately help create new long lasting jobs in areas such as high speed rail and modernizing America’s bridge and highway systems.

Do you feel it is in the best interest of the United States to continue sending foreign aid to other nations despite our rising national debt?

I feel that strategic foreign aid is an investment of tax payer dollars for the national security interests of the United States.  I support a strong system of transparency where the public is entitled to know where every dollar of foreign aid is spent.  I strongly support former President George W. Bush’s vision for the Millennium Challenge Corporation.  His criterion for foreign aid through the MCC was only to nations that demonstrated: good governance, economic freedom, and investments in their citizens were eligible for foreign aid. By using this model for partnerships it allows developing nations to be strategic allies of the United States and prevents them from becoming havens for terrorism.

Some have criticized NAFTA saying it is responsible for the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S.  Do you agree or disagree with that sentiment and what is your overall opinion of NAFTA?

Trade pumps more than $45 billion into the South Carolina economy every year and employs more than 260,800 South Carolinians.  Almost all of these dollars flow through the Port of Charleston and the Port of Georgetown from countries with which we have trade agreements.  Additionally, while trade is often demonized as an American jobs killer, the facts do not support this argument, since the enactment of NAFTA, only 3 percent of job losses can be attributed to free trade.

Instead of returning to the failed protectionist policies, we must create a climate that incentivizes companies to move their manufacturing operations to South Carolina.   The first step in this process is fighting against harmful policies such as a cap and trade tax, card check and government run health care legislation all of which will kill more manufacturing jobs than trade ever has.

Were you supportive of TARP, the automotive bailout, and the stimulus bill and/or do you feel they have been effective?

Washington repeatedly touts statistics which they claim prove that the Stimulus and the bailouts have worked.  But even if these facts are to be trusted, the only thing they can tell us is that these bills just kick the can down the road.  Avoiding tough questions to stay in office, while saddling future generations with debt, has unfortunately become the rule in Washington. Instead, these issues should be addressed head on to truly solve problems before they become unmanageable.

I do not believe these skewed statistics and judge these programs to be failures.  TARP was supposed to bring back responsible lending in this country, yet homebuyers and small business owners still find it nearly impossible to secure credit.  Our domestic automakers are once again turning profits but have become wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Federal Government.  The Stimulus was touted as necessary to keep unemployment below 8 percent.  South Carolina’s unemployment rate for the past few months has hovered above 12 percent.

Instead of government enlargement, we need to remove government from the private sector.  Give the freedom to build the cars that the American people want to buy at a price they can afford back to American car companies.  Jobs can be created by allowing businesses to spend more of their capital on growing their business and less spent to pay the tax man.  Finally, Wall Street needs to learn that the Federal Government is not their insurance agent.

If I had been in Congress, I would have voted NO on TARP, NO on any automotive bailout, and NO on the Stimulus.

Should the Federal government raise taxes to make up for the rising Federal budget deficits?

No.  Increasing taxes will only stifle innovation and economic growth.  Without this growth, our tax base will shrink as businesses lay off existing workers or forgo hiring new workers, which also leads to more government expenditures due to the payout of unemployment benefits.

As a real world example of this fact, the Obama Administration’s proposal to increase the top two tax brackets from 33% and 35% to 36% and 39.6%, respectively.  According to the Administration, this tax increase will make the “rich” pay their fair share while helping to balance the Federal Budget.   However, when the facts are examined, it is evident that 44% of small business owners would see a tax increase due to this proposal.  As such, this targeted-at-the-rich tax increase will in fact hit those which are responsible for 80 percent of new hires.

Should the Federal government cut spending to balance the budget?  If so, what specifically should it cut?

Yes.  We cannot return fiscal order to our government without making cuts to the Federal budget.  The first step should be ending duplication in Federal programs.  While, the Federal government should help retrain workers to capture new job opportunities, it is absurd that there are 15 different Federal entities managing 165 different job-training programs, similarly there are 342 economic development programs run by the Federal government through 13 autonomous government entities.  Cutting the duplication out of these programs could save billions of dollars in overhead and administrative savings alone.  This is just a first step; we must also cut those Federal Departments which only serve to further their own interest.  For example, of every taxpayer dollar which finds its way to the Department of Education, 30 cents never leave D.C.  Instead these funds are used to pay Washington bureaucrats.

Would you be in favor of a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget by the Federal government?

Congress should be forced to live within its means, just as every local government, state government and American family already does.  I applaud our Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint for leading this charge in the Senate and when elected, I promise to sponsor or cosponsor an Amendment to our Constitution requiring a balanced budget.

Do the American people have a reasonable expectation to privacy?

Our Founding Fathers wrote strong protections against government intrusion in our daily lives into the Constitution; and if elected I will place my hand upon the Bible and swear to uphold those protections.  Our nation now faces an enemy which uses tactics and strategies that our national security apparatus have never encountered and were certainly never envisioned by our Founding Fathers.  However, these new threats do not make our Constitution obsolete and I will spend my time in office ensuring that our government continues to maintain a responsible balance between security and privacy.

Do you agree or disagree with the TSA’s push to deploy more full body scanners at airports across the country?

TSA’s efforts to deploy more full body scanners will be another tool to increase aviation security.  The current magnetometers in the Nation’s airports – which detect only metal objects – are antiquated and are a 1970s solution to the current day security challenges.  While the whole body scanners may not be the silver bullet, they far surpass the abilities of the Nation’s current airport screening technologies.  Whole body imagers can detect liquids, powders, gels, ceramics, small improvised explosive devices and likely would have detected the explosive on the Christmas Day Detroit terror bomber.  While passengers may have legitimate privacy concerns, privacy issues are being addressed with the TSA and no passenger will ever be forced to undergo whole body scanning.  Pat downs remain an option.

Should TSA engage in profiling?

TSA’s Behavior Detection program is a relatively new layer of aviation security.  Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs) observe passenger behavior at airport checkpoints and throughout airports in uniform and in plain clothes.  Based in part on Israel’s human factors layer of security, BDOs are trained to detect certain behaviors in the stressful airport environment to determine if a passenger may have ill intent. While the BDO program would not be considered profiling, it is an important step in engaging passengers directly within the confines of U.S. law.

Should illegal immigrants in the country be given a pathway to citizenship and what can be done to stop the flow of illegal immigration?  Should it be stopped?

We are a nation of immigrants. However, without the rule of law, our nation loses the vital character imbued in it by the Constitution.   Rewarding those who enter our country by breaking these laws with amnesty degrades the value of citizenship and damages our country.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States….”  In terms of providing for the general Welfare, what does that mean to you?

To me, government should provide for the people that which they cannot provide for themselves.  Too often the Federal government is considered the first option when in fact it should be considered only when the private sector, local government and state government have proven themselves incapable of handling a problem.

What, in your opinion, is the primary role of the Federal government and have they stayed within or strayed from the constraints of that role?

The primary role of the federal government, as laid out in the Constitution, is to foster a society where all Americans are free to use their inalienable rights. What the Federal Government cannot do, though it has increasingly been attempted (resulting in outsized deficits, an unmanageable debt, and increasing dependents on government largesse), is to guarantee individual outcomes. If elected, I will fight to ensure that the Federal Government is one that promotes strong families, individual achievement, growth in the economy, and everything that makes America the exceptional country that it has been since 1776. But I will also strongly oppose government that replaces these things with bureaucracy and unaffordable government from Washington that ignores what makes this country great.

Catherine Welborn, the Executive Director of Change the Congress in 2010, is putting together a “Meet the Candidates” forum in Charleston next month.

Change the Congress in 2010, a Federal PAC, is sponsoring this event that is free and open to the public.  Since many people never get to meet the candidates, this is a great opportunity to get ‘up close and personal’ and ask the candidates questions that may be important to you.

Candidates for any race and from any party are welcome to attend and Meet the Public.  Candidates must provide whatever they may need and are expected to take leftover campaign materials with them.  Contact Catherine Welborn at 843.270.1650 or by email at CWelborn@ChangetheCongressin2010.com (email preferred) for further information.

The forum will be held at the Custom House Steps on East Bay Street in Charleston on April 10th from 11am to 2pm.

The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.

This announcement comes at the time when the situation supposedly still is “fluid” and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force still hasn’t issued its final report on zoning uses of these waters.

That’s a disappointment, but not really a surprise for fishing industry insiders who have negotiated for months with officials at the Council on Environmental Quality and bureaucrats on the task force. These angling advocates have come to suspect that public input into the process was a charade from the beginning.

ESPN

Of course it was a charade. Obama doesn’t give a damn about what the public thinks about anything. He’s demonstrated that pretty consistently throughout the past year.

So what is the point of this? The states have been managing the use of their waterways with little to no problem for over 200 years. Well, it turns out that this whole unconstitutional power grab is being orchestrated by the radical left environmental movement.

As ESPN previously reported, WWF, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, Pew Environment Group and others produced a document entitled “Transition Green” shortly after Obama was elected in 2008. What has happened since suggests that the task force has been in lockstep with that position paper.

Then in late summer, just after he created the task force, these groups produced “Recommendations for the Adoption and Implementation of an Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes National Policy.” This document makes repeated references to “overfishing,” but doesn’t once reference recreational angling, its importance, and its benefits, both to participants and the resource.

Additionally, some of these same organizations have revealed their anti-fishing bias by playing fast and loose with “facts,” in attempts to ban tackle containing lead in the United States and Canada.

That same tunnel vision, in which recreational angling and commercial fishing are indiscriminately lumped together as harmful to the resource, has persisted with the task force, despite protests by the angling industry.

As more evidence of collusion, the green groups began clamoring for an Executive Order to implement the task force’s recommendations even before the public comment period ended in February. Fishing advocates had no idea that this was coming.

The commercial and recreational fishing industries have already been taking a big hit in both North and South Carolina and the last thing we need is further encroachment by the Federal government.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has already exhibited plenty of incompetence in the way it enforces U.S. fisheries laws such to the effect that Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC-03) has called for a halt to all prosecutions of fishermen by the NOAA and a complete overhaul of how the laws are enforced.

Morlock fears that “what we’re seeing coming at us is an attempted dismantling of the science-based fish and wildlife model that has served us so well. There’s no basis in science for the agendas of these groups who are trying to push the public out of being able to fish and recreate.

“Conflicts (user) are overstated and problems are manufactured. It’s all just an excuse to put us off the water.”

In the wake of the task force’s framework document, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) and its partners in the U.S. Recreational Fishing & Boating Coalition against voiced their concerns to the administration.

“Some of the potential policy implications of this interim framework have the potential to be a real threat to recreational anglers who not only contribute billions of dollars to the economy and millions of dollars in tax revenues to support fisheries conservation, but who are also the backbone of the American fish and wildlife conservation ethic,” said CSF President Jeff Crane.

Morlock, a member of the CSF board, added, “There are over one million jobs in America supported coast to coast by recreational fishing. The task force has not included any accountability requirements in their reports for evaluating or mitigating how the new policies they are drafting will impact the fishing industry or related economies.

“Given that the scope of this process appears to include a new set of policies for all coastal and inland waters of the United States, the omission of economic considerations is inexcusable.”

This is not the only access issue threatening the public’s right to fish, but it definitely is the most serious, according to Chris Horton, national conservation director for BASS.

“With what’s being created, the same principles could apply inland as apply to the oceans,” he said. “Under the guise of ‘marine spatial planning’ entire watersheds could be shut down, even 2,000 miles up a river drainage from the ocean.

“Every angler needs to be aware because if it’s not happening in your backyard today or tomorrow, it will be eventually.

This is what happens when you put an out of touch ideologue beholden to radical special interests in the highest office in the land. The fact that Obama intends to implement this with an Executive Order completely bypassing Congress gives credence to the accusation that he is becoming an elected dictator, much like Hugo Chavez.

This won’t be used to just regulate fishing either. Rest assured that the bureaucratic entities created to manage all of this will also be used to thwart any oil or natural gas exploration off our coastal waters, thus effectively reinstating the Federal drilling ban that just expired less than two years ago.

There is already talk of a ban on bottom fishing all the way down the North and South Carolina coasts to Georgia.  Thousands of jobs in these states can potentially be effected by this at a time when they are experiencing double digit unemployment rates. That aside, there is also the element of this being yet another chipping away at the block of individual freedom and liberty that Americans have enjoyed for over two centuries and that the President and this Congress spit on daily.

If this is put into place it seems like El Presidente will get to decide when and where you go fishing. With the industry being so large I am hoping this will end up in the Supreme Court with a Constitutional challenge if Obama makes good on this move.

Country western singer Brad Paisley fell face first during a performance in Charleston Saturday night.  Fittingly, the tumble took place during his song “Alcohol.”  Perhaps it was really a painful public service announcement masquerading as an accident.

Republican candidate for governor Henry McMaster said at a campaign stop that he opposes using the state’s economic development incentives program for retail projects.

McMaster, the state attorney general, told a gathering Saturday at Sun City Hilton Head that such tax incentives would give an unfair advantage to some retailers.

The State

It’s nice to know that somebody in the alleged party of small government is opposed to doling out our tax dollars to more corporate interests.  Although, I would be curious to know which side McMaster would have come down on regarding the Boeing deal last year.  His statement comes on the heals of a shopping mall being planned in Beaufort.

S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster, a Republican candidate for governor, said during a campaign stop in Sun City Hilton Head Saturday that he is “not convinced the law should be changed” to give tax incentives to retail developers such as the Sembler Co.

Sembler plans to build Okatie Crossings, a 280-acre shopping center and luxury outlet mall in Beaufort and Jasper counties. Sembler has said the incentives are critical to its plan.

Saturday’s statement, which came in response to a question from a Sun City resident, was the first time McMaster has spoken publicly on the bill for which Sembler is lobbying.

That bill could come to the Senate floor as soon as Tuesday.

“I’m not sure we should be in the business of judging one retail establishment against another,” McMaster said of choosing which retailers should get tax incentives.

The Island Packet

If Okatie Crossings can’t be profitable without taxpayers shelling out corporate welfare to Sembler Co., then why are they building the mall in the first place?  If you need a government subsidy to be in the black then it sounds like a bad investment to me.  Builders typically aren’t in the habit of making bad investments so this leads me to speculate that Sembler Co. can indeed be profitable without the incentives, they just want to see how much of their obligation they can pawn off on the taxpayers.

Let’s see how the Republican controlled state legislature, the party that has railed against the Obama stimulus program, votes when this bill comes up this week.

Adam Brickley who writes for Race 4 2012 was a CPAC blogger who had the fortunate experience of crossing paths with Katherine Jenerette, Republican candidate for South Carolina’s First Congressional District.  In his own words, he was very impressed with her after speaking with her and decided “in a moment” that she is needed in Congress.

After spending a few minutes with her – I think this woman definitely has a shot. For one, she is a PISTOL - and I’m not even sure that term does her justice, even when bolded, italicized, underlined, and capitalized. She sat and chewed that fat with several bloggers for a few minutes - and this woman doesn’t just come off as a real person, she IS a real person. In all my political experience I have NEVER met a candidate with such a total lack of pretension.

Of course, she’s solid on the issues, and very well spoken (although in a very down to earth fashion) – but it was the “what you see is what you get” attitude that really hit home for me. She pulled absolutely no punches and made no apologies for either her demeanor, her thick southern accent, or anything else about herself.

Jenerette was my favored candidate in the 2008 GOP primary for relatively the same reasons.  She has the right ideas, the right background, and the will and nerve to fight the corrupt status quo in Washington.  Had she defeated Brown in the primary, the general election would have been quite a race between her and Linda Ketner, both of them being two very intelligent and assertive women in South Carolina, a state that I don’t believe has ever sent a woman to Washington.

With there being such a large pool of candidates for this seat this year I will probably spend a lot of time on this particular race until the primaries approach so keep stopping by to see what’s new.

Man, this thing is getting huge!  Mark Lutz, a managing partner of the technology company Virtual Factory Inc. based in Quincy, Massachusetts is the eighth Republican to jump into the race to replace Congressman Henry Brown.  According to the Post and Courier, Lutz intends to focus on his lack of political experience as one of his strengths against his many opponents.  We are supposed to have a citizen legislature, after all.  The article also notes that Lutz is a supporter of the Fair Tax, a plan that would eliminate the Federal Income Tax and replace with a national sales tax.

Lutz makes the twelfth candidate to join this Congressional race, along with seven other Republicans, three Democrats, and one Independence Party candidate.  The current crop of candidates are:

• Councilman Ryan Buckhannon (R)
• Col. Robert Burton (D)
• Carroll “Tumpy” Campbell III (R)
• Robert Dobbs (D)
• Katherine Jenerette (R)
• Charleston County School Board member Larry Kobrovsky (R)
• State Representative Tim Scott (R)
• Councilman Paul Thurmond (R)
• Dick Withington (D)
• Stovall Witte (R)
• Jimmy Wood (I)

Paul Thurmond, son of the late Senator Strom Thurmond, a very controversial figure in American history, but beloved politician of South Carolinians, has decided to throw his hat into the ring to get the Republican nomination to replace the retiring Congressman Henry Brown.

Paul Thurmond is only 34 years old, but his father died in 2003 at age 100, which means Strom was incredibly old when he fathered his son.

Thurmond joins an ever crowding primary which includes Katherine Jenerette, Carroll “Tumpy” Campbell III, and Isle of Palms of Councilman Ryan Buckhannon.

This information is courtesy of The Hill.

Apparently, I was correct in my speculation that Brown’s Democratic challenger in 2008, Linda Ketner, is exploring the possibility of a second bid for the seat now that Mr. Brown is thankfully retiring.  Ketner is reported to make a decision within the next week as to whether she will pursue the seat again.  I think her entry can make it a more  competitive race, but should she choose not to run I think whoever wins the GOP nomination will cruise into Election Day rather easily.  The Democrats don’t seem to have anyone else who I would consider to be a top tier candidate.  Ketner’s hesitancy is a concern over the national political environment right now and it’s a valid concern.  As each week passes the political atmosphere is becoming more hostile to the Democrats, practically a complete reversal from what we’ve seen in the last two election cycles.  In fact it’s become so hostile that the current U.S. Senate race to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in the reliably Democratic state of Massachusetts has actually become competitive according to polling.  If Ketner runs I think she will have to distance herself from the radical leadership of her party and paint herself as more of an independent Democrat who won’t be afraid to say no to Nancy Pelosi if it’s in the interest of her constituents, a quality we haven’t seen from Mr. Spratt up here in York County.

On the Republican side the field is much more diverse.  Three Republicans have already officially declared their candidacies.  They are Reagan conservative Katherine Jenerette, Carroll “Tumpy” Campbell III, and Isle of Palms city councilman Ryan Buckhannon.  Buckhannon and I go “way back.”  According to The Hill, the late Senator Strom Thurmond’s son Paul Thurmond is also considering entering the fray.  It’s hard to say who would be the early front runner in this crowded of a field.  Jenerette is definitely the anti-establishment candidate and I could see her ginning up the support of the tea party movement.  Campbell and Thurmond could both gain the support of the local and national GOP as they would be “insiders” due to their family ties.  I don’t think  Buckhannon will go very far in the race. I just don’t think that a small town councilman will be able to compete in a race with such high profile names in the running.

So this could shape up to be a very captivating House race when it is all said and done.  It will all depend on where the chips fall and the decisions made within the coming weeks.  We’ll keep our eyes and ears open.

Troy Knapp’s killing was 10 years in the making, a gradual death by inches and degrees.

His brutal beating at the hands of an angry mob sparked outrage and spurred marches a decade ago. But long after the headlines faded, Knapp soldiered on in a battered and broken body that no longer responded to his commands.

Bedridden, in chronic pain and saddled with seizures, Knapp hung on until Nov. 6, when his body finally gave out for good. At age 43, he became North Charleston’s 11th homicide of 2009, the victim of a slow-motion killing too old to carry the possibility of a murder charge.

Knapp died as a result of severe injuries he suffered in his October 1999 beating,

Charleston County Coroner Rae Wooten said. But there is nothing more police can do. South Carolina law won’t allow a murder prosecution in a case where the victim lives more than three years after his injuries were inflicted.

Six men were convicted of lynching in the attack on Knapp. Just two remain in prison, though they are expected to be released within the year.

The Post and Courier

This is another unfortunate example of how weak and useless our justice system is in this country.  Why do we have so much violent crime here in the U.S. compared to other nations?  In my opinion, it’s quite simple.  Our laws protect the criminals more than the victims.

Only two of this man’s attackers still remain in prison over this incident and they are supposed to be released within a year.  They will go on with their lives after crippling this man for ten years before he eventually died.  If there was real justice in this country all of this man’s attackers would get a needle in the arm and be executed.  These animals have demonstrated that they have no respect for human life and therefore they cannot be trusted to function in society.  Like a malignant tumor they need to be excised and at the very least spend life in prison, but that won’t happen because we’re a nation of wimps.  I guarantee more than one of them will end up back in jail at some point.  We need more vigilante justice in this country if the proper authorities refuse to dispense it themselves.

Republican U.S. Rep. Henry Brown, a farm boy who rose to became one of South Carolina’s most powerful politicians, announced Monday he will not seek a sixth term in Congress so he can spend more time with his family.

“While this has been a difficult decision to make, I’m convinced that this is the right time for me to step down,” Brown said in a statement.

The LA Times

And I couldn’t be happier to see him go.  Brown is another glutinous “earmarker” wasting away our tax dollars on piggish pork to bribe his way into reelection after reelection.  A fresh new face is needed and Brown’s retirement will undoubtedly bring out multiple candidates on both sides of the aisle.  Reagan conservative Katherine Jenerette has already declared her candidacy for a second attempt at the seat.  I’m curious to wait and see if Brown’s Democratic challenger from 2008, Linda Ketner, will reconsider a bid now that Brown is out.

The National Journal cites a few other potential Republican candidates including Carroll “Tumpy” Campbell III, Isle of Palms councilman Ryan Buckhannon, and attorney Mark Fava.

Remember all the hubbub about Joe Wilson exclaiming “You lie!” to the President during the State of the Union address earlier this year?  Of course you do.  Despite the chastising he has taken since then by the left and even some on the right for his outburst there is one little problem hanging over the heads of Wilson’s critics.  He was right.  Both the House health care bill and the Senate health care bill still do not encompass provisions to screen out illegal immigrant workers from the mandate on businesses that they provide health care coverage for all of their employees.

The House bill mandates, and the Senate bill strongly encourages, businesses to extend health care coverage to all employees. But the bills do not have exemptions to screen out illegal immigrants, who usually obtain jobs by using false identities and are indistinguishable from legal workers.

A rough estimate by the Center for Immigration Studies suggests that the practical effect of the mandates would be that about 1 million illegal immigrants could obtain health insurance coverage through their employers.

Democrats who wrote the House bill said that employer coverage for illegal immigrants is not intentional, but rather the outcome of people breaking the law.

The Washington Times

Technically, that may be true.  People are breaking the law by hiring illegals, but let’s stop playing games here.  Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have taken serious steps to crack down on the hiring of illegals.  In fact, under this administration and the direction of Janet Napolitano, INS raids on businesses known to employ illegals have all but stopped.  The Feds aren’t going to do anything about this problem and the Democrats who wrote this House bill know that full well.  Hence, they know they are to blame for the coming crisis if this bill becomes law so they are trying to pass the buck now.

The longer this drags out and receives more attention, the more Joe Wilson may turn out to be a hero to his district rather than an embarrassment.

The Charleston County Republican Party’s executive committee took the unusual step Monday night of censuring U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. because of several positions he has taken that clash with the GOP party line.

County Chairwoman Lin Bennett said the unanimous vote “is an effort to get his attention. They’re just fed up, and they want him to know they’re fed up.”

The resolution mentions Graham’s cooperation with U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., on energy legislation to his support for the $700 billion Troubled Assett Relief Program to his calling some opponents “bigots” when they opposed his immigration stance.

The Post and Courier

Personally, I wish we had a recall provision like in California where we could just recall Graham.  If Cap and Trade ends up getting through the Senate because of Graham’s support, the lives of the thousands of South Carolinians that will be destroyed will be all on his shoulders.  Cap and Trade will destroy jobs and do nothing to curb carbon emissions.  I have even read that there is a provision in the legislation that once the law goes into the effect you will have to make energy upgrades to your home if you go to sell it to the cost of several thousand dollars.

Homebuyers Beware. Trying to save up for a new home? You may have to save up a little longer for your purchase. The Democrats’ bill would dramatically increase new home costs by mandating California’s expensive new building codes for the entire nation. Immediately upon enactment, the Democrats’ bill would demand a 30 percent increase in energy efficiency for new construction. A couple of years later, the Democrats’ bill would require an additional 50 percent improvement. These numbers were chosen with no concern for cost to consumers or feasibility in implementation.

John Boehner

Is this what Lindsey Graham thinks the people of South Carolina support??  The Federal government nosing its way into our homes and telling us how to update it before we can sell it?  How about the increased costs in home building raising the price of homes putting them farther out of reach for many Americans, essentially killing the dream of home ownership?

Lindsey Graham is a an authoritarian thief of everyone’s freedom.  The man should be “hung from the Liberty Tree.”  A mere censure is being way too nice.

H/T to RedState

James Galyean is one of the candidates running for the House seat in South Carolina’s Third Congressional District that is being vacated by Gresham Barrett.  According to a post on his campaign Web site, there is chatter that the Obama Administration is planning to dump Gitmo detainees at the Charleston Naval Weapons Station in an effort to deliver on his foolhardy promise to close the Gitmo detention center.

One, I still don’t understand the reasoning behind closing Gitmo and two, why choose South Carolina?  Is it because we didn’t bow to the Obamassiah on Election Day?

Several news media outlets are reporting that the Obama Administration has decided to transfer an unknown number of Guantanamo terrorist detainees to the brig at the Charleston Naval Weapons Station. As someone who worked on this issue for a number of years, I can tell you that it is impossible to overstate how incredibly irresponsible that decision is.

I helped write both the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Those acts, despite considerable damage done to them by the liberal, internationalist wing of the Supreme Court, still have enough structure for any detention or legal issues that may arise at Guantanamo. If some provision proves inadequate, the President’s party controls Congress, I’m certain he could obtain any further legislation he deemed necessary. I would suggest starting with expedited appeal procedures, limited judicial interference, and faster sentence execution, but hey, that’s just me. And in all honesty, Justice Stevens doesn’t generally like my ideas.

In any event, there is no legitimate legal, intelligence, or military reason to bring the detainees here.

This decision is based strictly on political calculation. Our citizens will be endangered because the President is too afraid to tell his surrender-faster-than-the-French base that he made a mistake when he promised to close the Guantanamo facility.

So now, Charleston has become a place on the map every al-Qaeda terrorist in South Waziristan knows about. And wants a tourist visa for. Not to mention any domestic radicals looking to make a name for themselves. Guantanamo detainees in the Charleston brig will draw them both like flies.

And why choose the brig? If you decide to bring the terrorist detainees to the states, we have any number of remote military bases with fence lines miles from the nearest town. Bringing them here is bad enough, but why choose to house them in a major metropolitan area on an easily accessible base? It is a needless invitation.

It was officially announced yesterday evening.  We got the Boeing plant.  It has decided on South Carolina over the Washington State.  The plant will be located in North Charleston and could bring an estimated 3,800 new jobs to the state.  As I wrote yesterday, talks between Boeing and the Machinist Union in Washington broke down.  Once again, we see the example of a union chasing away thousands of jobs they could have had in their community, but I’m not complaining.  Their loss is our gain here in South Carolina.

Part of what also made up Boeing’s mind was the $450 million incentive package approved by the state legislature, which is coming under some controversy.  Pure laissez-faire economy advocates are decrying this as corporate welfare that would be unneeded if the state went further in improving the business climate here.  Others say this isn’t corporate welfare because it is mostly tax breaks, rather than the actual giving of taxpayer dollars to Boeing out of the state coffers.  Furthermore, other states engage in handing out incentives to big business so if we don’t do it too, we’ll be unable to compete.  There is some truth to that.

I’m somewhere in the middle on this.  I don’t look at tax breaks as corporate welfare.  I view that as government getting out of the way.  I do, however, have an issue when they are targeted to only a specific business, rather than all businesses throughout the state.  Tax incentives don’t always work either, case and point, Dell.  There is also the underlying question that if Boeing doesn’t have to pay these taxes, does that mean I am picking up their share of the burden?

This is the biggest investment in South Carolina history so the legislature is taking quite a risk.

Either way, if the plant brings in the number of new jobs it says it will it’s obviously a good thing for the state.  If the tax revenue surpasses what was forgone through the incentive packages then it will be a worthwhile investment in the long run.

More evidence that leftist economic policies destroy economies by chasing away jobs and people.  A few weeks back I made note about a bid both South Carolina and the State of Washington made to entice Boeing to locate their new plant in one of our states.  Washington was touting the highly educated work force available while South Carolina has the advantage of a more business friendly economic climate.  It is sounding like South Carolina is going to win.

According to reports, talks between Boeing and the Machinist union in Washington have fallen apart, inferring that the union’s demands for an above market rate of compensation for their would be members was not setting well with Boeing.  This would appear to give an edge to South Carolina, whose Right to Work policies are much more palatable.

Fortunately, we still have competition in the marketplace throughout our nation.  We are lucky that this isn’t another instance of a company moving its resources overseas for cheaper labor in India or China.  Expensive union labor simply cannot compete in 21st century America.  Manufacturing is all but gone in our nation and some that is still left, like the auto companies, are being artificially propped up by the Federal government.  They’ll never learn though.  While the business hostile north continues to bleed jobs and population, our states here in the sun belt will continue to thrive and grow.

That’s the total raised by both candidates combined in the 29 days following “Liargate.”  According to campaign finance reports Rob Miller has raised a little under $1.8 million and Joe Wilson a little under $3 million. While it would seem on the surface that Wilson is the primary beneficiary of his own outburst, remember that Miller does not need anywhere near the amount of money Wilson has in order to be competitive.  He only needs to raise a few million to mount a strong challenge, enough to buy advertising and get the word out about why he would be a better representative for the second district than Joe Wilson has been.  He’s easily going to  raise that amount and more.  So when you get down and really look at the nitty-gritty of things, this isn’t that great of news for Wilson, in my opinion.

The Post and Courier also points out that the bulk of the cash donated to both campaigns have come from out of state, 77% of Wilson’s new backers and 86% of Miller’s.  They may have struck a chord with folks around the country, but money raised from people outside the district really doesn’t reflect the feelings of those in the district and who will actually be voting for who.

This will undeniably be one of the most watched races next year and I expect to see a decent amount of polling on it over the next year to keep track.

Congressman Joe Wilson pulled in a cool $2.7 million this quarter receiving donations from more than 50,000 individual donors from all over the country.  He’ll need every penny of it next year.  The infamous “You lie!” outburst has riled up both his base and that of Rob Miller’s whose third quarter report has not been filed yet.

North Carolina state Sen. Andrew Brock said wakeupamerica.com has bought time for the 30-second ad in Columbia, Greenville and Hilton Head Island for two weeks starting Monday.

The Mocksville, N.C., Republican, said the ads are needed to back up Republican U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who shouted “You Lie!” at Obama as he pitched overhauling health care.

Asheville Citizen-Times

Boeing is choosing between South Carolina and Washington to be the home of their new facility that will construct the 787 Dreamliner.  Both Governor Sanford and Governor Christine Gregoire of Washington are making their cases to Boeing as to who is positioned for this plant.

“Commercial aerospace is in our blood,” Gregoire, a two-term

Democrat, wrote in a 32-page report, “The Business Case for Consolidating Boeing 787 Assembly in Washington” that was recently released.

“Washington is the highest quality location Boeing could possibly identify for siting additional 787 production,” she continued.

“Washington has a large, highly skilled and adaptable workforce, an attractive business climate, stable and sustainable government, a robust and funded infrastructure improvement plan, a strong education system, and the highest quality of life of any competitor state. Washington also has a highly competitive cost environment.”

The Post and Courier

Gregoire’s right.  Let’s face it.  South Carolina isn’t known for our stellar level of education.  Seattle has Microsoft and a much larger selection of highly educated residents than our state does.  On the other hand, we provide lower cost labor and the Boeing plant would bring more educated people to our state to fill some of those jobs.

South Carolina is trying to make its best argument, including the state’s low union presence, in intense, behind-the-scenes business recruitment efforts, but neither Gov. Mark Sanford’s office nor the state Department of Commerce would comment.

I really can’t predict how this is going to turn out.  I guess it will really come down to what element Boeing is weighing higher, a larger pool of highly educated potential employees to choose from or a lower bottom line due to more reasonable labor costs.  Hopefully, with the economic times being as they are, Boeing will be more focused on the money factor.