South Carolina Republican

FIRE BRAD CHILDRESS

2010-11-01T18:34:00.000-07:00

Enough is enough fire Brad Childress. The Vikings can still win it all with another coach.

Brett Favre is a legend and Brad Childress is a moron

2010-10-26T12:33:00.001-07:00

Hey Brad Childress I assume your public response about Favre throwing three pics would have been the same had Harvin been in bounds on that last touchdown??? You hypocrite. Did it ever occur to you that Favre threw three pics because his ankle was broken twice on the first one?

How about you get your O line (particularly Loadholt) to start protecting Favre.

You can't coach. Your team has not been ready to play at any position all year and when none of them are playing right that is on the coach. Your system is crap and you are wasting Favre and a super bowl victory.

Let Favre be Favre and shut up.

Todd Young: Liberal Republican from Indiana

2010-04-13T06:43:00.000-07:00

"Or his dislike for big government?"

If this is the case then he could name one program/department of substance that he wants to cut...he has had a year and a half and that liberal has not named one cut. Just rhetoric. He runs on a balanced budget but has NEVER offered and way to make that happen. If you support a balanced budget then you support major cuts but he has never announced one.

"his position on the board of a pro-life ministry?"

Todd is not Pro-Life, he is a fraud. Todd could easily come out and say he wants to outlaw abortion and what he would do to make that happen...but he does not believe it!

He could easily say that Constitutionally a woman who has conceived has NO CHOICE but to carry the child and give birth but he never has and never will. Even if he did it now he would still be fraud because we are three weeks from him getting beat. He had his chance to be a conservative and he did not even try and fake it all that well.

Most of the GOP frauds who pretend to be conservative at least pick one issue where they play make believe conservative and throw out some red meat. Young has tricked some hacks and voters with only vague rhetoric.

Todd Young is not a conservative on any issue.

Travis Hankins, Mike Sodrel and Todd Young debate

2010-04-12T17:30:00.000-07:00

I had the privilege of watching Travis Hankins and Mike Sodrel and two others debate in Indiana Saturday night.

You may remember from this blog's heyday in 2006 I named Sodrel to the official RINO list:
http://screpublican.blogspot.com/2006/05/official-list-of-rino-house-members.html

Mike was rattled early but fared better as time wore on and he deflected attacks from a GOP establishment candidate from the "Lugar" wing of the party. Mike obviously looked a little nervous and almost scared as he awaited all the potential attacks from his opponents. Attacks he knew were coming because he obviously knew he was guilty.

Candidate Todd Young attacked Sodrel from the right but the attacks gained little traction as the messenger lacked any credibility to defend conservatism. Sodrel is a huge porkster, voted to send federal dollars to planned parenthood, supported the socialization of prescription medicine, supported Universal mandatory health insurance, voted against the Contract with America renewed, and he was rated by Citizens against Government waste to have the same ranking as Barack Obama in 2006.

Usually Freshman Congressman wait until their second term to sell out to big government but Mike Sodrel sold out after ONE YEAR. He did not even wait until his second term.

Anyway, the attacks did not gain traction and Sodrel looked Congressional compared to the liberal Young. Although Sodrel faired better than Young, a Young supporter non-the-less stated afterward how he hated Sodrel's arrogance (driving to the debate in a Semi Truck while busing in and paying for atleast 30 people to attend has that effect I guess).

Travis Hankins won the debate and dominated the competition as he always does. While he did not win this debate by the huge landslide expected, he nonetheless won comfortably.

Hankins was the only candidate to offer any substance on any issue as everyone else just offered rhetoric. Hankins received the most applause and had the most supporters in the room. Even the non partisan moderator was overheard saying Hankins won! Which is obvious to anyone with any objectivity.

While Hankins needs to do better in the future and certainly a better job managing expectations; a win is a win! Hankins won by any fair definition.

2006-09-25T08:32:00.000-07:00

There have been those asking me "what do you mean Romney will not play in South Carolina? I am a conservative and I support him".

Nine times out of ten this comes from moderate party folks who say they are conservative.

Today is a good example of what Romeny can expect in South Carolina from Christian Conservatives:

Romney grilling ‘in bad taste’

By LEE BANDY
lbandy@thestate.com

The quarterly meeting of the S.C. Republican executive committee Sept. 16 ended on a sour note when one of its more prominent members cornered Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and grilled him about his Mormon faith.

It was not a pretty sight, according to witnesses.

Romney, a possible Republican candidate for president in 2008, was in town to address the state executive committee.

Cyndi Mosteller, chairwoman of the Charleston County Republican Party, one of the largest GOP organizations in the state, came armed with a bunch of material — and questions — about the Mormon church.

The incident only underlines what could become an uncomfortable debate over Romney’s faith if he runs for the White House. The issue will be on the table in South Carolina’s early primary contest, where roughly 35 percent of GOP voters are evangelical Christians, many of whom view Mormonism with skepticism.

Mosteller, an evangelical, said she especially was concerned about the church’s attitude toward African-Americans and its stand on polygamy.

The Mormon religion was founded by Joseph Smith in 1830. Today, it is one of the fastest-growing faith groups in the United States. Based in Salt Lake City, Utah, it is known formally as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Mormonism’s short history has been tumultuous, with an early embrace of polygamy, which it later renounced. Still, Mormons grapple with their polygamous past.

It has been almost 30 years since the Mormon Church lifted a ban that kept black males from the church’s priesthood.

Brigham Young, who succeeded Smith as church leader, wrote that God put a curse on Cain — a “flat nose and black skin” — for killing his brother Abel.

Mosteller said the issues of race and marriage concern her. She fears they could become campaign issues and hurt Republican chances.

She had planned to ask the questions in an open committee session, but Romney nixed that idea by ending his short address with a final “thank you.”

The governor then proceeded to meet with the media for about 15 minutes.

Enter Mosteller.

Sensing trouble, Romney aides hurriedly ushered reporters out the door.

Afterward, Mosteller said the governor did not answer any of her questions. She described the meeting as “very tense.”

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/15594211.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

If a guy like Mike Pence enters the race then Romney will have no chance in South Carolina. In a field without Mike Pence, Mitt Romney only chance is to be bold and take stands on important issues.
He simply will not over come the Yankee-Mormonism thing unless he is a real conservative and devolps a strategy for reining in the federal Government.
A Lukewarm Romney will go down to defeat,as well he should.
Romney needs to propose to eliminate some Government agencies.
Do not expect South Carolina Conservatives to compromise for Romney just because he looks Presidential and can give an OK speech.Ideology matters and we are looking for another Reagan.

Day full of Pence update

2006-09-13T17:21:00.000-07:00

I was just told by a friend that last Friday he went to the West Oak High School football game in Westminster(Gresham Barrett's hometown) and that Pence volunteers were passing out game rosters that doubled as Pence 08 flyers.He said that everybody got one and they were well recieved.

West Oak was playing cross county rival Seneca.

A Day full of Mike Pence

2006-09-13T11:57:00.000-07:00

A Day Full of Mike Pence

It is not easy being a conservative South Carolina Republican. Our party has more rivalries and infighting than I could list in an hour. Everyday one elected Republican attacks another, some party leader gets into it with a donor, some "consultant" attacks another one, and the sad part is most of it tends not to be ideological but rather about personal beefs and power.

The one bright spot is Gresham Barrett who no doubt will be our Governor in 2010, but after him it is curtains. When thinking about the future of our party and this nation it is hard to find any kind of vision and integrity. For the last several months I have been looking elsewhere for that Reaganesque Leader who will provide the vision to lead America forward and I found in an (then) obscure Congressman from Indiana named Mike Pence.

Mike Pence is Chairman of the Republican Study Committee and he describes himself as "a Christian, a Conservative, and a Republican in that order".

There is a Draft movement to get Pence to run for President in 08 and I have been watching with great intensity the begining efforts to put Pence on the map here in South Carolina. You can imagine my surprise when last Friday it seemed I could not escape Mike Pence anywhere I went.

My morning started off with a meeting with the head guys of Draft Pence as we were to discuss possibly bringing me on in a official capacity next semester. Right now I am just a supporter and I have let the guys contribute to the blog at times. I need to do more. Right off the bat this meeting was unlike any other I have had in my political career. No cursing, no gossip. We simply discussed a vision for the future of America and we discussed the integrity and Character of Mike Pence.

This renewed my hope that this would be different.

After the meeting I then headed down to Clemson for a speech by Congressman Tom Tancredo. To my surprise when I walked into Brackett Hall all I saw was Mike Pence for President flyers, and they were everywhere. I found out that Tancredo was not speaking at the auditorium but rather teaching in a classroom so I didn't get to hear him speak. As I walked by the classroom to get a glimpse of the "Tank" entering, I saw a girl with a Mike Pence for President button sitting in the front row. I immediatly began to smile.

Before noon I was listening to some local talk radio as they discussed immigration.
They were talking about the need to seal the border and what compromise would be acceptable to them. Without saying Pence's name they went on to list the Pence plan verbatim "seal the border, pass sanctions, send the illegals home and make them sign up legally" Both of the guys on the air agreed this was the best deal possible.

As they went to break I was thinking "man, Pence is everywhere" so you can imagine my surprise when they came back and did a segment on the future of the party and where the heck is the next Reagan? They again listed all of Pence's traits without mentioning him by name.It is clear to me that Mike Pence is the next Reagan.

I then was able to have three Pence-free hours before I called my moderate buddy and politics came up. He thinks we have to go with Rudy or McCain because "retaining 1600 is the only thing that matters." He didn't even know who Pence was before I told him a few weeks earlier. He called me a couple hours later to tell me (in a half yelling way) he just viewed Pence's LIBERTY ad online and it was the greatest he ever saw and he thinks Pence is the man.

What did this day tell me?
One, that moderates base everything on their emotions and that good campiagn ads can get their votes.

Two, that there is a small flicker of support of Mike Pence in 2008 and it grows everyday. There is a sweeping brushfire of support for the return of Reaganism and no one emodies Reagan more than Pence.People are searching for and demanding a new leader with vision and intergrity to lead our nation in the future.

Can Pence win in South Carolina? Certainly yes. Will he? The odds are long but each day that passes things are looking good. I know for certain that no other candidate will excite this South Carolina conservative base. Pence has the total package: Strong on defense, stalwart Fiscal conservative, and strong on moral questions. Pence is the only guy I have seen who can play to both the Upstate Christians and the Low Country coastal Libertarians.

Mike Pence's message will play here is SC, it did in '80 and '84 and it will again someday!
These next two years could get real interesting here in South Carolina.
Next I will do a blog speculating on whether Pence even wants it in 08.

Mike Pence for President and Gresham Barrett for Governor!

GOP debates closing primary

2006-09-11T06:41:00.000-07:00

GOP debates closing primary
By LEE BANDY
lbandy@thestate.com
Since 1980, South Carolina Republicans have used the open primary process to build the party into the political force it is today.

Now, some in the party want to close it, making it tougher for independents, disenchanted Democrats and mischief makers to cross over and vote in the GOP contests.

Some legislative leaders are lukewarm to the idea. But other party leaders are out to replace the “y’all come” invitation with a members-only sign.

The move is “a degree of arrogance” on the part of Republicans, said Francis Marion University political scientist Neal Thigpen, a Republican activist and consultant.

“They rose to power on it,” Thigpen said, referring to the open primary. “Now, they want to close it.”

South Carolina is one of 20 states allowing open primaries. In such contests, voters are free to choose the party ballot they want.

If S.C. Republican leaders have their way, voters would have to swear their loyalty to the GOP before participating in the primary, a move designed to discourage Democrats from crossing over to create mischief.

In theory, the Democratic mischief makers cross over to the GOP’s primary and cast their ballots for the weakest candidate, making it easier for the Democratic candidate to win in the general election. But studies show such voters account for only about 2 percent of primary voters at most.

Still, GOP leaders want to close their party’s primary.

“The time has come for people to stand up,” said state GOP Chairman Katon Dawson, who favors a closed primary. “It’s time for the debate.”

The 2004 state Republican convention voted overwhelmingly for closed primaries, with 58 percent of the delegates favoring voter registration by party.

“It’s time,” Dawson said.

For the last six years, the Republican-dominated General Assembly has failed to adopt legislation to end open primaries.

State Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, chairman of the election laws subcommittee, shows little enthusiasm for closed primaries or registration by party.

“South Carolina has a pretty rich tradition of independence when it comes to voting in primaries,” he said. “Closed primaries take a lot of folks out of both parties, probably more out of the Republican Party. I don’t know that would be healthy to our political process.”

House Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Harrison, R-Richland, doesn’t hold out much hope for party registration either.

“It has been before a subcommittee and debated for at least six years, maybe longer,” he said. “Nothing ever comes of it.”

Drew McKissick, a GOP consultant with close ties to the conservative religious community, admonished Republican legislators “to get with the program and get it passed.”

But Dan Ross, former state Republican chairman from Blackville, is opposed vehemently to party registration.

He noted the party has collected more than 600,000 names, thanks to the open primary. “That’s a gold mine.”

State Democratic chairman Joe Erwin, of Greenville, sees no need for party registration.

“One of the things South Carolinians value is their independence. We’ve always been a very independent-minded people,” Erwin said, citing exit polls showing 28 percent of the state’s voters called themselves independents in the last election..

“If that’s true, why cut them out of the process?” Erwin asked. “By being open, we encourage more participation.”

Greg Shorey, former state chairman from Beaufort, has led the fight for registration since the late 1950s.

“By what right do I have intruding into the candidate selection process of another political party?” he asked.

“We’ve become of age now in helping develop a viable two-party state. It’s time we matured and grow up. We’re no longer a minority,” Shorey said of the state GOP.

Shorey also had a word of warning for reluctant legislators.

“They’d better wake up,” he said. “Their jobs are now in jeopardy.”

S.C. parties could be forced to close their primaries. In a federal court case yet to be decided, the Virginia GOP contends open primaries are unconstitutional.

Added Shorey: “If we don’t settle this legislatively, it’s going to be settled in court, and it will be expensive and an embarrassment.”

Wilson to Unveil Write from the Front Exhibit

2006-09-09T16:12:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 7, 2006

CONTACT: Kim Olive

(202) 225-2452 (office)

(202) 420- (cell)

**MEDIA ADVISORY**

Wilson to Unveil Write from the Front Exhibit

COLUMBIA - Congressman Joe Wilson (SC-02) on Monday will participate in the unveiling of the Write from the Front traveling exhibit. Write from the Front was launched in 2003 by the South Carolina Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum to preserve the stories of South Carolina soldiers. Congressman Wilson is a Write from the Front contributor.

Dale and Ann Hampton, the parents of Capt. Kimberly Hampton, the first woman pilot in U.S. history to die in combat, will be in attendance. The Hamptons will donate some of Kimberly's belongings to the museum. Other special guests include Lisa Yanity, a high school guidance counselor who wrote a blog during her service in Afghanistan . Ms. Yanity's blog is part of the Write from the Front collection. Members of Bryan Tolar's family, who is currently deployed training the Afghan army with the S.C. National Guard, will also attend.

WHO: Congressman Joe Wilson

WHAT: Press conference/ceremony to unveil the Write from the Front exhibit

WHEN: Monday, September 11, 2006; 10 a.m.

WHERE: Atrium of the State Museum , 301 Gervais Street

We are winning in Iraq

2006-09-07T17:07:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 7, 2006

CONTACT: Kim Olive

(202) 225-2452 (Office)

(202) 420- (Cell)

Republican House Members Applaud Progress of Iraqi Government

WASHINGTON -Republican House Members today applauded the continued progress of the Iraqi government on its path to full independence. Iraq today assumed full control of the Iraqi armed forces, putting the prime minister in direct control of the military.

"Today's transfer of the Iraqi military to direct Iraqi government control is a major step toward Iraq 's full independence. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is committed to achieving a stable democratic society in Iraq . A competent military is essential for success.

"With two thirds of the Iraqi Army's combat units in the lead, we are encouraged that Iraqi Security Forces are assuming more responsibility for the security of their country. As these brave Iraqis continue to take the lead against those who seek to deprive their countrymen of the rights they have fought to secure, we will continue to stand with them.

"Success in Iraq is vital to world stability and security in the United States . Today's transfer is one step further to achieving victory in Iraq ."

The following statement was released by Reps. Joe Wilson (SC-02), Kay Granger (TX-12), Randy Kuhl (NY-29), Doc Hastings (WA-04), Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25), Phil Gingrey (GA-11), Sam Graves (MO-06), Henry Brown (SC-01), Steve King (IA-05), Virginia Foxx (NC-05), John Carter (TX-31), Michael Burgess (TX-26), Gresham Barrett (SC-03), Louie Gohmert (TX-01), Ander Crenshaw (FL-04), Mike Conaway (TX-11), Mike Pence (IN-06), Michael McCaul (TX-10) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18).

The 06 elections are here!

2006-09-06T17:48:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Caitlin Carroll (202) 225-

Republican Members Call Senate Democrat Amendment on Rumsfeld "Political Grandstanding"

WASHINGTON , DC -Republican Members of Congress today issued the following statements in response to Senate Democrats' attempts to introduce a resolution forcing a vote of no confidence in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration's Iraq policies:

"We are living in a pivotal time in the history of our world. Our way of life is under siege. Our men and women in the armed forces are risking their lives daily to defend our freedoms. Yet, in the face of such high stakes, Democrats choose instead to demonize our nation's leaders and politicize the most critical issue of our time - defeating terrorism worldwide. The American people will not be duped by Democrats' smoke and mirrors. As President Bush and Republicans in Congress continue to pursue an aggressive strategy to win the Global War on Terror, Americans will see the Democrats' tactics for what they are: political grandstanding that distracts from protecting American families."

- Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC)

"The President and his administration have shown a deep understanding of the distinct challenges of terrorism, a commitment to taking the fight to the terrorists, and an assurance that our government will utilize all necessary tools to protect our homeland. I agree with those who liken this to a World War III. We are in a fight for the future of our civilization, and we must remain deeply committed to this effort."

- Congressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA)

"It's near-sighted to think we can walk away from the main front of the War on Terror and distract this nation's focus with meaningless resolutions. We must remain committed to fighting terrorism, both at home and abroad. These terrorists are committed to killing Americans and disrupting our way of life. We must continue to fight terrorism with the same dedication and passion as we near the fifth anniversary of 9/11. This political stunt is another example of the Democrats putting their blind desire to capture the Majority ahead of the security of this nation."

- Congressman Bill Shuster (R-PA)

"It is just plain irresponsible for elected officials to play politics during a time of war. Terrorism does not stop for midterm elections, and the Democrats believe it is harmless to spin their wheels and rhetoric for the television cameras as our men and women defend us in the War on Terror. It is not harmless. Their posturing has a negative affect on the safety of Americans and our troops worldwide. Secretary Rumsfeld has done a fine job of transforming the outdated and conventional armed forces program into the modern day force required to fight contemporary terrorism. While I recognize some things could have been done differently, he and those in the Department of Defense are adapting improved strategies and procedures in response to ongoing changes in our defense needs."

- Congressman Steve King (R-IA)

"This was yet another cheap attempt by the Democrats to cause more polarization on the War on Terror for their own political gain. It is a shame they choose to ignore and overshadow the many successes in the War on Terror in this manner."

- Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC)

"We are in the midst of a worldwide war against terrorism. Attacks on the leadership of this administration's defense strategy are little more than grandstanding by opposition opportunists. I want to thank Secretary Rumsfeld for his leadership. He has led the Department of Defense during two wars, wars that resulted in the liberation of 25 million people in Afghanistan and 25 million people in Iraq . Now is not the time to change the leadership. Retreat is not the answer and no is not a policy."

- Congressman Henry Brown (R-SC)

"If you believe that George Bush and Don Rumsfeld are causing our problems with Muslim terrorists, then you absolutely have to believe that Bill Clinton caused 9-11. There is no choice because we know unequivocally that the planning and preparation for 9-11 were all begun and almost completed while Bill Clinton was President. The fact is that, though Bill Clinton may be guilty of many things, he did nothing to deserve 9-11 being plotted while he was President. Actually, if you look at the areas and causes for which he committed troops, it was almost always to help Muslims. He was the most friendly President in history to Palestinians. Clinton did nothing to deserve the 9-11 atrocity being plotted while he was President. The current President understands we are in a world war for our survival and we cannot withdraw. It will keep coming after us unless we get it first. The failure to win means we are sent back to another Dark Ages. We are safer today than we were on 9 / 11 because now we know we are in a war, and we did not in 1993 after the first attack on the World Trade Center and the Terrorists know now that they have been engaged, have paid and are continuing to pay the price for there acts of war against us."

- Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX)

Where they Stand (on Iraq)

2006-09-05T11:02:00.000-07:00

The debate on the WOT over the next two months will not resemble anything we have had in the previous two cycles.The Democrats simply do not believe we are at War and they might now feel that enough Americans agree with them that they can actually tell the truth about their view on the WAR ON TERROR.THEY ARE WRONG!

WHERE THEY STAND

U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., was the only member of the S.C. delegation to vote against the use of force in Iraq. Three years later, the delegation remains largely supportive of the war, though more concerns are being raised about its conduct.

• Clyburn, of Columbia, still opposes the war as a costly, bloody mistake.

• U.S. Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., of York, voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution after an unsuccessful push to have the Bush administration seek more weapons inspections and international support. Spratt is critical of how the administration has handled the war but agrees with Bush on the importance of success in Iraq.

• With the exception of U.S. Reps. Bob Inglis of Travelers Rest and Gresham Barrett of Westminster — neither of whom were in Congress in 2002 when the war vote was taken — the state’s Republican congressmen voted in favor of the war resolution. Inglis recently returned from Iraq and has said more pressure should be applied to Iraqi leaders, who need to take firmer control.

• U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., of Springdale, has been a vocal supporter of the administration’s policies in Iraq. He has traveled to the region, and his son served in Iraq. As he travels through his congressional district, Wilson carries an “Iraq Update” flyer that highlights progress he believes is being overlooked amid the problems there. “I’m really an optimist,” Wilson said. “We are making progress.”

Rudy visits SC

2006-08-22T11:50:00.000-07:00

Social issues will effect Rudy's campaign IF there is a viable Reagan conservative in the field. If the only other choices are Allen,McCain,and Romney, then Rudy's stances become less polarizing.

Social issues unlikely to hurt Giuliani
By LEE BANDY
lbandy@thestate.com
The S.C. Republican Party’s sponsorship of “An Evening Honoring Rudy Giuliani” last week spoke volumes.

It reflected what some said is a shift in attitude toward GOP candidates with more liberal views on social issues.

There’s a greater degree of tolerance and acceptance, party officials said.

Giuliani, who rose to national prominence for his take-charge performance after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, supports gay rights, gun control and legalized abortion, which puts him at odds with most Republicans.

Nevertheless, he has traveled the country extensively on behalf of GOP candidates this year while acknowledging his own interest in a possible 2008 presidential bid.

Although his liberal stance on social issues is likely to disqualify him with religious conservatives, the former New York City mayor remains in great demand as a speaker before Republican groups.

In this visit — his first major political trip to South Carolina — Giuliani attended a fundraiser for conservative GOP congressional candidate Ralph Norman, the one-term state representative who is challenging Democratic U.S. Rep. John Spratt, a 24-year House veteran in a hotly contested race in the 5th District.

Giuliani ended the day in Charleston at a star-studded $2,500-a-couple fundraiser for the state Republican Party.

He packed the place.

“Rudy is a very popular figure,” GOP chairman Katon Dawson said. “We didn’t have any problem with him coming.”

Giuliani, affectionately known as “America’s mayor,” is seen as middle-of-the-road by most voters nationally, according to Rasmussen Reports, an electronic survey company.

It found 36 percent of Americans see him as a political moderate, 29 percent said conservative, and 15 percent said liberal. Twenty percent are not sure.

Former state GOP chairman Barry Wynn said the party needs to take a fresh look at the way it regards new voters, especially those new residents who’ve settled along the coast and are starting to have an impact on state party politics.

Those voters tend to be more progressive in outlook and are more inclined to support someone like Giuliani.

“I think Rudy could be more popular in South Carolina than most people would think,” Wynn said.

The debate in 2008 isn’t going to be about tax cuts, abortion or Social Security reform — Republican favorites.

“The overarching issues this time will be national security and leadership,” Wynn said. “Everything else will fit under that.”

Such a scenario favors Giuliani, Greenville consultant Chip Felkel said.

Francis Marion University political scientist Neal Thigpen, a GOP activist, said Giuliani is in a “special category.”

He’s a “glittering personality” with star quality who can get away with supporting legalized abortion and gay rights.

His position on those social issues “would not hurt him as bad over the long haul as one may think. If John McCain had the same position, it would hurt him a lot worse.”

Needless to say, the hard-core religious right won’t surrender territory on social issues. They’d rather go down in flames than win.

But unless terrorists no longer are a threat to the United States, national security and leadership will be at the top of the issues heap in 2008.

Voters won’t be concerned about gay rights or abortion. What matters most will be their own security in a volatile world.

And the candidate who stands to benefit is Giuliani.

“If your house is on fire,” Wynn said, “you want a guy with the hose.”

McCain visits Myrtle Beach

2006-08-19T06:50:00.000-07:00

McCain tackles issues in MB visit

By Zane Wilson

The Sun News

Sounding more like a presidential contender than a politician come to the aid of South Carolina Republican candidates, U.S. Sen. John McCain talked about national and international issues in a series of appearances in Myrtle Beach Friday.

McCain, of Arizona, came to help candidates he has endorsed through his political action committee, Straight Talk America. He attended a fund-
raiser Thursday in Columbia for Adjutant General Stan Spears and came to Myrtle Beach to speak at a fundraising lunch for superintendent of education candidate Karen Floyd.

But he also spoke at a meeting Friday morning with about 100 invited members of the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, met with about 100 members of the public later, and after the $1,000-a-plate lunch for Floyd he autographed his latest book for about 30 people.

McCain carried both Horry and Georgetown counties in the S.C. Republican presidential primary of 2000, even though he lost statewide to George Bush, and is quietly organizing for another run in 2008, but he says he wants to focus on this year's elections for now.

The senator was mostly warmly received but some in the public meeting attacked his position on immigration and on a cooperative agreement with Democratic senators on judge appointments.

"Our borders are broken," McCain said when the question of immigration came up in the first meeting, asked by chamber president Brad Dean.

"I know how many illegals are working in Myrtle Beach," he said. But he said employers can't be expected to be immigration agents.

McCain favors a program in which immigrants who have been here five years or more can achieve citizenship, but those who have been here less than five years should go home, then apply for a guest worker program.

The country cannot round up the 11 million illegal immigrants and deport them even though that is what some people want, McCain said.

"I think it will have a real impact on the economy of Myrtle Beach if we don't handle this issue with sensitivity," he said.

There was more anger about the issue in the public meeting. McCain said he understands the anger, but the issue must be handled and not everyone agrees on how to do it.

John Easterling said he approves of legal immigration but not amnesty for illegal immigrants.

"It really isn't fair to call it amnesty," McCain said. Amnesty means total forgiveness and he favors a program allowing those who have been here long enough to apply for citizenship if they meet the requirements, he said.

Nor should Republicans be tearing each other apart over immigration, McCain said.

"We want to negotiate," he said. "We are patriotic Americans, and for us to impugn the character of each other over this issue is reprehensible."

As for joining with some Democrats to prevent filibusters against judicial nominees, which some conservatives see as improper, McCain said it is "crazy" to think that the Senate can conduct any business without cooperation between the parties. "If you believe that all we should do is fight and beat down the Democrats, fine," McCain said. But if that were so, no legislation would pass, he said.

"My constituents in Arizona sent me there to get things done," not just to fight with Democrats, McCain said.

Offshore oil drilling was on the minds of some. North Myrtle Beach Mayor Marilyn Hatley asked his position on the issue.

He said the states should decide.

"I don't think it should be dictated by the federal government," he said. Alternatives such as nuclear energy and ethanol should be pursued more aggressively, he added.

"I believe that climate change is real," and it is also a national security issue that the nation is dependent on oil from unstable countries, he said.

McCain also said Congress is overspending and that special allocations, what some call pork, are feeding the red ink. The practice is one reason that worthy projects such as Interstate 73 can't get as much money as they need, he said.

What is needed to end that practice is to veto bills that include the special allocations, he said.

At the Floyd luncheon, attended by about 20 paying guests, McCain said the nation's future rests on having an educated workforce.

"We need a lot of progress in the state of South Carolina," and Floyd has the right program for getting there, he said.

McCain said this was his first visit to Myrtle Beach since the 2000 campaign.

"I love this state and I love Myrtle Beach and I'm happy to be back," he said.

Senator stops to talk security

2006-08-12T15:12:00.000-07:00

By Megan Nichols
Anderson Independent-Mail
August 10, 2006

U.S. Jim DeMint stopped in Anderson Thursday to talk about securing the homeland, along with its prosperity and its values.

Sen. DeMint began his two-and-a-half-week tour of South Carolina at the Anderson Area Realtors legislative luncheon Thursday afternoon. During his "South Carolina on the Move Tour," the senator said he wants to talk about the future and the good things happening in the nation and in South Carolina.

But Sen. DeMint had strong words about the war in Iraq and his opposition to removing U.S. troops too quickly.

"Sometimes I just want to shake my colleagues who think we can go home and everyone will be nice," Sen. DeMint said.

He said President George W. Bush was the right person to be leading the nation right now, no matter what his approval numbers say.

"He’s going to fight unpopularity probably until he’s old and gray, but then people will look back and say that we did the right thing," Sen. DeMint said.

The senator also touched on securing the prosperity of the United States and said a key part of that is ending the nation’s reliance on other countries’ oil. Sen. DeMint said the United States should drill for oil in Alaska, a topic that has been hotly debated in Congress, and should look for natural gas off the South Carolina coast.

"We can’t keep blocking our own supply of oil and holding ourselves hostage to countries like Saudi Arabia," he said.
He did not mention seeking alternative sources to oil as a solution to the problem.

Sen. DeMint said securing the nation’s values is important for the future, during a time when he said many Americans are getting away from the value system he said the United States was founded on.

"Everything rests on a value system in this country and we can’t forget that," Sen. he said.

The senator said legislation banning flag burning and making it illegal for teens to cross state lines to have abortions without their parents’ consent would help uphold the nation’s values.

Also at the Realtors’ luncheon, Sen. DeMint presented an S.C. on the Move award to Peggy Hill, president and chief executive officer of the Anderson Association of Realtors. He will present several of these awards during his statewide tour.

Megan Nichols can be reached at (800) 859-6397 or by e-mail at nicholsmg@IndependentMail.com.

Political spotlight to shine brightly on S.C.

2006-08-06T04:13:00.000-07:00

By LEE BANDY
lbandy@thestate.com

South Carolina will be the center of the political universe the next two years as the 2008 presidential campaign heats up.

The state got a huge boost two weekends ago when the Democratic National Committee’s rules and bylaws panel recommended the party move South Carolina higher in the pecking order of 2008 presidential primaries.

“It gives us a great opportunity to play an important role in picking a candidate,” said state Democratic chairman Joe Erwin of Greenville.

In 2004, South Carolina Democrats shared the spotlight with four other states.

“This time, South Carolina will be the only state in play,” Erwin said.

“That’s a big deal,” said former state party chairman Dick Harpootlian, who fought hard for a stand-alone primary three years ago. “This will be the defining moment in the Democratic presidential contest.”

S.C. Republicans hope to share in that moment. The state GOP executive committee will meet in September 2007 to select a date for that party’s S.C. presidential primary. The only thing certain is that date will be the first GOP contest in the South, S.C. GOP chairman Katon Dawson said.

Democrats envision a 2008 lineup that begins with Iowa’s caucuses on Monday, Jan. 14, followed by Nevada’s caucuses, probably on Saturday, Jan. 19.

New Hampshire would hold its first-in-the-nation primary on Tuesday, Jan. 22. South Carolina’s primary probably would come a week later on Tuesday, Jan. 29.

The Democratic National Committee meets in Chicago Aug. 17-19 to ratify the primary calendar.

There had been some hope Republicans and Democrats would get together and hold primaries on the same day.

“It certainly makes sense,” Erwin said. “There’s certainly a lot of logic behind it. It would cut costs in half.”

Dawson, however, balks at that idea.

“We like to have our primary by itself and showcase our candidates,” he said. “We’re not making our plans because of what the DNC has done.”

Cost estimates of putting on a primary range between $250,000 and $350,000.

Both parties are expected to have crowded and hotly contested races in 2008, the first presidential primary campaign since 1952 without a sitting president or vice president running.

While it may be early for the candidates to be lining up firm commitments, it’s not too early for stepping out.

Potential candidates have visited the state as many as three or four times this year.

U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, was here two weeks ago and attracted large crowds.

Other potential Democratic presidential candidates who have visited this year include U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana; former U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004; Iowa Gov. Thomas Vilsack; and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner,.

Republicans have made appearances, too.

U.S. Sens. George Allen of Virginia, Bill Frist of Tennessee and John McCain of Arizona have been in the state.

So has U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, New York Gov. George Pataki and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

“The focus of the nation will be on South Carolina,” Harpootlian said. “I think the next president will be picked here.”

State spending must be held to sustainable pace

2006-08-05T13:03:00.000-07:00

By MARK SANFORD
Guest columnist
I appreciate Cindi Scoppe’s commitment to ideas — many of which have helped make South Carolina a better place. Nonetheless I must respectfully but very strongly disagree with her recent column, “Spending beyond arbitrary limits doesn’t equal risky spending.”

I base my disagreement on four premises:

One, it is at best a Columbia, or government-centric, viewpoint to say that attempting to tie the growth of government to the growth of people’s pocketbooks or wallets is “arbitrary.” We think it is common sense not to have government grow faster than the underlying economy. A glance at how unsustainable this is not only shows up in year-to-year spending around which budgets are based, but also shows up in the growth of our debt load. South Carolina’s debt is fourth highest in the Southeast on a per-capita basis and has more than tripled over the past five years.

Two, there has been much debate on how fast government is growing. On this point I think it’s most helpful to look outside of South Carolina, to someone with no particular ax to grind. The National Association of State Budget Officers recently released its “Fiscal Survey of the States” and in it said that South Carolina government will grow at 11.7 percent for the upcoming year.

This report showed that South Carolina government had expanded by roughly 25 percent over the last two years, which ranked us third in the nation! It also showed that state budgets, on average, grew 6.8 percent annually, about half South Carolina’s approximate 12.5 percent growth rate over the last two years.

On this point alone I think strong arguments could be made to show South Carolina is on an unsustainable spending course relative to other states. But as significant as those increases may be, they in some ways divert us from a stack of political promises not included in today’s spending.

Because of a new Financial Accounting Standards Board ruling, beginning next year we will have to start listing on our financial books $9 billion in unfunded liabilities related to the state employee health care plan, or about $500 million a year for the next 20 years. If we are not beginning to set money aside when times are good, what happens when times are bad?

If these numbers don’t point toward an unsustainable spending trend, then it is beyond my imagination what would be considered unsustainable. David Walker, the U.S. comptroller general, has traveled the country discussing the unsustainability of the growth in Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. He’s said that if nothing is done, the future tax increases required to sustain those programs will cripple America’s ability to compete.

We have similar problems here in South Carolina because there is always unlimited demand to spend someone else’s money in the world of politics, particularly if you can deliver promises now and pay later.

Three, this budget opens the door to a relatively long list of new constituencies previously not served by state government, such as local libraries and museums. Again, this points to a pattern of unsustainable spending because it increases the appetite for future government expenditures because of the new constituencies served by government.

New constituencies, budget growth at rates faster than the underlying economy and unpaid obligations ultimately raise the question of which part of our economy will grow faster in the future — government or the private sector. I believe to have a vibrant and sustainable economy, and therefore budget, it is important that more resources go to the private sector, because it can be redirected and reallocated faster than money going into the public sector. Speeding our economy’s rate of change is vital to our state’s budget sustainability.

Fourth and finally, economic history suggests that our present rate of spending is not sustainable. People in the real world know that trees don’t grow to the sky, and I believe it is simply unrealistic to assume that the economy only moves in one direction — upward. To think otherwise is certainly at odds with the history of the business and economic cycle — going back to the time of Joseph interpreting Pharaoh’s dream of seven fat cows and seven skinny cows coming out of the Nile River.

So for the reasons outlined I think it’s prudent to do what we’ve been calling for the past couple of years and slow down spending in Columbia.

Or to put it in simple South Carolina terms, I maintain that it does not make good sense for government to be growing faster than the growth of people’s pocketbooks and wallets across our state.

minimum wage

2006-08-05T12:57:00.000-07:00

"I believe Americans will remember that Republicans worked hard to reach a true compromise here that would raise the standard of living for all American families," Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said. "I think they will remember that after years of rhetoric, Democrats proved they were all talk and no action."

Abolishing the estate tax is simply not worth a raise in the minimum wage.Total repeal of the death Tax is something our conference should be able to accomplish without compromise.

Gresham Barrett,Jeff Flake, and The Club for Growth

2006-07-28T08:52:00.000-07:00

The Flake Amendments

are the first step on a journey of a thousand miles in the battle to stop creeping Socialism and reign in wasteful spending.Jeff Flake is stalwart conservative Congressman form the state of Arizona who has begun the uphill battle of ear mark reform.Flake offered 19 amendments all of which failed miserably,but as Mike Pence would say Flake had a "successful failure" in that we really do know where everyone stands.We now know who is with us,and who is with "them".

The Club for Growth

is making sure everyone knows about these votes and that those on the wrong side of the issue

PAY THE PRICE

My Congressman Gresham Barrett voted YEA on all 19 of these amendments proving that he truly is fighting in the trenches for us and not part of the problem.Aside from his early(and foolish)support for Boehner,Barrett has been on the right side of all the major battles we have face since 2003.

So has the Club for Growth.The Club for Growth has the right strategy for Conservatives to take back our party.Organize and Advance.The Club for Growth here in South carolina is also doing some great things under their great Executive Director Josh Gross.Nationally our problem is more entrenched and our solution needs to be more drastic.

The sad reality is there are not more than 20 members of Congress who are truly conservative and are willing to fight for Freedom.We better get moving because times a wastin'.

We cannot divide our forces

2006-07-16T14:52:00.000-07:00

I am willing to support anyone in the Republican primary who is running against Bill Cotty.Lord knows I was praying to the good Lord every night for Sheri Few to win in the primary.She didn't, and it is time to move on and unite behind Cotty in November.
I will support Michael Letts 100% in the primary in two years,but not now.My concern is that we will divide our forces and elect Anton Gunn,who is one of the "Young Guns" the State Newspaper is trying to shove down our throats.I say we unite behind Cotty and save our ammo for the "Young Guns" then conservatives can unload on Cotty next primary season.

More splits in the South Carolina Republican party

2006-07-16T14:50:00.000-07:00

Letts urged to enter race for House seat

By JOY L. WOODSON
jwoodson@thestate.com
MICHAEL LETTS

A longtime Northeast Richland resident is poised to be a third choice in a contested Midlands House race this November.

Michael Letts, an advocate for protective vests for police officers and increased transportation funding, could challenge Republican incumbent Rep. Bill Cotty and Democratic challenger Anton Gunn for the District 79 seat, which is in southwest Kershaw County and Northeast Richland.

Although Letts said he is not petitioning, “a relatively large group of neighbors and friends” have asked him to run.

Supporters, who did not want to comment, are busy gathering signatures to place Letts on the ballot before the Monday deadline. They need 5 percent of the 16,426 registered voters in the district — or 821 signatures — to be successful.

“I’m overwhelmed and humbled,” Letts said. “I can’t believe that many people would encourage me to do something.”

It was not known Friday how many signatures have been collected.

Letts would be running as a conservative, independent Republican candidate, and said he respects Cotty but that the two men have obvious differences:

• Letts favored Cotty’s push for property tax relief, but said the tax burden was shifted — not eliminated. He also advocates more state spending audits.

• Cotty, voted against the Right to Life Act of South Carolina, but Letts says he is a staunch pro-life supporter.

• Cotty, a former Richland 2 board member, does not favor school choice vouchers, but Letts says he would as long as they don’t drain funds from public schools.

Attempts to reach Gunn and Cotty were unsuccessful.

Gunn, executive director of South Carolina Fair Share, beat out Todd Wood of Lugoff during the June 13 Democratic primary.

His recent work has centered on being an advocate for a higher cigarette tax to help pay for health insurance and to ensure that health care is available to all.

In the primary, Cotty faced Sheri Few, who founded South Carolina Parents Involved in Education, and campaigned for school choice.

As a member of the transportation committee at the Central Midlands Council of Governments, Letts said that he would aim to make it a top priority. Fixing overburdened Hard Scrabble Road has been one of his causes.

“If the Legislature spent half the effort on dealing with our infrastructure issues as they do on education then we’d solve the problem,” he said. “I’m not saying that we need to do something less for education ... we just need to begin to also focus on other key issues to move our state forward —infrastructure being one.”

Gresham Barrett immigration alert

2006-07-15T05:06:00.000-07:00

Washington, DC Office
1523 Longworth
Washington, DC 20515
phone: 202.225.5301
fax: 202.225.3216

Anderson Office
315 S. McDuffie St.
Anderson, SC 29622
phone: 864.224.7401
fax: 864.225.7049

Greenwood Office
115 Enterprise Ct.
Suite B
Greenwood, SC 29649
phone: 864.223.8251
fax: 864.223.1679

Aiken Office
233 Pendleton St. NW
Aiken, SC 29801
phone: 803.649.5571
fax: 803.648.9038

In Case You Missed It!

Greenville News

Published July 4, 2006

By Congressman Gresham Barrett

This week Americans will gather with family and friends for BBQ's and fireworks as we celebrate our Declaration of Independence.

Over the years, countless Americans died winning our independence and protecting our freedoms.

Our Forefathers understood the power of a government rests in the people it governs, not the government itself. Those of us in government today, rely on the people to let us know the issues of concern.

One issue on everyone's mind these days is illegal immigration. Unfortunately it has become an opportunity

for rhetoric in DC.

Back in December, the House passed a bill that put the concerns of the American people first by securing our

borders and enforcing our laws. The Senate came back with a bill that puts the wants and needs of illegal immigrants

above the security of our own citizens.

Some are saying by not supporting the Reid-Kennedy Senate passed-bill, an individual is somehow racist, or against

immigration, or not being realistic about the problem.

Ridiculous.

Here are some examples of what is included in the Reid-Kennedy bill:

1) Mexico would have to be consulted regarding construction of a fence along our southern border

2) Guarantees Social Security benefits will be provided to illegal immigrants for time they were in the country illegally

3) And allows illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at state colleges and universities.

We are confident the American people want a bill sent to the President that reflects the following principles: secure the border,

stricter enforcement of our current laws and stiffer penalties for individuals and employers who knowingly break the law.

Anything else would be a tremendous disservice to the American people and I feel - a dereliction of duty when it comes to our

national security.

The House will act again because we understand the importance of the issue. The American people deserve an opportunity to be

heard. In August, we will take the debate across the country in a series of field hearings, in our towns and cities.

America is unique. We are a melting pot. People from all over the world flock to our country for a better life. Nowhere else can

so many people from different backgrounds, races, and ethnicities live together so peacefully and that deserves celebrating.

We have a responsibility to ensure that tradition continues, but we have a greater responsibility to put the best interests of our citizens

first by securing our borders and enforcing our laws first and foremost.

I love America - I am grateful to be an American and I understand why others want to live in this great country. No one is saying

don't come, we're just saying do it properly. Don't hop a fence, dig a tunnel or cut in line in front of countless folks who respect our

laws enough to go through the process properly - no matter how long it may take.

Respect our country enough to respect our laws.

Jefferey Sewell on Jake Knotts' November campaign

2006-07-14T07:45:00.000-07:00

Knotts’ party disloyalty

By JEFFREY SEWELL
Guest columnist
Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment was simple: “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.”

How far we have fallen from that ideal in South Carolina, where Republican state Sen. Jake Knotts is not only “speaking ill” of Gov. Mark Sanford, but is threatening to launch a third-party campaign against him that could hand the governor’s office over to the Democrats.

I have not always agreed with Gov. Sanford, but I hold him in the highest regard because he stands on principle and fights to protect the taxpayers — even when doing so costs him politically.

With so many “go along to get along” politicians among us, I find it refreshing that our governor refuses to compromise his integrity or surrender his belief that less government and lower taxes leads to more personal freedom and a better economy for all South Carolinians.

Unfortunately, Republican legislators like Sen. Knotts don’t see it that way. That’s why they grew government by more than 20 percent in the past two years. That’s twice as fast as the federal government is growing while fighting a war in Iraq and rebuilding the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina, and it’s a level of spending that far outpaces population, inflation and personal income growth in South Carolina.

In contrast, Democrats in Rhode Island, Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico are slowing government growth by cutting taxes — which in New Mexico has produced unprecedented revenues for the state.

Yet here in South Carolina we have big spenders like Sen. Knotts threatening to run against the standard-bearer of his own party because he doesn’t think the governor “works well” with the General Assembly.

South Carolinians should read that language carefully. Sen. Knotts is saying the governor doesn’t “work well,” but what he really means is that the governor simply refuses to waste your hard-earned tax dollars on frivolous spending, and because of his courageous refusal to do so, Sen. Knotts is willing to effectively turn the keys to the Governor’s Mansion over to a Democrat.

It seems to me like we need a 12th Commandment in South Carolina politics — “Thou shalt not run against other Republicans for standing up to wasteful spending.”

Of course Sen. Knotts has never been a real Republican. He endorsed Democratic Gov. Jim Hodges in 2002 and was one of only two GOP senators (Sen. Luke Rankin was the other) to join Tommy Moore and the Democrats in blocking income tax relief for working South Carolinians in 2004. He has also been one of the most vocal defenders of our state’s 19th century government structure.

If he runs, Republican leaders should immediately strip Sen. Knotts of his committee assignments and oust him from the GOP. He is an embarrassment to the Republican Party and to South Carolina.

Mr. Sewell is the principal consultant of Sewell Consultancy, a political consulting firm based in Lexington County. He is also co-owner of www.SCHotline.com.

Rep. Bob Inglis on the Mike Pence immigration plan, the future of our party, and the Presidential 2008 debate

2006-07-13T06:26:00.000-07:00

This past week I was privileged to attend a town hall meeting where South Carolina Congressman Bob Inglis was meeting with local constituents. Bob Inglis is doing several “walk talks” in his district to discuss the important issues facing our nation. Getting there early I was forced to sit in the back of the already packed room. Before Bob was even finished saying a few opening remarks, a lady quickly raised her hand and asked Bob what he was doing about our nation’s immigration problem.

Bob then asked the crowd how many people wanted to discuss immigration and without fail nearly the entire crowd raised their hands. Bob then set aside nearly an hour of the hour and a half meeting to discuss immigration. There were several in the crowd who were trying to hit Bob hard with the fact that the Senate is trying to pass amnesty. There were several loud paleo-conservatives in the crowd who expressed wanting to send all the immigrants home and seal our border to never allow another immigrant in our nation again. Without knowing, many in the crowd expressed their support for a plan such as the recently proposed Pence plan that puts security first, seals the border, implements tough employer sanctions and sends all twelve million illegal aliens home then allowing some who apply legally back in. Inglis concurred, and calmly and coolly stated his case that “America is too young to die.” Inglis believes there is room for legal immigrants to come to our wilderness shores.

Rep. Inglis spoke of Pence’s plan as the second most conservative plan out there short of mass deportations and he spoke as if the plan was credible and viable. As for his preference, he said that his views were to the left of Pence’s bill on immigration but not quite as liberal as the Senate bill. Judging by the reaction of the crowd Pence’s bill will be acceptable because first and foremost the American people want a secure border and they are not as “hawkish” on prison time or other punishment for illegals.

In fact Rep. Mike Pence is becoming an increasingly visible and popular topic in South Carolina. After the town hall one very high ranking official in the Greenville Republican party spoke very highly of Congressman Pence. They had received a letter from the Draft Pence movement and they were intrigued by the possibility and were “investigating” the Congressman very thoroughly. This official is strongly opposed to Senator McCain and moderate\liberal Republicans as a whole and is looking for an alternative.

On the topic of President 2008 Inglis said he hope the debate will be centered on Medicare\healthcare reform and entitlement spending. That entitlement spending and healthcare if not dealt with now, could deal a crippling blow to the America of our Children and Grandchildren. He said no other issues are more important long term. He vaguely hinted that he thought it was unlikely anyone currently in the field would have the courage to be bold but that he was optimistic someone could emerge.

At the end of the evening, Bob closed the session by stating that we are neither the party of Buchanan nor Irving Kristol by saying “I am a Reagan conservative. I am not a neo-con who believes using big government for our purposes.” Then he lamented on the choice between Reaganism and Buchanism as he raised his right hand in the air and said, “If I have to choose between Pat Buchanan (and then he raised his left hand) or Ronald Reagan, I will choose Ronald Reagan every time!” He then reiterated that America was too young to die and those who consumed with negativism are planning a strategy that will lead us back to the minority party. Inglis we must follow the Reagan model to hope for any future of this party. The crowd went wild, with clapping hands and loud cheers. Of course there were your stubborn Buchananites who were giving the evil eye to Bob, but it was over. Inglis had won the crowd over.

That choice remains for us today. Are we the party of Reagan whose sunny optimism steadily disarmed the enemy while we make the case on what we stand FOR? Or are we the party of negativism who lends false credibility to our enemy’s arguments against conservatism? For me, I will stick with the Gipper.

South Carolina 2008 Presidential primary debate

2006-07-12T06:44:00.000-07:00

Let the "Republican" debate begin
The South Carolina Republican Party is planning a presidential debate in May 2007 for GOP candidates running for the White House.

"Since 1980, no candidate has ever lost the (South Carolina) primary and gone on to be elected president," Scott Malyerck, executive director of the state GOP, writes in an e-mail. "We believe it is a great test for Republican candidates."

Specific details for this forum are still being worked out.

Sanford in serious trouble

2006-07-08T04:40:00.000-07:00

Senator Jake Knotts has announced he will be running for Governor.He needs 10,000 signatures by July 17th to get on the ballot.

Every Democrat in the State woke up to the news today that in was Christmas in July.
Should Tommy Moore by the next Governor it would simply be because of Republican Sen Jake Knotts.

It will be interesting to see if Knotts runs a Statewide campaign or if he simply focuses on Richland,Lexington and the upstate.If he runs to win then he at least would get SOME of my respect back.

Barrett imigration alert

2006-07-05T09:29:00.000-07:00

Close race to hinge on turnout (Bauer vs Campbell)

2006-06-26T04:14:00.000-07:00

Close race to hinge on turnout
By LEE BANDY

lbandy@thestate.com

It’s a coin flip.

That’s about the best way to describe the runoff for lieutenant governor between incumbent Andre Bauer and challenger Mike Campbell.

Anybody can win, says Tim Brett, a Greenville-based consultant supporting Campbell.

The contest is all about identifying supporters and turnout. Whoever has the best voter turnout mechanism will be the victor, Brett said.

Bauer and Campbell exchanged high-profile endorsements last week. First lady Jenny Sanford lined up behind Campbell. Henry Jordan, the Anderson surgeon who finished third in the GOP primary, said he’s voting for Bauer.

The runoff was forced because neither Bauer nor Campbell received more than half the vote. Campbell led the field, capturing 45 percent, followed by Bauer with 37 percent. Jordan received 18 percent.

Campbell ran a strong race, carrying 35 of the state’s 46 counties. He led Bauer by 21,127 votes.

Based on those results, Campbell, son of the late Gov. Carroll Campbell, has been installed as the favorite.

The endorsement of Jenny Sanford raised a lot of eyebrows. It is debatable whether her support will make a difference, but it certainly didn’t erase questions about Campbell’s chances.

Can Campbell get his crowd back to the polls on Tuesday? That’s the bigger question.

South Carolinians have a history of electing the runner-up.

Four years ago, Bauer came in second in a three-candidate primary race for lieutenant governor, trailing state Sen. David Thomas, R-Greenville, by 2 percentage points. Bauer went on to win the runoff.

Tuesday’s primary will be a replay if Campbell’s supporters decide to stay home.

“South Carolinians have a weird history of rejecting front-runners,” observed Furman University political scientist Danielle Vinson.

Some recent examples of front-runners losing a runoff: state Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, lost to Jim DeMint in 1998 for the 4th District congressional seat; in 2004, former Gov. David Beasley failed to survive a runoff against DeMint for a U.S. Senate seat.

Turnout on Tuesday is expected to be extremely light. Estimates range from as low as 6 percent to as high as 10 percent.

With voter turnout that low, “Donald Duck could win,” said Greenville’s Brett.

If Campbell gets his crowd back out to vote, he should win. However, in a low turnout election like this one, Bauer has the edge, experts say. His supporters are more intense. Campbell’s backers are more casual about it.

Jordan, who ran a respectable third, had declined to endorse anyone in the runoff. But he changed his mind after Jenny Sanford embraced Campbell.

Jordan thus joined his whole family in backing Bauer, including cutting a radio ad for the lieutenant governor.

In the ad, Jordan said Bauer not only has the right conservative convictions “but the record to back it up.”

Bauer also was getting help from an unexpected source, Republican U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson of Springdale. The congressman, who served in the state Senate with Bauer, has made phone calls on Bauer’s behalf, a move that angered some Republicans who advised Wilson to stay out of the contest.

“That was a very unwise thing for Joe to do,” said Rusty DePass, a longtime Wilson friend and party stalwart.

Francis Marion University professor Neal Thigpen, a Republican activist, said he doesn’t count Bauer out. “He has always been underestimated.”

However, Furman’s Vinson thinks Bauer will lose.

Voters, she said, need something to be passionate about, and she believes a good number are “passionate” about getting rid of Bauer.

Frist visits South Carolina (cq profile)

2006-06-21T15:49:00.000-07:00

Frist Faces the Challenge of Running From the Senate
By Alan K. Ota | 11:14 AM; Jun. 20, 2006 | Email This Article
What makes Bill Frist run? What kind of ambition leads a risk-taking transplant surgeon — one who’s used to making life-and-death decisions with the flick of a scalpel — to think he has the patience, listening skills and legislative sophistication needed to run the United States Senate?

Indeed, what kind of naked ambition gives a man who did not register to vote until he was 36 years old — and who has yet to score a significant legislative achievement to call his own — the utter confidence that he can win the Republican nomination for president in 2008?

You only begin to find out the answers to these questions in Washington, where the Tennessee Republican’s star has flashed, briefly soared and then repeatedly threatened to implode into a black hole. From the moment he burst on the national stage less than four years ago, as President Bush’s hand-picked candidate to succeed Trent Lott as the Senate’s majority leader, Frist has struggled to appreciate, much less master, the peculiarities of the fractious and hidebound Senate. He still seems unable to gauge what motivates his own GOP caucus or what resonates with the voting public.

From the “nuclear option” to immigration policy, from stem cell research to his run-ins with the Securities and Exchange Commission over sales of his family stock, from his incorrect snap diagnosis of Terri Schiavo to his stillborn idea for a $100 gasoline rebate, Frist has on many occasions seemed as miscast a Washington power player as any self-styled “citizen legislator” could be. He could well become a historic example of a failed Senate leader.

“Right now, he’s giving the dross standard for majority leaders, William F. Knowland, a run for his money,” said Lewis L. Gould, an emeritus history professor at the University of Texas who has written a history of the Senate, “The Most Exclusive Club.” (Knowland, a Californian, was the GOP leader from August 1953 through 1954, when the party lost its Senate majority.)

“How can he rally the country around his ideas if he can’t rally the Senate?” Gould said.

Even the communications adviser for the Volunteer Political Action Committee — Frist’s leadership PAC, which has been laying the fundraising groundwork for a national campaign — concedes that his boss has made something of a hash of it at the moment. “It’s been a rough year,’’ concedes the spokesman, Jim Dyke. “He has had problems in politics and policy. It wasn’t any one thing. But he still has a lot of time to get back on track.”

Laying the Groundwork
But follow Frist to South Carolina, which will be the site of a potentially pivotal early Republican presidential primary about 20 months from now, and another side of his striving ambition begins to emerge.

At a roadside cafe in Rock Hill on Memorial Day weekend, the shirt-sleeved, straight-backed Frist walked one afternoon into a middling crowd to give a speech in behalf of a state legislator who is running for a seat in the House.

It was the start of a recess week in Congress, a time when Frist more often than not flies home to Nashville or off to Africa to perform pro bono medical mission work for starving refugees and AIDS victims. This time, however, he was taking the unusual step of campaigning against an incumbent House Democrat, John M. Spratt Jr., in behalf of challenger Ralph Norman.

Perhaps Frist had special reasons for doing Norman this personal favor, though there is no evidence that the two know one another well. Frist campaigned for many challengers when he ran the Senate Republican Campaign Committee in 2001 and 2002. And two years ago he went to South Dakota to campaign against the Senate’s other party floor leader at the time, Tom Daschle — an unprecedented thumb in the eye of tradition and senatorial courtesy.

But a Senate majority leader campaigning for a House challenger in an uphill race? Although Frist insists that he won’t make up his mind until after he retires from the Senate at year’s end, his trip to South Carolina was a clear signal that his sights are set firmly on the White House.

From that perspective, it’s not at all surprising to find him in the state where George W. Bush vanquished his biggest rival for the GOP nomination in 2000, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. South Carolina’s primary followed McCain’s strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire and proved his downfall as a would-be spokesman for conservatism. He stumbled badly, for instance, on the question of whether the state should fly the Confederate flag over the capitol. He never recovered after his downfall in the Palmetto State.

Frist clearly is determined not to let that fate happen to him. At the cafe, he explained his rationale for putting a proposed constitutional amendment before the Senate this month. “Who thinks we should desecrate the American flag?” the Nashville native said in his Tennessee twang. “And who doesn’t?”

In such settings, Frist assumes the role of the impassioned outsider — a stand-in majority leader bent on forcing symbolic votes, win or lose, on signature themes while distancing himself from an unpopular president and a chaotic Senate. His stump speech, for example, begins by evoking Edward Everett Hale, the Senate chaplain a century ago. When Hale was asked if he prayed for the senators every day, Frist says the Unitarian clergyman and author would reply, in effect: “I take one look at all the senators, and I pray for the American people.”

Frist’s approach appeared to play well in Rock Hill. After the rally Ernest Cogdell, an Assemblies of God lay minister, said he would back the majority leader in a primary against a less conservative rival such as McCain because “I’m sure Frist would defend moral values.’’ Curwood Chappell, a local county councilman, promised his support, too, because “he’s been in the limelight; he’s been tested.’’

But the current dynamic for the 2008 GOP nomination is different from 2000. McCain looms as the clear front-runner — especially if the other person near the top in GOP opinion polls, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, opts out of the race — and several others appear better positioned than Frist to become McCain’s principal rival. (latest Gallup Poll numbers)

“Frist has got to be the conservative alternative to McCain coming out of Iowa, and then win in South Carolina,” says Charles Black, a Washington lobbyist who is a longtime GOP activist. “It’s going to be tough. He’ll need red meat in the primaries. Health care only helps in the general election.”

What that advice means, Black and several other party tacticians say, is that Frist should spend his final six months in the Senate honing themes that resonate with the social conservatives who are the base of the GOP primary vote — then campaign for president on the theme that only from the White House can he accomplish the goals that eluded him at the Capitol. In other words, to have a chance in 2008 he must position himself as the anti-Washington candidate, the anti-Senate candidate and, most importantly, the anti-McCain candidate.

Neal Thigpen, a professor of political science at Francis Marion University in Florence, S.C., says Frist has a shot at picking up anti-McCain conservatives in the state, but that another senator, George Allen of Virginia, has a head start because of his focus on moral values. “Frist is low-voltage, anything but a firebrand. He can’t decide whether he’s running as the religious right candidate or as a physician,” Thigpen said.

‘Leading on Principle’
For his part, Frist takes great care not to talk about even the possibility of having a lust for higher office. He straight-out denies that his actions as Senate leader have been driven by presidential ambitions.

“Every article starts off: That’s what he’s thinking about; that’s what dictates his thought process,” Frist said in a recent interview in his Capitol office. “They’re absolutely wrong. They’re wrong.”

And in describing his plans after leaving Congress, he makes no mention of politics or the nation’s capital. “Eight months from now, I might just as well be back in Nashville doing heart transplants,” he said. “I might be back there working in an HIV-AIDS clinic. And I might do what I do every year and go to Africa and do medical mission work, which is in the Sudan and is part of my life. I don’t have to pretend it. I don’t have to act like I’m doing anything. That’s my real life.”

After offering those scenarios, however, he volunteered that he has made no decisions about the future.

But by not backing away from fights on matters he holds dear — such as stem cell research, where he departs dramatically from the president and a majority of his caucus by advocating the use of unused embryos from fertilization clinics — Frist said he is hoping to reassure party loyalists that he’s driven not by political ambition but by his deep convictions as both a conservative and a physician.

“Leading on principle is my style,” he said. “I’m right up front about it. It’s honest. It’s true. It’s what I stand for. It’s why I came to Washington.”

Prodding colleagues toward the center on landmark legislation, however, has been the hallmark of standout Senate GOP leaders in the modern era. Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois is revered for helping to complete the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Bob Dole of Kansas assembled the bipartisan coalition that passed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. Howard H. Baker Jr., a fellow Tennessean whom Frist identifies as his political hero, was famous for describing the job as “majority pleader.”

His allies in the Senate GOP say it’s still too early to exclude Frist from a place in that pantheon. “He’s been a good leader, given the cards he’s been dealt,” said Gordon H. Smith of Oregon. “He’s held things together,” said James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma

For much of his first three years on the job, Frist seemed to be as focused as his predecessors on cutting deals.

The first big deal he cut effectively limited the 2003 tax cut to only half the amount President Bush wanted — a decision that reflected the political realities of the Senate’s narrow GOP majority at the time but infuriated his own party’s leaders in the House, who accused Frist of reneging on a promise to insist on much deeper cuts in his very first handshake agreement with Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois.

Later that year, Frist helped cultivate support from both Democrats and AARP, the pre-eminent lobbying group for the elderly, to create the prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Frist participated in the early negotiations on the final bill, and when the conferees appeared to stall, he and Hastert drafted proposals that helped break the impasse.

But Frist says his vision for leadership has always embraced ideas beyond pragmatism. His former political consultant, Tom Perdue, says Frist has long regarded the majority leader’s job as a forum to promote long-range goals that might have little chance of enactment but that reflect his deeply held conservative beliefs.

Perdue, who crafted the hard-right campaign that Frist ran in unseating three-term Democrat Jim Sasser in 1994, said Frist is well aware of what has amounted to the majority leader’s curse. In the last half-century two of them — Dole in 1996 and Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas in 1960 — were unable to leverage their strong records for bipartisan legislative accomplishment into winning presidential bids.

Yet Perdue said Frist was enthusiastic about the opportunity to take the job — he secured it, with a just-barely-behind-the-scenes assist from the White House, after Lott lost it with his Strom Thurmond gaffe at the end of 2002 — and was determined to use the Senate floor as a forum for articulating his own ideas, not only as a place to blend into the ranks of former floor leaders.

“I advised him to try to follow his beliefs,” Perdue said. “Majority leaders have been too willing to compromise in the past. They were paper shufflers who just warmed the chair. I had this discussion with Bill. He was determined to make a difference. He had a lot of ideas going in.”

Perdue told Frist that by standing up for his own principles, he could become a formidable national candidate because “the base wants someone who is passionate about certain issues.”

Frist said he sought advice from several senior Republicans, including Baker, but concluded that he would not emulate Baker or any other majority leader and would instead try to develop his own style.

He agreed with Perdue that it was important to fight for principles on some issues even though doing so would create conflict in the Senate and within the GOP caucus. And he says that, from the start, he made no apology for operating beyond the early stereotype of him — that of a “doctor-senator” who would apply a family practitioner’s gentle bedside manner to get his way. Rather, Frist says, his approach as leader has been to treat the Senate like the operating rooms where he has spent most of his life. “I approach things by listening like a doctor does,” he said, “and then acting like a surgeon.”

Too Far in Front?
As a result, in the past year there’s been no small amount of trauma on the Senate floor.

With the resolve of a man used to making choices of life and death, by the end of the summer Frist wants to end Bush’s ban on expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. By fall, he wants to finish an immigration policy overhaul that, as passed by the Senate, was opposed by nearly three out of five of his GOP colleagues.

Frist argues that Bush’s stem cell restrictions are wrongly preventing scientists from finding treatments that could save lives. And he portrays the immigration bill as a step toward a signature goal — cutting medical care costs — because it could force perhaps several million undocumented workers to pay their back taxes and hospital bills as a condition of getting on a path toward citizenship.

But because both issues offer Democrats prime opportunities to point to deep divisions in the Republican ranks, some GOP operatives and lawmakers are wondering aloud whether Frist is shaping his legislative agenda for the fall with selfish priorities in mind. And such questioning has emboldened rank-and-file lawmakers to test his authority and work to stymie his initiatives, raising the prospect of gridlock in the weeks before the midterm election.

“It’s hard to lead a group of people if you’re not in front of them. If he gets too far out front, or gets way out front too many times, he may find there’s no one behind him,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who has been urging Frist to temper his penchant since last year for taking high-profile stands that set him apart from fellow Republicans. “He’s clearly looking to 2008. But he’s trying to lead the majority. He’s got to balance what he’s doing.”

Frist’s demurrals about the presidency have done little to quiet the doubts in his caucus. “The perception has been that he has been motivated by his presidential ambition,” says Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, a former Senate GOP whip. “People have been questioning his authority and blocking things he wants to do.”

Even longtime supporters such as conservative activist Paul Weyrich say Frist faces a crisis of credibility. “He knows it’s do or die for the remainder of this Congress,” Weyrich said. “If he gets bills passed, he’ll emerge in good shape. If not, he’ll be hard-pressed to run for president.”

The challenge for Frist in the final months of the 109th Congress will be to resonate with the national Republican electorate without alienating the 54 others in the Senate GOP who are for the time being his principal constituents.

“He’s been riding two horses in the circus. He’s in an impossible position,” says Smith, one of Frist’s closer friends in the Senate Republican Conference.

But deep worries within the GOP about the coming midterm election have raised the pressure on Frist to explain the calls he makes in allotting precious floor time to pet issues.

Frist arranged for the vote two weeks ago on the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and this week the Senate will take up the flag desecration constitutional amendment — both of which send conservatives an unambiguous message. But earlier this spring he confused and then annoyed the base by appearing to part company with Bush on the immigration issue, then suddenly embracing a compromise that the president backed and most conservatives derided.

“I’m not sure anymore where he wants to end up,” said Jeff Sessions of Alabama, chairman of the conservative Senate Republican Steering Committee.

As the immigration fight simmers, some Republicans say Frist could face an outright revolt in his caucus if he presses for a Senate vote on the House-passed bill to expand federal stem cell research. Frist says the stem cell debate is precisely the sort of thing he hoped he could use his medical background to influence when he first ran for office.

Conservative Backlash
William Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, which works to combat prejudice against Roman Catholics, has dubbed Frist “Dr. Duplicity” for his strong public stand against a broader ban on stem cell research, which he once supported.

Catholics and many other religious conservatives view such research as akin to abortion, and their attitude toward the GOP this fall could turn markedly sour if Frist presses ahead. “I’ve advised him not to bring the bill up,’’ says Lott, Frist’s predecessor as GOP leader, because “it would be very divisive for the party.”

Frist says he is undeterred by those warnings because of his conviction that embryonic stem cell research eventually will yield tissue and druglike compounds that could repair a broad range of physical ills.

Helping spur on such medical advances could help Frist position himself for a national campaign as the physician with a commitment to cutting the cost of medical care. In the January 2005 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine he described a world of medical innovations that could come on the market in the next decade — and would be affordable for most Americans so long as they could draw from tax-advantaged health savings accounts.

He followed that up by introducing a bill that would have created a series of health tax breaks, but by the fall he had decided to let that measure languish in the face of the crush of Senate business in other areas. Instead, he has settled in the past year for a series of relatively low-profile accomplishments on the health care front: a law enacted last year to provide aid for global water projects; legislation, which the House is on course to pass this month, to promote the use of electronic patient files; and a crusade a year ago against the aggressive marketing of drugs as soon as they have won federal approval, which prompted pharmaceutical makers to issue voluntary guidelines curtailing such advertising.

Meanwhile, Frist continues to make the courting of health care professionals an essential part of his nascent presidential campaign. After campaigning for the House candidate in Rock Hill, for example, he toured the nearby Piedmont Medical Center, then arranged to meet with a group of 15 physicians at his next stop: a hot air balloon festival 100 miles west in Anderson, S.C.

A History of Risks
Frist’s allies say he’s at his best in small groups of voters and potential donors, and they say he’s made improvements in his rhetorical style, which from the well of the Senate comes off as halting and stiff. They say he has a history of taking risks that stretches to his youth — and to a pair of his heroes whose principal shared flaw, in the senator’s view, is that each was overly cautious.

Frist often speaks of the rewards of audacity learned in his upbringing. It was his older brother Thomas who secured the family fortune in the late 1960s with his innovative vision of applying the economies of scale that benefited fast-food chains and other industries to create the first successful national hospital chain, which has evolved into HCA Inc. Frist often speaks of his own passion for risk-taking both when flying small planes and when simultaneously transplanting both a heart and a lung.

In a 1989 autobiography, “Transplant,” he concluded that Norman Shumway, his surgical mentor, had cheated himself of a place in history. Shumway described his plan for the world’s first human heart transplant in the Journal of the American Medical Association in November 1967, after spending years perfecting his techniques on animals. A month later, Christian Barnard, a South African who had studied Shumway’s techniques, became a global celebrity by transplanting a heart into the chest of a 55-year-old grocer.

“Almost all of the basic research behind the procedure had been carried out in this country, under Shumway’s auspices. Yet the credit was going to a little-known man in South Africa who knew almost nothing about the vital underlying animal research,” Frist wrote. The global milestone would have been his mentor’s, Frist suggested, had the American surgeon not insisted on such thorough experimentation on animals before trying his technique on a human.

And in his 1999 book, “Tennessee Senators,” Frist concluded that Baker had doomed his own White House prospects by waiting until the last two weeks of 1979 to stop concentrating on his responsibilities as GOP floor leader and focus full-time on campaigning for the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary early in 1980.

Baker dropped out after finishing in Iowa behind Ronald Reagan and George Bush, neither of whom was in public office at the time, which prompted his famously rueful observation that “one has to be unemployed to be elected president.”

Recent Stumbles
Frist, of course, would be able to test Baker’s theory in a 2008 field that could include several sitting senators and a handful of governors.

Long gone are the days when a viable presidential campaign could get off the ground in the same year as the election — and when a member of Congress could wait to set aside his day job until after his presidential quest had taken off, as Dole did when he quit the Senate altogether soon after he’d secured the 1996 GOP nomination. The current environment requires presidential hopefuls serving in Congress to display early strength in both fundraising and public opinion polls to remain competitive even a year or two before the primaries begin.

And so in coming months, those friendly to him concede, the success of any national aspiration will require him to score sufficient legislative successes as majority leader to counteract a bruising recent run of embarrassments.

Those began a year ago when the autopsy of Terry Schiavo, the Florida woman who had been at the center of a national debate over the right to die, supported her doctors’ view that she had long been in a persistent vegetative state. Frist, in advocating enactment of a bill in March to have the federal courts intervene to keep Schiavo alive, had asserted on the Senate floor that her diagnosis was wrong — although he conceded that he based his conclusion only on watching some videotape of her and reading court documents.

The incident was ammunition for critics who said that Frist not only had traded inappropriately on his medical expertise, but also had spurned one conservative principle — the notion that the federal government should stay out of a state court fight — in pursuit of support from the “right to life” wing of the GOP.

Then in the fall, the Securities and Exchange Commission and Justice Department launched inquiries into Frist’s decision to liquidate the HCA Inc. in his blind trust just before the company’s stock price plunged that July. Neither investigation has been brought to a public conclusion. Frist says he informed the trustees of his decision to sell long before the stock sank and had no inside information.

More recently, anti-tax Republicans have blocked the effort Frist has endorsed to create an industry-financed trust fund that would expedite the settlement of asbestos liability claims. And his recent proposal to give taxpayers a $100 rebate to help then cope with the recent surge in gasoline prices was quickly ridiculed into oblivion, with critics complaining that the money could barely cover the cost of filling up two larger tanks — and the business community, which would have been taxed anew to pay for the rebate, crying foul.

That string of setbacks does not doom him, Frist’s promoters say.

“Look at the competition: John McCain, Rudy Giuliani. Think of all the baggage they have,” said Perdue, the consultant who ran Frist’s first winning Senate campaign. “He’s a little dented now, but he can come back by stressing what he believes in and didn’t get done.”

Tennessee’s other senator, Lamar Alexander, who himself ran for the GOP presidential nomination in both 1996 and 2000, says he has few clues about whether Frist will make such a bid. But he has some unsolicited advice for his colleague. If he fails to win the Republican nomination in 2008 or skips the presidential election entirely, Frist should consider running for governor in 2010 — a job that would position him to run for president in 2012 or even 2016, when he will still be only 64 years old.

Told of that counsel, Frist initially brushed aside the notion of seeking the Tennessee governorship, but then added, “I will keep options open on just about everything.”

Dole, now a Washington lobbyist, declined to grade Frist’s performance as majority leader but predicted a rebound after he leaves the Senate. “He’ll have time to reflect and build a campaign based on his ideas,” Dole said. “Getting away from politics will help him. . . . He won’t be an insider then. He’ll be on the outside.”

Gresham Barrett immigration alert

2006-06-21T15:37:00.000-07:00

Gresham Barrett on immigration

2006-06-17T14:36:00.000-07:00

Washington, DC Office
1523 Longworth
Washington, DC 20515
phone: 202.225.5301
fax: 202.225.3216

Anderson Office
315 S. McDuffie St.
Anderson, SC 29622
phone: 864.224.7401
fax: 864.225.7049

Greenwood Office
115 Enterprise Ct.
Suite B
Greenwood, SC 29649
phone: 864.223.8251
fax: 864.223.1679

Aiken Office
233 Pendleton St. NW
Aiken, SC 29801
phone: 803.649.5571
fax: 803.648.9038

IMMIGRATION ALERT

Our nation is in the midst of an important debate regarding our immigration policies. Over the coming weeks I will be sharing with you a few thoughts on this important issue.

First and foremost, we must control our borders. Second, amnesty will not solve the problem. No doubt reforming our immigration system is complex, but let's ensure our borders are secure and stop talking about rewarding those who have skirted the system and come to our country illegally.

The following are excerpts from an article entitled Senate Measure Could Create Immigration Tsunami, which ran in the Greenville News on June 1, 2006, discusses problems with the Senate solution to our immigration:

Greenville News

Thursday, June 1, 2006

By Mark Thies and Teela Roche

The Senate's bill calls for a guest worker/amnesty program as the only way to solve our nation's problem of illegal immigration. In truth, it could be our destruction.

According to a study by the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector, the recently passed Senate bill could bring in more than 66 million legal immigrants -- almost 25 percent of the current U.S. population -- in the next 20 years!

The Senate seems intent on facilitating these huge increases just to solve what is no more than a temporary worker shortage in the service industries. Illegal aliens constitute less than 5 percent of the U.S. work force (Source: National Employment Law Project). The law of supply and demand would solve these shortages, but somehow businesses only seem to want market forces to act when it's in their own selfish interest.

Those who deride the House bill -- enforcement without guest workers -- as impractical and unworkable either are being intentionally misleading or simply don't know that such an "attrition" policy, as it is called, has worked well every time it's been tried. For example, the Center for Immigration Studies reports that when the Department of Homeland Security deported 1,500 illegal Pakistanis after 9-11, 15,000 more left the country on their own.

You can either confront a problem or let it grow till it destroys you. This summer, let your representative in the U.S. House know that they must choose enforcement -- otherwise: catastrophe.

To unsubscribe at any time, click here or send an email to "listserv@ls1.house.gov" and
enter "unsubscribe BARRETT-SC03" in the subject and body of the message.
You will receive confirmation of your request via email.

Mehlman on Mark Sanford

2006-06-15T15:42:00.000-07:00

To: State Desk

Contact: Camille Anderson of the RNC Press Office, 202-863-8614

WASHINGTON, June 13 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a statement by RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman on Mark Sanford for governor in South Carolina:

"Governor Sanford is a visionary leader who has put South Carolina back on the right track. Since taking office four years ago, Sanford has overseen passage of the first income tax cuts in South Carolina history, fought to limit wasteful government spending, and worked to bring new jobs and investment to the state. Governor Sanford has consistently fought for a budget that limits the growth of state government and believes that hard working citizens - not the government - are the key to keeping South Carolina's economy moving forward. The Republican Party is united firmly behind Governor Sanford and we look forward to working together to ensure his re-election this November."

---

Paid for by the Republican National Committee; Web: http://www.gop.com . Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

South Carolina Republicans head to the polls

2006-06-13T02:31:00.000-07:00

SC Gov.: GOP Primary Will Assess Sanford’s Vulnerability
By Joanna Anderson | 4:15 PM; Jun. 12, 2006 | Email This Article
South Carolina Republican Gov. Mark Sanford will face the first test of his bid for a second term with his primary contest Tuesday against physician Oscar Lovelace. But the contest appears to be at least as much an example of the difficulty long-shot candidates have in gaining political traction as it is a measure of the incumbent’s popularity.

Lovelace is described by Scott Huffmon, a political scientist at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, S.C., as “a great, charismatic, and articulate, if inexperienced, candidate.” But the first-time candidate’s lack of political experience, coupled with downbeat fundraising numbers, appears to give him little chance of seriously competing to upset Sanford.

Sanford, for his part, has tried to keep Lovelace’s profile low by focusing on a general election contest in which he would face the winner of a three-way Democratic primary between state Sen. Tommy Moore, Florence Mayor Frank Willis and Lawyer C. Dennis Aughtry.

“The governor has been pretty effective at continuing to campaign as if [Lovelace] doesn’t exist,” Huffmon said.

The most attention Lovelace received came on June 7, when a proposed Republican primary debate became a half-hour interview with the challenger on statewide television. Sanford declined to debate his opponent, citing his responsibilities as governor in dealing with bills and state budget measures approved by the legislature.

Lovelace has tried to capitalize on Sanford’s difficulties in getting along with the legislature, even though his fellow Republicans control both chambers. Lovelace, in fact, has focused his campaign on questioning Sanford’s competence.

Sanford’s relationship with the legislature probably hit its nadir in May 2004, when he brought a pair of live pigs into the state Capitol lobby in an effort to promote his argument that the lawmakers were too fond of pork-barrel spending.

The two branches remain at loggerheads. In recent weeks, Sanford has blasted state lawmakers for spending too much, calling their budget a failure at keeping government in check.

Sanford’s battles with the state legislature have led some observers to label him as potentially vulnerable. But according to Christian Grose, a political scientist who follows Southern politics at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., those battles “have only helped him, with his core supporters in particular.”

“Sanford is likely to cruise to an easy victory in the primary. The only question is just how much will Sanford win by,” said Grose, who added that if Lovelace “garners a substantial amount of the vote, that could be a red flag for Sanford’s chances in November.”

Sanford — who represented a Charleston-based congressional district from 1995 to 2001, when he retired to keep a personal term-limit pledge — reached the midpoint of the campaign year with public support that is neither weak nor overwhelming. A May SurveyUSA poll showed 53 percent of the respondents in conservative-leaning and Republican-trending South Carolina approve of Sanford’s job performance, putting him in a three-way tie for 25th place among the nation’s 50 governors.

Sanford takes credit for creating a business-friendly environment and high job creation. Democrats dispute this, citing a state unemployment rate that is above the national average.

Some South Carolina politics watchers say it’s unclear, though, whether any of the Democratic contenders has emerged as a clear threat to Sanford.

Moore and Willis “have led competent, if somewhat lackluster primary campaigns,” said Grose. “Both initially promised to run positive campaigns, though in the primary campaign’s waning days, the Democratic opponents have started to go negative,” an indication, he said, that perhaps “both candidates feel they have an opportunity to win.”

In recent weeks, Moore and Willis have traded jabs over the airwaves in ads specifically targeting African-American voters, an important element of the Democratic Party’s primary base in a state where blacks make up just less than 30 percent of the population.

Aughtry entered the contest just before the March filing deadline and his paltry fundraising has prevented him from running any ads.

Aughtry did have a chance to present himself in the Democratic debate earlier this month, and focused on the keystone issue of his campaign: legalized gambling. Aughtry has called for allowing casino gambling in South Carolina to raise revenue for health care, subsidized day care, and increased pay for teachers, state employees and law enforcement providers.

Moore and Willis were quick to describe Aughtry’s proposal as flawed. Moore questioned whether gambling money was a reliable source of funding, while Willis expressed concern over whether casinos would be accepted in a state that has a large number of religious conservatives who are hostile to all forms of gambling.

It initially appeared that the Democratic field would be one candidate larger. But former Rep. Ken Holland (1975-83), withdrew from the race not long after announcing in February that he would seek to end his long political hiatus by running for governor.

Turnout on Tuesday is expected to be low. “There is just no overriding or attention- grabbing issue, much less a larger-than-life personality,” noted Huffmon.

CQ rates the general election contest as Republican Favored. Please visit CQPolitics.com’s Election Forecaster for ratings on all races.

Time for South Carolina Republicans to vote!

2006-06-13T02:30:00.000-07:00

Primary is battle for soul of GOP
Sanford's shadow seen in many races
By Aaron Gould Sheinin
Knight Ridder
COLUMBIA - Tuesday's primary election amounts to no less than a battle for the soul of the S.C. Republican Party.

Mark Sanford's name will appear only once on the GOP primary ballot, but the incumbent governor and his philosophies will dominate races across the state.

Less spending, limited government and school choice are barometers being used to measure the credentials of Republican candidates. Three separate groups - although critics say they aren't separate at all - have emerged as players this election in selecting and endorsing candidates with whom they agree, and denouncing those with whom they do not.

S.C. Club for Growth, South Carolinians for Responsible Government and Conservatives in Action are aiming to elect candidates that buy into their belief system, which so closely mirrors Sanford's as to have been lifted from his campaign material.

Agree and you are a "true Republican." Oppose them and you are a "RINO" - a Republican in Name Only, the preferred negative label of the new wave.

The organizations and their causes have nearly as much at stake Tuesday as the candidates: Win and see your influence soar and your issues gain traction in a recalcitrant state government.

Lose, and be prepared to embrace obscurity.

The three groups have similar platforms and support, and the cross-pollination of their advocacy of certain candidates projects an image of collaboration.

Their connections and methods have raised legal concerns about campaign funding and have sparked one federal lawsuit.

The story of the groups' rise is partly a coming-of-age tale, as the Republican Party veers toward total domination of the state's political scene, and party an early-warning system: Is the party growing so large it risks eating its own?

Stress fractures

State party chairman Katon Dawson said its not to the point where Republicans have to worry about fractures. But cracks are starting to appear.

"What's happened to us as a party is, once you reach majority status, you quit blocking and tackling," he said. "You've got to start calling the plays."

Dawson said for generations the Republican Party in South Carolina was focused on growth.

After taking over the House of Representatives in 1994, the focus switched to the Senate, which the GOP grabbed in 2000. Now, with comfortable leads in both chambers, plus control of seven of nine statewide offices, the party is less focused on growing than it is on leading the state in its preferred directions.

"When you're in the minority, you really do all get along," Dawson said. "Why? Because you have to. When you're in the majority, you don't have to, and different ideas, different strategies surface and then there's a debate and sometimes the debate is ugly."

The challenge has become picking the direction the party goes. And organizations like Club for Growth and the others want that direction to be of their choosing.

"All were doing is standing up for the basic ideals of the party," said Randy Page, president of South Carolinians for Responsible Government, another activist group.

Beyond choice

SCRG was created three years ago primarily to fight for school choice in the form of tuition tax credits. Sanford is a supporter of the plan to give tax credits to parents to send their children to private school. The governor introduced the plan shortly after taking office after campaigning in 2002 on a plan to give state-funded private school vouchers to parents.

After seeing its signature proposal fail in the Republican-controlled House the past two years, SCRG has focused on selected primaries where incumbent House Republicans face opposition, as well as in the party's education superintendent race.

The organization has paid for radio ads and mail pieces critical of the House incumbents, including Rep. Bill Cotty, R-Richland, all of whom have opposed the tax credit plan. It has also sponsored mail pieces critical of Bob Staton, a Republican education superintendent candidate.

Page and his group insist they are nonpartisan, are not "attacking" candidates and are not involved directly in campaigns. That could jeopardize their status as a nonprofit with the Internal Revenue Service.

But the State Ethics Commission has said the organization meets the threshold of state law in that it tries to "influence the outcome of an election," and is insisting the group file reports disclosing how it spends its money. SCRG has refused and has filed a federal lawsuit, accusing the commission of violating its First Amendment rights. That case is pending.

Page said the group is not trying to attack fellow Republicans.

"When there are differences on policy, I believe it is fair to point those out and to educate the grassroots citizens about differences on policy," Page said.

The chosen ones

The S.C. Club for Growth has no such qualms about announcing its intentions.

"I would not be surprised if Wednesday morning we wake up to some changes of who is elected and who isn't," said Joshua Gross, the Club for Growth's executive director.

Gross said the Club for Growth is supporting challengers in four different races against Republican House incumbents.

The groups are also supporting one incumbent and candidates for five open seats. They have also raised money for Karen Floyd, the choice of all three groups, in her bid for education superintendent.

Gross acknowledges that if the chosen candidates of these organizations do not win Tuesday, the repercussions could be loud.

If they don't score victories, Gross said, "I might be posting resumes."

Conservatives in Action has been responsible for some of the most biting anti-incumbency advertising. Of Cotty, one group mailing says the Northeast Richland lawmaker is "spending like he's got money to burn."

Another says "Figuring out how Rep. Bill Cotty wasted your tax dollars is as easy as following the footprints ..." and goes on to list a series of projects the group says are frivolous.

Cotty faces Sheri Few on Tuesday. Few supports the tuition tax credit program for which SCRG and the others advocate.

Taft Matney, executive director of Conservatives in Action, said his group is not being overtly negative but is trying to point out differences between candidates.

Cotty's "philosophies differ with those of his opponent, Sheri Few, in terms of how they would approach votes," Matney said. "He has never been a friend of really even examining the option of school choice."

Ties that bind

One major thing separates the Club for Growth from South Carolinians for Responsible Government and Conservatives in Action. Gross's organization is purely political. The other two label themselves educational and lobbying groups focused on issues, not campaigns.

The practical difference is Club for Growth must file reports detailing where its money comes from and how it is spent.

And while the State Ethics Commission believes the others do, too, thus far neither has, saying the law does not require it.

But there is no denying both are spending big money on the issues and their advertising specifically mentions candidates who disagree with them.

Many of the candidates they support are receiving thousands of dollars in contributions from a group of corporations and individuals around the country who support school choice.

Through corporations set up in New York, Maryland, Texas and Georgia, a New York real estate developer named Howard Rich has contributed nearly $40,000 to Floyd and seven House challengers.

Rich is president of U.S. Term Limits and is a major sponsor of national school choice campaigns. He is also active in the libertarian Cato Institute. Efforts to reach Rich were unsuccessful.

Page, the SCRG president, said people like Howard Rich have no stake in these races other than a strong belief in the issues the candidates support.

Gov Sanford and accountabilty

2006-06-09T18:10:00.000-07:00

Government at the State and Federal level needs reform. There must be accountability.
Keep it up Gov Sanford!

Hillarity Fest? Governor isn't amused

Associated Press
Published June 9, 2006

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Gov. Mark Sanford finds nothing funny about the Hillarity Festival, one of numerous events getting money under a grant program set up by state lawmakers.

Chester's Hillarity Festival--a September celebration that features gospel music and is so-named because the town sits on a hill--was granted $5,500. The Flopeye Fish Festival in Great Falls got $3,500.

"There may be some merit to the Hillarity Festival or any of these other local projects, but the problem is that we don't know because they were funded just because somebody asked for the money rather than through a real process to determine their value," Sanford said.

It's too late for him to do anything about the grants already awarded. But Sanford said he probably will veto the grantmaking process in the state budget that just landed on his desk.

But with Sanford seeking $150,000 from the $9.3 million grant fund to help pay for the National Governors Association meeting in Charleston, the man doling out the money said Sanford's complaints sound like election-year politics.

"That's money that belongs to the taxpayers of South Carolina and it is being returned to the taxpayers of South Carolina through these little festivals that are very important in these communities," said former state Rep. Jimmy Bailey, chairman of the grantmaking panel.

Columbia needs to get together ( Mark Sanford and the House)

2006-06-07T05:04:00.000-07:00

The Democrats are laughing at us. We have to unify now others we will have a rough night come Novemeber. Mark Sanford and the State Legisalture needs to come together and from some type of truce.

Sanford-House relationship hits new low

By CINDI ROSS SCOPPE

Associate Editor

BACK IN 1988, the Capitol was in a state of shock when a back-bench Republican stood at the House lectern and referred dismissively to then-Gov. Carroll Campbell as “the sovereign downstairs.”

Last week, the House’s Republican majority leader stood on that same spot and told his colleagues that “it’s good to stick our finger in the governor’s eye, and he deserves it quite frankly.”

That’s not the astounding part. The astounding part is that Rep. Jim Merrill’s comments prefaced his effort to rally the House to support fellow Republican Gov. Mark Sanford. Or at least, that was the closest anyone came to supporting the governor’s demand that lawmakers return to Columbia a week earlier than usual, so they could override his budget vetoes before the primary.

The raucous session was punctuated by applause as the voting board lit up in green defiance of the governor. Even mild-mannered Rep. Ted Pitts urged fellow Republicans to reject Mr. Sanford’s attempt “to politically try to box us in on this.” That prompted lawmakers to chant “Call his bluff! Call his bluff!” Final tally: Sanford 21; House 80.

It was the most extraordinary repudiation of a governor that I’ve seen in nearly two decades covering the General Assembly. And that includes the times the governor’s party was in the minority.

Other votes against governors have been at least related to policy differences. When lawmakers override Mr. Sanford’s vetoes, they’re not just rejecting his ideas; they’re also standing up for bills they already voted to pass.

But this time it was different. The House was in open revolt.

Speaker Bobby Harrell sponsored the proposal to acquiesce to the governor. He told me the next day he was struck not just by the Wednesday evening uprising but by the number of House members who thanked him afterwards for not trying to browbeat them into going along.

“It really shows you the undercurrent of feelings in here,” he said. “There’s a difference between being willing to work together — and members of the House are willing to work with the governor — and how you feel about someone personally. What you saw last night was a reflection of those feelings.... It’s sad.”

“The frustration,” Mr. Harrell said, “is every time I think we’re about to get along better, the governor’s office does something that just hits people wrong.”

Things weren’t actually starting to get better this time. The uprising came a day after Mr. Sanford’s opponent in next week’s primary, Dr. Oscar Lovelace, showed up on the House floor to be introduced as “doctor of the day,” through a program run by the S.C. Medical Association. He was greeted by wild applause from House Republicans.

Rep. Joe Neal told me later that he and most other Democrats sat on their hands, staring at each other in amazement at the display. “This hatred of the governor has almost gotten to the point that it is maniacal,” he said. “They hate him. They hate him.”

It’s the Senate that has traditionally been unable to get along with governors. But the fact that there have been no similar outbursts across the hall probably has less to do with any warmth toward the governor than with senators’ confidence.

When Mr. Sanford threatened to call a special session, Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell gathered senior senators from both parties and began devising the plan that ultimately made it impossible for the governor to act. “The Senate, much more than being angry, was determined,” he said.

Mr. Sanford is unfazed by the uproar. At first, he dismissed it, saying “people get so excitable about disagreeing.” Then the man whose most memorable insult to the House involved carrying squealing, defecating piglets up to the House chamber added, “people say a stuck hog squeals.”

The way the governor sees it, lawmakers are angry because he’s pushing so hard to bring transparency and accountability to government.

The way Mr. McConnell sees it, the governor just made it a lot harder for him to convince fellow senators “that they need to give the executive more power.”

The way Mr. Harrell sees it, the governor and his staff need to read How to Win Friends and Influence People. “On second thought,” he said, “they could just read the title: how to influence people by winning friends.”

Pataki visits South Carolina

2006-06-03T08:42:00.000-07:00

In 1994 when Pataki was running for Governor he was so "conservative" than then Mayor Rudy Giuliani refused to endorse him. Once sworn in Pataki governed as a liberal. Now he is running for President and I bet he will run as that 1994 conservative all over again.Do you see a trend here among GOP politicians? Run right,
Govern left. This must change.

Bog-off hosts Pataki
All incumbents except Lazarus lose in straw poll
By Travis Tritten
The Sun News

TOM MURRAY/The Sun News
Phyllis Richardson of Anyor casts a vote in the straw poll at the GOP Elephant Stampede Bog-off held at Conway High.
Q&A: New York's governor talks elections, energy
There was much talk about slimming government and a guest appearance by New York Gov. George Pataki for the annual GOP Elephant Stampede Bog-off in Conway on Friday.

The Bog-off is the Republican Party's big gathering leading up to the June 13 primary elections and its straw poll is a weather vane for how party members may vote.

Poll results showed some upsets for nearly all County Council incumbents.

Hundreds gathered for a buffet of different-hued chicken bog and campaigning from candidates for state treasurer down to Horry County Council.

Pataki, who is mulling a run for president in 2008, flew in to whip up enthusiasm for Republicans in the primary and the November general election.

Republicans are facing tough criticism nationally with Iraq and a lack of confidence in the economy, among other issues. Some predict that could influence this year's elections in the Democrats favor.

"There's no reason we shouldn't win in November here in South Carolina and across the nation," Pataki said. "We are two different parties with different points of view. We think every day is the Fourth of July and they think every day is April 15 [tax day]."

He touted New York's turnaround under Republican leadership and criticized what he said was decades of Democratic rule that drove the state down.

Pataki also invoked the terrorism attacks in 2001 and said the planned Freedom Tower and Sept. 11 memorial in New York City will be a symbol of U.S. determination and pride.

"Where the towers stood we are going to have a very moving memorial," he said. "We will tell the story of 9/11, but right beside it we are going to build a new tower."

Meanwhile, Elephant Stampede participants paid for raffle tickets and stuffed brown boxes with straw poll ballots.

The results were losses for every incumbent Horry County Council member except chairman candidate and District 2 Councilman Mark Lazarus.

New York's governor talks elections, energy

TOM MURRAY/The Sun News
Former S.C. Gov. David Beasley (center) jokes with Patty Fabrizio of the Myrtle Beach Republican Women after introducing her to N.Y. Gov. George Pataki on Friday in Conway.George Pataki was in the area Friday and answered some questions for The Sun News reporter Travis Tritten. Here's what the New York governor and possible 2008 presidential candidate had to say:

Q. | Why the trip to Myrtle Beach?

A. | We've got a lot of important elections coming up this November. I want to see us win, particularly in critical states such as South Carolina. Everything from the governor on down is up this year. I believe in the philosophy of my party, and I believe it has improved people's lives here. I know it has in New York and I am going to do everything I can to help Republicans win.

Q. | Is this the beginning of a campaign for president in 2008?

A. | There are a lot of people talking about 2008 and looking at 2008, but we have to focus on November of 2006. We can't just ignore very important elections. We have to make sure Republicans maintain control of the House and the Senate and do our best to see as many Republican governors elected as possible. Then, come November, I know I will sit down with my wife and our kids and talk about the future. I certainly haven't made any decisions at this point.

Q. | There is talk at the federal level of oil and natural gas exploration off the East Coast and possibly off the Carolinas. Do you support that?

A. | I think one of the most important things that we have to do is end our dependency on foreign oil. It is costing us over a quarter of a trillion dollars a year and we get nothing except the barrel of oil we burn and then we have to do it again next year. We have the opportunity and the ability of using the entrepreneurial skills of the American people and the technology to create renewable sources of energy like biofuels and ethanol. We can use more conservation measures and we can have more exploration in the United States.

Q. | Many immigrants come to Myrtle Beach to work in tourism and construction. That has people concerned about illegal aliens. What is the solution to the immigration problem?

A. | Immigration is part of the American tradition and it's made our country stronger, but it's been legal immigration. We have to do everything in our power to make sure our borders are secure. That every person coming here is coming here legally and to build a better life for themselves and their family.

That has got to be our priority. You can't really claim to be a great country when hundreds of thousands of people come here illegally. We know that the vast majority of them want a job. But how many of them might want to engage in activities such as the attacks of Sept. 11? We have to make sure the people who come here come here legally.

Jim Demint: Amnesty unfair

2006-06-02T06:08:00.000-07:00

Last week the Senate passed an amnesty bill that, if enacted, will make America’s immigration problems worse.

With the security of the United States on the line, this issue has never been more urgent. In fact, estimates are that 40 percent of illegal immigrants in the United States today have entered the country since 9/11, and thousands more are crossing our border every day.

Ultimately, I was part of a majority of Republican senators that voted against a deeply flawed Senate bill. It creates numerous incentives for the very behavior it claims to discourage. And, most disappointing to me, it does not adequately secure our borders.

I believe we should prove to the American people that we can stop the flow of illegal immigrants before we rush headlong into legalizing the estimated 12 million already here. Sadly, the supporters of the Senate bill defeated an amendment that would have done just that: require the federal government to stop illegal immigration before it increased legal immigration.

The final result: amnesty, pure and simple. Just last week former Attorney General Ed Meese went so far as to say this bill and the amnesty law of 1986 are almost identical. The 1986 amnesty also promised border security... but never delivered.

In fact, this bill may actually be worse than the 1986 amnesty. The 2006 amnesty rewards those who have broken the law the longest! Those who have been in this country illegally for five or more years — an estimated 60 percent of the illegal population — would be granted amnesty immediately, placing them in line ahead of those who have waited patiently for anywhere from five to 12 years to be legally allowed to enter our country.

Proponents of this so-called compromise tout that illegal immigrants would have to pay a $2,000 fine and back taxes, but the truth of the matter is that they would not be made to pay the fine until eight years later, after being approved for their green card (permanent worker status). Fourteen percent — about 1.6 million people — would owe no fine at all because they are under 18. And after filing past-due tax returns, many will be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, meaning the U.S. government would possibly owe them money.

Some have argued that this bill will give justice to illegal immigrants. But what about justice for Americans? Is it justice to further bankrupt Social Security by rewarding illegal immigrants with Social Security benefits after they have engaged in identity theft? If this bill is enacted into law, an estimated 12 million illegal workers would be credited for contributions to Social Security during the time they worked illegally with a stolen Social Security number.

I voted for an amendment that would have closed this loophole. Sadly, this commonsense measure was not approved in the Senate. It failed by just one vote.

The list of absurdities in this bill goes on and on. Did you know the Senate bill mandates that children of illegal immigrants are entitled to in-state tuition at any state college or university in the country, a benefit that is not afforded to the children of American citizens?

Supporters of the Senate bill have repeatedly said we should find middle ground, yet they frame the debate by giving Americans two false choices. They claim that you must either grant illegal immigrants amnesty or break up families and send all illegal immigrants home. Either you support making illegal immigrants citizens, or you want them to be felons. These are not the right choices for Americans or immigrants, and they are not the only choices.

The first step of immigration reform must be to secure our borders. Second, we must end the incentives to break our laws. Finally, we can find ways to give legal worker status to deserving immigrants, but the sacred trust of citizenship and voting rights must be reserved for those who obey our laws and embrace our values.

This also means providing a workable, market-based system for businesses seeking legal temporary labor. We must not hesitate to hold businesses accountable with stiff fines and penalties for failing to verify the legal status of their employees, but we must provide them with the means to do so, such as a tamper-proof ID card.

The Senate amnesty bill would devalue American citizenship and create resentment toward immigrants, an outcome that is unfair to both Americans and immigrants.

I believe we can secure our borders and continue to welcome immigrants, but we must do so without rewarding illegal behavior with citizenship and voting rights.

Mr. DeMint represents South Carolina in the U.S. Senate.

South Carolina must remain first!

2006-06-01T06:12:00.000-07:00

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/

December In Iowa
The SC GOP has made it very clear that they don't like all this encroaching on to their '08 turf. This afternoon, the state party announced that if any other southern state attempts to even share the same day as the South Carolina WH GOP primary, they'll move up their primary, even if it costs them delegates to the 2008 RNC convention. As SC GOP exec. dir. Scott Malyerck tells us, the state party's new motto for the '08 primary is "first and solo in the south." The threat SC GOPers fear the most is from FL, which is making noises about moving up its WH primary. AL and AR are two other old Confederacy states who want to share in SC's limelight.

There's a domino effect if South Carolina moves out of the approved February RNC window because New Hampshire's law says there has to be 7 days in between its primary and the next like-minded event. And, of course, Iowa needs to be 8 days before New Hampshire. How long before there are realistic plans for Iowa to hold its caucuses in the middle of December.

SC GOPers don't need to be 7 days ahead of anyone, just one day will do, or more likely four days as the party has held its primary on a Saturday in presidential cycles past. [CHUCK TODD]

Posted at 03:54 PM | Comments (0)

School Choice

2006-05-30T13:41:00.000-07:00

2006 ELECTION FOR STATE SUPERINTENDENT
School choice focus of forum
GOP candidates differ on using tax credits for private schools
By BILL ROBINSON
brobinson@thestate.com
SCETV debate page
Archived stories and debate footage (as available)
ABOUT THE DEBATES
2006 ELECTION FOR STATE SUPERINTENDENT

School choice — at least a version that would grant tax credits to some parents who enroll their children in private schools — revealed clear differences for viewers who watched Sunday’s televised debate featuring five Republicans running for state superintendent of education.

Karen Floyd of Spartanburg and Kerry Wood of Batesburg-Leesville said they would have voted for the tax-credit plan the Legislature rejected this year.

Bob Staton of Lexington and Mike Ryan of Surfside Beach side with the legislative majority that opposed it, while Elizabeth Moffly of Mount Pleasant supports tax credits as a concept but opposed the version that failed this year.

The topic animated the hour-long debate on the state’s ETV network and provided viewers with a glimpse of how uneasy discussing the hot-button topic makes some of the candidates.

Floyd initially sidestepped giving an answer, claiming the proposal that has dominated debate within the Legislature for two years “was an evolving piece of legislation” that made taking a stand difficult. When pressed about the version that failed to gain legislative support, Floyd said “I would have supported it.”......

Shame on you,Tom Tancredo

2006-05-24T09:57:00.000-07:00

Congressman Tancredo,
Indiana Congressman Mike Pence is a hero to me and other conservatives all across the country.You used to be.
Disagreeing with Congressman Pence's new approach to immigration is one thing, slandering the plan and the man and posting the most unflattering picture you can find of the man is another.
I am one of those conservatives who have constantly defended you from my Republican establishment friends and other critics of yours who say all negatives things about you.

They said you were a demagogue who wanted the issue more than the solution.
I said you were a Patriot fighting in the trenches for us.

They said you were a conservative only in it for money
I said you were a man of integrity

They said the most dangerous place to be in America was not in a big city ally at 3am but rather between you,Tom Tancredo and a reporter or television camera.
I told them they were wrong you were simply dedicated in your work.

They said you were ineffective
I said no way

They all said you were a joke and not a man personally not worthy of the title of Congressman.

I told all of them every time with out exception they were wrong.

It appears they were RIGHT and I was wrong.

Saying Pence "redefined amnesty to suit his interests" is false.Pence is a man of integrity and only does what he thinks is good for the country.
Congressman Pence mentioned your name during his speech saying he just spent a half an hour talking with you and that you were "looking it over"(Pence's plan). Obviously, Pence would not have used your name in the speech if you had used this type of rhetoric when talking with him in person.Which brings me to my next questions, Did you tell Pence you were going to be adamantly opposed when talking with him? or did you simply blind side him? Did you take your case to Pence in private? or simply send out the press releases?

Pence's plan while not perfect (he freely admits it is a compromise on his part)It is the only plan that can viably pass conference while keeping HR 4437 intact.You say Pence's plan isn't security first, you know that isn't true,Pence's plan would keep 4437 intact save for two exceptions (felony provision,and Good samaritan provision).

Pence's plan does the following:
1 seal the border(4437)
2 enforce existing interior laws(4437)
3 grant NO path to citizenship
4 remove all 12 million illegals from America
5 require all illegals to return home before being eligible for guest worker
6 end anchor baby citizenship

You call this amnesty! Apparently you do not want a guestworker at any cost and that is an ok position to have but do not call a plan amnesty just because you do not agree with it.Pence realizes for 4437 to pass conference he would have to compromise. Pence plan is to trade
1 a sealed border
2 enforced interior laws
3 granting no path to citizenship
4 requiring all illegals to go home
5 the END of undocumented aliens

in exchange for
1 a limited guest worker program for those who return home and apply

Not Perfect. but with the liberal Senate we have it is the best we can do.
What is the alternative? Allow the Democrats to team up with Open border Republicans and grant real AMNESTY? Apparently that is what you want so you can keep the issue alive.
Disagree with Pence if you like,but do it honestly and above reproach. This is not amnesty and Pence is a man of integrity and a hero. You used to be. Perhaps you can answer the questions I posed to you next time you are in South Carolina. I will be the guy in the front row with 20 or so of my Christian conservative friends wearing Pence buttons and we will come up to you after and ask "why do you have no shame"

Mike Rains
former Tancredo fan

The guest worker program conservatives should embrace

2006-05-24T05:06:00.000-07:00

The following address was delivered today at the Heritage Foundation.

I come before you today in the midst of a national debate over immigration reform. While I acknowledge that, as the New York Times stated Sunday, we are near the "end game" on immigration reform in the United States Senate, we are far from reaching the kind of compromise that would make a legislative outcome possible in this session of Congress. I bring these remarks in the hopes of offering a new approach and a real middle ground on immigration reform.

One week ago President Bush set out his views on immigration reform to the American people. He stated: "There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation."

I agree with the President that a rational middle ground can be found between amnesty and mass deportation, but I disagree with the President that amnesty is the middle ground. Amnesty is not the real rational middle ground. In the coming days I will introduce the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act, which as I will discuss today sets forth a real rational middle ground between amnesty and mass deportations.

The Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act is a bill that is tough on border security and tough on employers who hire illegal aliens, but recognizes the need for a guest worker program that operates without amnesty and without growing into a huge new government bureaucracy. I believe that it is a strong alternative to the amnesty plan being debated by the Senate and pushed by the President, and I hope that it will serve as an attractive alternative to Members of the House.

As the grandson of an Irish immigrant, I believe in the ideals that are enshrined on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor. Located on a plaque on Lady Liberty's pedestal are the words of Emma Lazarus from the "New Colossus":

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

America always has been and always will be a welcoming nation, welcoming under the law any and all with the courage enough to come to this shining city on a hill. But, a nation without borders is not a nation, and across this country Americans are anxious about the security of our border.

Every night Americans see news images of people crossing the border illegally; they hear tales of people paying thousands of dollars to so-called "coyotes" to smuggle them into the country; they worry that drugs will make their way into the hands of their children more readily; and they rightly fear that our porous borders make it more likely that terrorists will cross with deadly intentions against our families.

In 2005, Customs and Border Patrol stopped 1,189,114 people from illegally crossing the border. Of that number, approximately 165,000 were from countries other than Mexico. Over 200 were from Middle Eastern countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and others.

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that twelve million illegal aliens are currently living in America. Just a few months ago, that estimate was eleven million. In a few more months or years, that estimate will grow to thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, twenty or more million illegal aliens, unless we do something to turn the tide.

And, we must do something because this is a problem of epic proportions. It is a problem that threatens the very fabric of America. Every time I am home in Indiana, I hear about this issue from my constituents. Hoosiers are concerned. Americans are concerned. I am concerned.

We can control our borders. At the same time, we can find a real rational middle ground for dealing with the illegal immigrants currently in America. A lot of people in Washington are talking about what we can do, but the solutions they are offering, up to this point, are not workable and they are not acceptable to millions of hard-working Americans who believe in law and order and the American Dream.

The Senate is debating a bill that will provide amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Amnesty is no solution. It only will worsen the problem because it will cause more people to come here illegally with the hope of someday having their status adjusted.

I see the solution as a four-step process. Securing our border is the first step. The second step is to make the decision, once and for all, to deny amnesty to people whose first act in the United States was a violation of the law. The third step is to put in place a guest worker program, without amnesty, that will efficiently provide American employers with willing guest workers who come to America legally. The final step is tough employer sanctions that ensure a full partnership between American business and the American government in the enforcement of our laws on immigration and guest workers.

On border security, the House of Representatives got off to a great start in December 2005 when we passed H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. The Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee were able to put together a strong bill that will secure our borders.

The House-passed bill was a first step. In fact, my bill begins by including the House bill, with a couple of minor changes. The House got it right, and aside from removing the felony provision for illegal presence and clarifying that no one is trying to put Good Samaritans behind bars, I am keeping this language as-is. We must take a tough approach on securing this nation's borders. I have said it once today and will say it again, "A nation without borders is not a nation."

Therefore, we must make America a nation with borders. We must man the door. I believed that in December 2005 when I voted for the House bill, and I believe it now.

The President called for 6,000 more Border Patrol agents and the use of the National Guard in the interim. I welcome that call and support it, but it is not enough. The House-passed bill adds port of entry inspectors, ends catch and release, puts to use American technology such as unmanned aerial vehicles, and requires the building of a security fence across approximately 700 miles of our Southern border.

These are the kind of actions that will bring about a new day on our border. Instead of "coyotes," drug-runners and criminals ruling the border, American law enforcement will rule the border. Instead of terrorists having the ability to sneak through a porous border, they will find a secure border hardened to prevent their illegal entry.

However, as I have been thinking about securing our border, a thought kept coming back to me. So many of the people crossing the border are not crossing for nefarious or devious reasons. The great majority of illegal border crossers do so in order to find work or to be with family members working in America.

I have come to believe that securing the border would be much easier and allow for a better use of our resources if we could eliminate these people from the ranks of those crossing the border illegally. The House bill will secure our border, but it will do it even better when its provisions can concentrate just on those illegal border crossers who are criminals, drug dealers and possible terrorists. In order to do that, there must be a legal means for the great majority of people seeking temporary work to come to America.

A few months ago a very dedicated and resolute American came to me with an idea. Her name is Helen Krieble, and she is here with us today. Thank you, Helen, for being here.

Helen is the founder and president of The Vernon K. Krieble Foundation, a private foundation dedicated to public policy and America's Founding principles. She is on the front-lines in this debate, literally. She hires ten guest workers each year for her business, the Colorado Horse Park, which is a major equestrian and events center in Parker, Colorado. She hires them legally, but as she can tell you, it isn't easy. The bureaucracy is confounding.

So, she came to me with an idea. She asked why we couldn't have a no-amnesty guest-worker program run by the private market instead of the government. Helen's idea represents the core of the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act, and I readily acknowledge that. Helen is living proof that the best ideas don't come from Washington, D.C., but come from the creative minds of men and women living the American Dream.

Step two is to say no to amnesty in any form. My bill offers a no-amnesty solution to the problem of 12 million illegal aliens living in our country. Some argue that there is no amnesty if these 12 million illegal aliens are required to pay a fine or back taxes. The President and many in the Senate seem to believe this to be the proper path.

There is no support back home in my district for amnesty, and this has nothing to do with race or ethnic discrimination. It has everything to do with the fundamental belief of every American in law and order. America is, and always has been, a welcoming society. This sentiment is essentially an expression of a moral principle. The ancient words, "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him for you were aliens in Egypt," reflect the sentiment of millions of Americans who share this compassionate view of the illegal aliens in our midst. But, there still is no support back home for amnesty.

Amnesty is allowing people whose first act in America was an illegal act to get right with the law without leaving the country. Allowing 12 million illegal aliens to stay in our country instead of leaving and coming back legally is amnesty, no matter if fines or back taxes are paid, or how it is otherwise dressed-up or spun by its proponents. The only way to deal with these twelve million people is to insist that they leave the country and come back legally if they have a job awaiting them.

But people ask, "Congressman, if you're not going to provide amnesty, what are you going to do with 12 million illegal aliens"?

They recognize it is not logistically possible to round-up 12 million illegal aliens, put them on buses and conduct a mass deportation. It also is not realistic to think that some American businesses can operate without these workers. And, it is unreasonable to think that people who came to America illegally and found jobs will voluntarily leave those jobs and opportunities without knowing whether they can return legally.

Therefore, the solution is to set up a system that will encourage illegal aliens to self-deport and come back legally as guest workers. This may sound outside of the box, and it is. It may sound far-fetched and unrealistic, but it isn't. It is based on sound, proven conservative principles. It places reliance on American enterprise and puts government back into its traditional role of protecting its citizens. Let me explain to you how it will work.

Private worker placement agencies that we could call "Ellis Island Centers" will be licensed by the federal government to match willing guest workers with jobs in America that employers cannot fill with American workers. U.S. employers will engage the private agencies and request guest workers. In a matter of days, the private agencies will match guest workers with jobs, perform a health screening, fingerprint them and provide the appropriate information to the FBI and Homeland Security so that a background check can be performed, and provide the guest worker with a visa granted by the State Department. The visa will be issued only outside of the United States.

Outside of the United States. That is a key point because it is the provision that will require the 12 million illegal aliens to leave. Now, some of you are thinking to yourselves that twelve million people aren't going to pack up and leave just to get a visa to come back legally. But, I believe most will.

The process that I just described to you will only take a matter of one week, or less. That is the beauty of the program. Speed is so important. No employer in America wants to lose employees for an extended amount of time. No worker who is earning money to feed and clothe a family can afford to be off the job for long.

But, an employer faced with a looming requirement to verify the legality of its employees and stiff fines for employing illegal aliens will be willing to use a quick system to obtain legal employees. And, an illegal alien currently employed in America will be willing to take a quick trip across the border to come back outside of the shadows and in a job where he does not fear a raid by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In fact, I envision employers working with placement agencies to make sure that their long-time illegal employees get their paperwork processed, background checks performed, and visas issued so that they will be back on the job quickly.

Imagine for a moment asking millions of people to line up at the U.S. Consulate in Mexico City to obtain a visa to come to America and work as a guest worker. It would be a disaster. Now, imagine private companies competing against each other to process guest worker applicants and match the applicants with open jobs. Imagine the application of American business ingenuity to this process. That, my friends, is why this program will work.

Let me give you a few other details on the guest worker program. The visas will be referred to as "W Visas." (No kidding.) I think it is obvious whose support we are trying to garner here. Seriously, the W Visa results from a fortuitous instance of bill drafting. The code already has visa categories for letters A through V, so W is the next open letter. The W Visa, without amnesty, would be the real rational middle ground that the President has called our nation to in this debate.

Now, for some less interesting details. First, the number of guest workers will be limited. After the program is up and running, there will be a period of three years when the market and the needs of U.S. employers will set the limit on the number of guest workers. Not letting the market and the needs of employers govern the number of guest workers initially will prevent illegal aliens from being willing to self-deport. No one wants to be one number over the limit, and that person will want to come here or stay here illegally.

But, after three years of this program, we should be in a vastly different situation from where we are now. The great majority of illegal aliens will have self-deported and come back into a confirmed job. The number of those who don't should be a manageable number for law enforcement to pursue and employers to terminate. Therefore, after three years of the program, a reasonable limit on the number of W Visas will be determined by the Department of Labor based on employment statistics, employer needs and other research. After the three-year window has closed, this limit will be strictly enforced. Thus, the three-year window will provide even greater incentive to those who are currently illegal to enter into and comply with the new guest worker program.

There also will be a limit on the amount of time a guest worker can spend in America. Guest workers will be allowed to renew their W Visas, but only for a period of up to six years. At that point, the guest should decide whether to return home or enter the separate process of seeking citizenship. We cannot have people coming to America as permanent guest workers. That is why having a six-year limit is important. It keeps the meaning of the word "guest" in guest worker.

In order to receive their first renewal, guest workers will be required to study English and pass an English proficiency class. If America is willing to invite you to come and work, I believe that after two years of working here, the guest worker should be willing and able to speak basic English. They also will be required to pass an updated background check. We are not going to allow criminals to come and work in America.

The bill will require employers to treat guest workers fairly and to follow employment laws. Employment taxes will be paid. Workers will be allowed to change jobs within a certain time period without having to leave the country. No worker will be trapped in a job with an abusive employer.

The W Visas themselves will be issued in the form of secure wallet-sized cards, similar to the cards described and endorsed by the President. Employers will swipe them to verify the guest worker's eligibility. Border patrol agents will swipe the cards to confirm the guest worker is allowed to enter the country. The card will contain information about the job the guest worker is coming to perform, and it will contain personal and biometric information so that the guest worker can be tracked. If a guest worker is fired, convicted of a crime, or just disappears, the card will be cancelled, preventing another employer from hiring the person.

Before going to a placement agency with a job, U.S. employers must try to hire American workers. They will have to attest their efforts to the agency. Believe me, this is a tough requirement that will protect the American worker because people will be watching and checking-out employers. Our society has many watchdogs, and I have no doubt that people will be watching to make sure that if an American could be hired, he or she is hired.

With a guest worker program in place, there is no reason why an employer ever should hire or continue to employ an illegal alien. Employers who choose to operate outside of the system, however, must face tough fines in order to be made to comply. That is what the enforcement system and the new fine structure will do.

The strict employer enforcement contained in the House-passed bill is contained in my bill. It sets forth a nationwide electronic employment verification system through which employers will verify the legality of each prospective and current employee. Right now employers are put in a no-win situation. Under the law, they must accept employees with documents that reasonably appear on their face to be genuine. They cannot challenge such documents without risking a lawsuit.

We all know that the use of counterfeit documents by illegal aliens is widespread. To combat this problem, employers need a system through which they can quickly and accurately verify whether an employee is legal. Under the guest worker program, the W Visa cards will be easy to verify, with each worker's personal and biometric information. However, some will continue to try to use old, fake documents. We must weed out these people.

Under this enforcement system, each employer will transmit its employees' names and Social Security or alien identification numbers to a confirmation office that will compare the names and numbers to Social Security and Homeland Security records. Within a few days, the employer will be notified of the results, and if an employee is ineligible there is a period of ten days to perform a secondary verification. If after that, the employee is still ineligible the employer should dismiss the employee. Continuing to employ an unverifiable person will be subject to serious monetary penalties and fines.

As a final incentive, my bill requires that in order to hire a guest worker, the employer must be a participant in the employment verification system. Participation in the system is phased-in over a period of two to six years. However, my bill allows employers to voluntarily join the system before they are required to participate in order to hire guest workers. This puts enforcement at the work site first.

Employer enforcement is the key. Once in place, jobs for illegal aliens will dry up. Why hire an illegal alien when you can hire a legal guest worker and eliminate the possibility of a big fine? Why stay in the country illegally when you can quickly return home and come back as a legal guest worker?

So, is all of this pie-in-the-sky? Only if you do not believe in the private market or American business. Only if you do not believe that Americans are a willing and open-minded people. Only if you do not believe in the desire of those who are here illegally to have the opportunity to get right with the law.

We can do this. I believe the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act is a solution that conservatives can embrace. I believe this legislation is a solution that those opposing amnesty can embrace. I believe this proposal offers a solution that those calling for humane treatment of the illegal aliens in our midst can embrace. And, I believe that this solution is one the American people can embrace. This is the real rational middle ground.

I mentioned at the outset that I am the grandson of an Irish immigrant. I take my name, Michael Richard from his. Richard Michael Cawley came to this country on a boat from Ireland and stepped onto Ellis Island, in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, in the early 20th century. Like millions who came before and since, that frightened teenage boy had a simple dream, a dream expressed when his mother handed him the one-way ticket and said, "you have a future there", a dream we call the American Dream.

My grandfather grew up in a two room house in farm country east of a small village called Tubbercurry, Ireland. When I saw that home the summer after he died, I better understood a moment we shared just a few weeks before he went home to be with the Lord.

It was the fall of 1980 and my father had finally given in to my mother's wish for a bigger house and the two-story, 4,000 square foot home in Columbus, Indiana seemed like a palace to all of us...especially my grandfather. When I walked into the house, I saw grandpa sitting alone in the family room and I noticed his eyes were moist with emotion. When I asked if he was alright, he quietly replied in a gentle Irish brogue, "I just never thought a child of mine would live in a house like this..". My grandpa, like my mom and dad, lived the American Dream. He got off that boat an Irish lad, he died an American, and I am an American because of him.

Immigration reform is about renewing the American Dream. We renew the American Dream by reaffirming our commitment to legal immigration. We renew the American Dream by giving those who have made their way into our country illegally, an opportunity to come out of the shadows. We renew the American Dream by creating a system that recognizes the dignity and worth of every person in this One Nation Under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Mr. Pence, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, represents the 6th District of Indiana in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was chosen as the HUMAN EVENTS "Man of the Year" in 2005.

Pence proposes NO Amnesty Amnesty(Tancredo bashes Pence)

2006-05-24T05:05:00.000-07:00

Mike Pence has proposed his “ Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act” which he calls another compromise. You know what that means—dressed up Amnesty. Pence calls his bill the “no-Amnesty Solution” yet he makes clear that all illegal aliens can immediately return to the US as guestworkers! This is very problematic because Pence has a reputation as a principled conservative. He is a member of Tom Tancredo’s Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, and Tancredo and 62% of the CIRC are members of his Republican Study Committee. Call Pence at (202) 225-3021 and let him know that you do not support his “no-amnesty” amnesty.” Also call congressmen who are in the CIRC and RSC and tell them to stand with Tancredo and for Secure Borders, not with Pence and Amnesty. READ MORE

Robert Novak: A Hard Bill

Tancredo Expresses Disappointment at Pence’s Immigration U-Turn (Tancredo bashes Pence)

2006-05-24T05:04:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Chairman of the 97-member House Immigration Reform Caucus, expressed disappointment at Rep. Mike Pence’s policy shift on immigration reform. At a Heritage Foundation speech this afternoon, Pence presented what he called “a rational middle ground… between amnesty and mass deportation” that turns its back on a enforcement-first strategy, grants rogue employers amnesty, and would in effect reward illegal aliens for breaking the law.

“Mike Pence is making the same mistakes that the President has, using the straw man of mass deportations and redefining amnesty to suit his interests. Unfortunately, like the President, Pence is breaking from House conservatives who remain steadfast in their support of a security-first approach to immigration,” said Tancredo.

Pence’s plan would require illegal aliens to return to their home countries to apply for a new ‘W’ worker visa. Employers could hire as many foreign workers as they want under the W visa, and, in practice, they would likely hire the same workers who they employed illegally before. Pence wants to start the new foreign worker program before border security is even proved effective, which is the same strategy that was used in the 1986 amnesty. Twenty years later, the U.S. got amnesty as promised but no border security.

“Pence’s W visa is aptly named. It gives the Administration exactly what it wants: unlimited foreign workers first, enforcement later or never,” said Tancredo. “Pence’s plan is just the 1986 amnesty with a trip home tacked on.”

The Pence plan includes no prevailing wage standard for foreign workers—it simply relies on the good will of employers to “try to hire American workers” before offering jobs under the new foreign worker visa. In fact, almost all current visas require employers to offer the job to American workers before seeking foreign labor, but with no enforcement mechanism, the requirement is laughable.

“The House’s strategy in H.R. 4437 was to fix the illegal alien problem by enforcing the law. Over time, as illegal workers cannot obtain jobs, they go home because they have no other option open to them. Pence takes a much different approach: fix illegal behavior by legalizing it,” said Tancredo. “As a conservative and a friend of Mike Pence, I am baffled by his shift on immigration. I hope he reconsiders his position and returns to an enforcement-first position.”

Shame on you, Tom Tancredo

2006-05-24T04:08:00.000-07:00

Bauer injured in wreck

2006-05-23T17:03:00.000-07:00

(Blacksburg) - South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer has been injured in an aircraft crash.

The accident happened around 6:30 p.m. in the Cherokee County town of Blacksburg, near White Farm Road. The plane was registered to Bauer.

Few details have been released, but News19 has learned the crash happened shortly after take-off. The aircraft crashed into a power line, and then caught on fire. Bauer was transported to Greenville Memorial Hospital with what are called non life-threatening injuries. Senate Clerk Jeff Gossett says Bauer and a passenger who was also on board were conscious after the crash.

State Senator Harvey Peeler says Bauer flew to the area to visit a friend who had a death in the family. The weather was sunny with light winds in the Upstate at the time of the crash.

Official list of RINO house members

2006-05-22T10:49:00.000-07:00

Last week during the Budget debate House Amendment 832 was offered by Jeb Hensarling and voted on by the House as a subsititute to H.CON.RES.376 (the Budget).832 was the brainchild of Hensarling,MIke Pence and the RSC and was the culmination of CONTRACT WITH AMERICA:renewed which was an effort to get house Republicans back the the basics of Fiscal discipline that cemented our majority in the first place.More on the

Contract with America renewed here

and

HERE

voting against conservatism were
Robert Aderholt (AL)
Rodney Alexander (LA)
Roscoe Bartlett (MD)
Charlie Bass (NH)
Judy Biggert (IL)
Sherwood Boehlert (NY)
Henry Bonilla (TX)
Joe Bonner (AL)
Mary Bono (CA)
Charles Boustany (LA)
Jeb Bradley (NH)
Henry Brown (SC)
Michael Burgess (TX)
Ken Calvert (CA)
Dave Camp (MI)
Shelly Moore Capito (WV)
Mike Castle (DE)
Ander Crenshaw (FL)
Barbara Cubin (WY)
Jon Culberson (TX)
Geoff Davis (KY)
Jo Ann Davis (VA)
Tom Davis (VA)
Tom DeLay (TX)
Charlie Dent (PA)
Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL)
Mario Diaz-Balart (FL)
John Doolittle (CA)
Thelma Drake (VA)
Vernon Ehlers (MI)
Jo-Ann Emerson (MO)
English (PA)
Terry Everett (AL)
Mike Ferguson (NJ)
Mike Fitzpatrick (PA)
Mark Foley (FL)
Jeff Fortenberry (NE)
Vito Fossella (NY)
Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ)
Elton Gallegly (CA)
Jim Gerlach (PA)
Wayne Gilchrest (MD)
Paul Gillmor (OH)
Virgil Goode (VA)

Kay Granger (TX)
Sam Graves (MO)
Mark Green (WI)
Ralph Hall (TX)
Melissa Hart (PA)
Doc Hastings (WA)
David Hobson (OH)
Kenny Hulshof (MO)
Duncan Hunter (CA)
Henry Hyde (IL)
Bill Jenkins (TN)
Bobby Jindal (LA)
Nancy Johnson (CT)
Tim Johnson (IL)
Walter Jones (NC)
Ric Keller (FL)
Sue Kelly (NY)
Mark Kennedy (MN)
Peter King (NY)
Mark Kirk (IL)
Joe Knollenberg (MI)
Jim Kolbe (AZ)
Ray LaHood (IL)
Tom Latham (IA)
Steve LaTourette (OH)
Jim Leach (IA)
Jerry Lewis (CA)
Ron Lewis (KY)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ)
Frank Lucas (OK)
Michael McCaul (TX)
Thaddeus McCotter (MI)
Jim McCrery (LA)
John McHugh (NY)
Buck McKeon (CA)
Candice Miller (MI)
Gary Miller (CA)
Tim Murphy (PA)
Bob Ney (OH)
Ann Northup (KY)
Devin Nunes (CA)
Jim Nussle (IA)
Tom Osborne (NE)
Jon Peterson (PA)
Tom Petri (WI)
Chip Pickering (MI)
Todd Platts (PA)
Ted Poe (TX)
Richard Pombo (CA)
Jon Porter (NV)
Deborah Pryce (OH)
Adam Putnam (FL)
Jim Ramstad (MN)
Ralph Regula (OH)
Denny Rehberg (MT)
Dave Reichert (WA)
Rick Renzi (AZ)
Tom Reynolds (NY)
Mike Rogers (AL)
Hal Rogers (KY)
Mike Rogers (MI)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL)
Jim Saxton (NJ)
Jean Schmidt (OH)
Joe Schwarz (MI)
Clay Shaw (FL)
Chris Shays (CT)
Don Sherwood (PA)
Rob Simmons (CT)
Mike Simpson (ID)
Chris Smith (NJ)
Lamar Smith (TX)
Mike Sodrel (IN)
Mark Souder (IN)
Jon Sweeney (NY)
Bill Thomas (CA)
Pat Tiberi (OH)
Michael Turner (OH)
Fred Upton (MI)
Greg Walden (OR)
James Walsh (NY)
Zach Wamp (TN)
Dave Weldon (FL)
Curt Weldon (PA)
Jerry Weller (IL)
Ed Whitfield (KY)
Roger Wicker (MI)
Heather Wilson (NM)
Frank Wolf (VA)
Don Young (AK)

support marriage South Carolina!!!!

2006-05-22T10:01:00.000-07:00

Armed with a megaphone and signs, small groups of protesters also gathered to show their support for the amendment.

"I want to warn these people ... to warn America that it is turning its back on God through supporting homosexuality," said Lewis B. Rivers, 54, of Columbia. "Homosexuality is evil. It's an abomination to God. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. There's no doubt about that."

James Budenbender and a few members of Concord Baptist Church in Lexington held signs quoting Bible verses.

"I don't agree with same-sex marriage. I don't agree with same-sex at all," Budenbender said. "The Bible is against it and I stand on God's word.".....

South Carolina Sportsmen caucus

2006-05-22T09:59:00.000-07:00

Bill to create a sportsmen’s caucus goes to governor
By PAT ROBERTSON
Outdoors Columnist
SOUTH CAROLINA SPORTSMEN will have a much stronger and more organized voice in legislative decisions in the future with the passage of a bill that authorizes a South Carolina Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus.

The bill was ratified Thursday and sent to Gov. Mark Sanford’s desk for his signature. Sponsors hope the governor will put his seal of approval on the bill since he was a member of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus when he was a congressman.

The South Carolina Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus is modeled after the 315-member congressional caucus in Washington. U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham and U.S. Reps. Gresham Barrett, Henry Brown and John Spratt are members of that caucus.

Although passage this session was in doubt because both houses were tied up on other matters, the bill had strong bipartisan support in both the S.C. House and S.C. Senate. Pending the governor’s signature, South Carolina will become the 29th state to join a national network of state legislative caucuses, which focus on promoting a pro-sportsmen’s agenda in state governments.

The South Carolina caucus will be a member of the National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses, which provides a venue for exchange of ideas between state caucus leaders, sportsmen’s groups, industry, media and other organizations.

“The Sportsmen’s Caucus is an important step to building coalitions, strengthening opportunities and enhancing outdoor activities throughout South Carolina,” said Sen. Thomas Moore, D-Clearwater. “As a bipartisan legislative group, we will further the understanding of and access to outdoor sports.”

Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, who spearheaded the effort to form the caucus, said the caucus will work to preserve hunting and fishing traditions in South Carolina.

“The South Carolina Sportsmen’s Caucus will serve as a medium for uniting legislators and outdoor interests to work together to guide policy decisions to enhance hunting and fishing activities and natural resources for future generations of South Carolinians to enjoy,” Pitts said

Pitts said 72 members from both political parties joined an organizational caucus in the House. The Senate now will move to organize a Senate committee to work with the House on writing bylaws for the new caucus.

“This is new ground because it is a bicameral, bipartisan caucus, and highly unusual in South Carolina to put the Senate and the House on the same page,” Pitts said. “Hopefully, everything will be in place when the session starts next year.”

Pitts said the caucus plans to address several major issues in the next legislative session, including no net loss of public hunting and fishing areas and a constitutional guarantee of the right to hunt in South Carolina.

“No net loss says simply that if a state loses public hunting or fishing areas, we must locate predominately public hunting or fishing ground in another area so there will be no net loss to the public,” he said.

However, Pitts said enforcing a no net loss law in South Carolina probably will be more difficult than in other states because of the state’s relatively small size, coupled with the tremendous development under way across the state.

“In the Upstate, when we lose public hunting there may not be another area we can go to because of development,” he admitted.

The constitutional amendment to establish a right to hunt in South Carolina has already been introduced in the Legislature. It is not expected to make it out of the Senate this year, but it will be a key issue for the Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus next session, especially on the House side, Pitts said.

The caucus also will be ready to address other issues that pop up from time to time, such as the bill to ban computerized hunting this year, he noted.

More than 1 million South Carolinians continue the state’s tradition of hunting and fishing and spend more than $1 billion annually to use the state’s natural resources. With increased encroachment on traditional hunting and fishing areas, more and more decisions must be made at the state level that impact wildlife management and access to public lands and waters.

While the caucus will play a role in making those decisions, it will rely heavily on a group already organized and working, the South Carolina Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus Foundation. The foundation’s board comprises representatives of hunting and fishing organizations and sportsmen-related business interests across the state who will serve as a conduit for information between the grass-roots sportsmen and the legislative caucus.

“The foundation will be a support organization for the caucus and will be key in helping determine the direction of legislation to protect our outdoor heritage for the future,” Pitts said.

out of touch Senate approves Social Security for illegals

2006-05-20T06:42:00.000-07:00

This is just more proof that Senate Republicans are ignoring their base at our majorities peril

By Sher Zieve – On Thursday, the US Senate approved Social Security payments for illegal aliens, even if their employment status was due to stolen and/or forged documents. The Social Security system has long been touted as being in jeopardy for future payments to US citizen workers.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said: "It makes no sense to reward millions of illegal immigrants for criminal behavior while our Social Security system is already in crisis. Why in the world would we endorse this criminal activity with federal benefits? The Senate missed a big opportunity to improve this bill, and I doubt American seniors will be pleased with the result."

Siding with the illegals, Vermont Democrat Senator Patrick J. Leahy said: "We should not steal their funds or empty their Social Security accounts. That is not fair. It does not reward their hard work or their financial contributions. It violates the trust that underlies the Social Security Trust Fund."

Back to basics MR PRESIDENT

2006-05-19T08:11:00.000-07:00

Our party is in trouble in Novemeber not because we have lost the swing voters.We are in trouble because the base is upset.We need to get back to conservative Republican basics.

The fight for our party's soul

2006-05-19T08:08:00.000-07:00

A Right Turn Holds Perils For Bush

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, May 19, 2006; Page A21

As they watch President Bush's approval ratings tumble, conservative activists are offering a surefire strategy for presidential recovery: Bush should move to the right and "rally his base."

There's one problem with this approach: It could do the president's party far more harm than good, even within its own ranks. The conservative view ignores the roots of the president's difficulties in the disaffection of moderate voters who are more concerned with performance -- or the lack thereof -- than ideology.

The Post-ABC News poll released this week found the president with a 33 percent approval rating and suffering losses in esteem almost everywhere. Conservatives are by no means his biggest problem.

In January 2005 Republicans who described themselves as conservative gave Bush an astonishing 94 percent approval rating. The new Post-ABC survey, conducted May 11 to May 15, put Bush's approval rating among conservative Republicans at 76 percent, down 18 points.

But the poll found that among moderate Republicans, the president's approval rating had declined 31 points, from 88 percent in January 2005 to 57 percent now. Recent surveys by Gallup and the Pew Research Center also point to losses among moderates.

Bush has lost even more ground among moderate independents. The Pew surveys found Bush's approval rating in this group dropping from 48 percent in January 2005 to 22 percent last month.

The middle of the middle is going south on Bush.

This creates a conflict between Bush's immediate political interests and the interests of many Republican candidates on the ballot this November.

Bush's best shot at a quick jolt upward in his approval ratings is among conservatives in his own party, who are already more inclined to support him than anyone else and might come home in response to a presidential tilt rightward. But Rep. Chris Shays, a moderate from Connecticut, noted that many of the House Republicans most endangered in this fall's election -- himself included -- are moderates who would be hurt if his party and his president moved farther right.

"His going to the right to move up from 35 percent is not going to help us out," Shays, speaking for his fellow moderates, said in an interview. "It doesn't help me out for him to appeal to his conservative base."

Shays, who is at the top of Democratic target lists, was reelected with 52 percent of the vote in 2004 and faces the same opponent, Democrat Diane Farrell, this year. Shays is the one being judged this fall, not Bush. "Obviously, he should be true to himself and his principles," Shays said of the president, "but if he is looking for issues, he should be looking for issues that are helpful to those of us who are targets."

On the other hand, many of the House's staunchest conservatives -- such as Mike Pence of Indiana and John Shadegg of Arizona -- want Bush to emphasize conservative themes, including deep domestic spending cuts. But a frustrated Shays notes that conservatives urging the president to appeal to his base represent solidly Republican districts.

"Pence's election isn't in jeopardy," he said. "Shadegg's election isn't in jeopardy."

Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, one of his party's shrewdest political strategists, keeps a sharp eye on the attitudes of moderate and moderately conservative suburbanites of the sort he represents. Davis sees a potential contradiction between one of the GOP's strategic imperatives -- to fire conservatives up enough to get them to the polls this fall -- and the other imperative of stopping defections among middle-of-the-road voters.

"Harder-core Republicans are disillusioned right now, but they're not going to vote for Democrats and Nancy Pelosi," Davis said in an interview, referring to the House Democratic leader. "It's your softer, more moderate Republicans who are now jumping ship."

Davis never likes to bad-mouth his party's electoral chances, and he notes that the six months between now and Election Day "are an eternity." He worries, though, about issues that could boost turnout in the base but drive away less-ideological voters. "To move right may fix part of the problem," Davis said, "but it could exacerbate the other problem."

Bush prospered in 2004 by turning out the Republican base. But the times are very different in 2006. Machiavelli noted that the successful politician "adapts his mode of proceeding to the qualities of the times" and warned against politicians who "remain obstinate in their modes." In 2006 one could imagine Machiavelli counseling moderation to the Republican Party. You wonder how Machiavellian the Republicans' conservative wing will let the party be.

Pence,Hensarling,Barrett,Inglis,and Wilson fight the good fight

2006-05-19T08:07:00.000-07:00

House conservatives see wins in budget
By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 19, 2006

House conservatives say they scored key spending reform victories in the $2.7 trillion budget approved early yesterday, but major changes are needed to achieve the fiscal discipline promised when Republicans took over the chamber more than a decade ago.
"The budget, while not visionary, was an important first step," said Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican and chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC).
"There's a huge way to go," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, Texas Republican. "It takes time. ... It's like turning a battleship."
The House approved the blueprint for 2007 spending by a vote of 218-210 after weeks of negotiations between conservative and more liberal Republican factions. Twelve Republicans and all 197 House Democrats who voted opposed the bill, as did the one independent member. Four Democrats and one Republican did not vote.
Mr. Pence said conservatives' greatest victory was holding the line on President Bush's $873 billion limit for discretionary spending, despite what Mr. Pence said was "overwhelming pressure" from the more liberal wing to spend more.
"We stood firm; our leadership stood firm," he said.
Conservatives also highlighted "significant" victories secured from leaders during negotiations, including the promise of votes on line-item veto authority, inclusion of earmark reform in a recently passed lobbying reform bill, and a hard-fought provision that would define and limit "emergency" spending, making it more difficult to add pet projects to such legislation. For 2007, the budget sets that emergency level at $6.4 billion.
Mr. Bush praised the move in the House, and Majority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, called the budget "a major demonstration of Republicans' commitment to return fiscal discipline."
Conservatives said spending was still too high, that cuts to massive entitlement programs were inadequate and that the plan will raise the national debt.
The bill increases discretionary spending for defense and homeland security while holding other discretionary spending flat. It assumes $228 billion in tax relief and culls $6.8 billion in savings from entitlements programs over five years.
"Even though this budget still spends too much," the reform victories represent "a turning point in the battle over spending," Mr. Hensarling said.
He called the emergency spending item a crucial tool. "There is now at least a stoplight on the road to spending," he said.
Mr. Hensarling this week offered an RSC alternative modeled after the budget House Republicans approved in 1995. Called "Contract With America Renewed," it would have balanced the budget in five years, trimmed $358 billion from entitlement programs, capped annual Medicare growth, eliminated 150 federal programs and restructured three federal agencies. It was approved by 94 Republicans and opposed by 134, including 32 RSC members, even though nearly half of them supported the 1995 budget.
"There's been a shift" in the party since 1995, Mr. Pence said, but he was encouraged that House Republican leaders backed the RSC plan this week.
"This was truly an effort to return to the bold and visionary leadership of the '94 revolution," he said.
Democrats, meanwhile, argued that the budget approved by the House shortchanged key social programs to allow more tax cuts for the rich and increase debt.
"The misplaced priorities demonstrated in this budget are astounding," said Rep. Jim McGovern, Massachusetts Democrat.

Andre Bauer will not run in 2010

2006-05-18T13:35:00.000-07:00

Republican Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer said Wednesday that if he's renominated and re-elected this year, he'll walk away from politics and will not run for governor or any other office in 2010.

Bauer, 37, told the GreenvilleOnline that a second term as lieutenant governor would be his last because "at some time, I want to go back, make a good living, I'd like to meet somebody and start a family. This stuff wears on you; some people get a big drive out of it."

"I'm an average person, I didn't get a political science degree, I got a business degree, I didn't go to law school. I'm a small business owner and contrary to what a lot of people think ... I don't aspire to have any big dreams of holding big political office and carrying on some legacy."

Bauer is facing a strong primary challenge from Mike Campbell, a Greenville native, Columbia businessman and son of the late Gov. Carroll Campbell. Henry Jordan of Anderson is the third candidate in the June 13 primary field. Robert Barber, a Charleston businessman, is the unopposed Democratic nominee.
(For more on this race and all the big contests in 2006, visit News19's campaign page.)

The money involved is a turn-off, Bauer said.

In 2002, Republican Mark Sanford, the eventual winner, and Democratic Gov. Jim Hodges raised and spent more than $7 million each. Some analysts have said Sanford's re-election campaign costs may hit the $8 million to $9 million range.

"You're going to be looking at a David Wilkins, Bobby Harrell and Gresham Barrett race, and it's going to cost millions and millions of dollars. That just isn't my fight. I'd love to go out as the lieutenant governor who really changed the lifestyles of seniors in South Carolina."

The state's Office on Aging now is under the lieutenant governor although an executive director administers it.

Noting the thwarted aspirations of a string of lieutenant governors who have failed to win the governorship over the last three decades, Bauer said, "This is not the highway to the Governor's Mansion."

"If I'd wanted to run for governor, I'd have stayed in the Senate where I'd now be a committee chairman, my staff would be as big as the lieutenant governor's, (there would be) a much smaller district to work with and (the election) would be in the middle of my term."

But Bauer said any absence from politics might be temporary.

"I wouldn't say that sometime later on in life I wouldn't look at another office, but I don't think it would be governor. There are other areas than governor I'd rather serve," he said without elaboration.

Tony Santaella, Producer

S.C. hurricane plan ready, agencies say

2006-05-18T13:34:00.000-07:00

By Zane Wilson
The Sun News
COLUMBIA - State officials say they have adapted some plans to the lessons of Katrina and are as ready as they can be if a hurricane strikes the coast.

The hurricane season opens June 1 and runs through Nov. 30, but last year's season was so active that a hurricane formed late in December and was still alive Jan. 1.

The outlook is for an equally active season this year with a higher probability of a hurricane striking the East Coast, and less for one to hit the Gulf Coast, a state weather expert warned.

Gov. Mark Sanford met Wednesday with top officials of agencies that will be involved in hurricane response, trying to gauge whether everything is in place or when it will be.

"This is a chance, one last time, to get together to compare notes and walk through our plan," Sanford said.

He said "it is vital" that the state be prepared, but just as vital that individuals make their own plans for evacuation and for providing for themselves in case of shortages of food and water.

The main thing people need to remember is to evacuate early if a storm is approaching, Sanford said.

Should a massive evacuation have to occur in the height of tourist season, supplies and equipment are pre-staged or ready to arrive quickly, said Department of Transportation Director Betty Mabry.

U.S. 501 is one of a handful of roads from the coast that will have lane reversal, meaning westbound traffic will use all lanes.

Informational signs, portable toilets and drinking water are ready for use along the evacuation routes if needed, she said.

"We've trained quite often," Mabry said.

The agency is also prepared to clear roads quickly after the storm passes, she said.

State Emergency Management Director Ron Osborne said it is critical that roads be cleared enough so that emergency response teams can enter to assess damage and needs.

Sanford asked about security for the evacuated areas if there is a massive evacuation.

State Law Enforcement Division Chief Robert Stewart said 200 agents will stay in evacuated areas to provide security, and that some wildlife officers also will help.

While there are fewer shelters than in past years, the ones that are left have more capacity, Osborne said. The shelters are being moved farther back from the coast, out of possible areas of harm.

Horry and Georgetown counties recently learned they will have fewer shelters.

But officials say shelters should be considered a last resort. People should try to make their own arrangements, such as staying with friends or relatives or renting a hotel room, before planning to go to a shelter.

The National Guard is in better shape to respond if needed than it has been for the past few years, said Adjutant Gen. Stan Spears.

That is because fewer guard members are serving in Iraq, and they have brought back their equipment that would also be needed, he said.

If the National Guard is overwhelmed, the state can get assistance from the regular army if Sanford asks for it, he said.

"Governor, I think we're OK," Spears said. "There's not one area that I'm concerned with."

But Earl Hunter, director of the state Department of Health and Environmental Control, said authorities are still trying to make sure there is enough transportation to move all nursing home and hospital patients out of harm's way.

Governor Sanford thanks the officers who serve and protect

2006-05-18T13:33:00.000-07:00

Thanks.
Somewhere between talking about Paris Hilton and peacemakers, that was the message Gov. Mark Sanford gave to more than 250 people -- most of them police officers -- at the 11th annual Police Honor and Memorial Service on Wednesday morning.

The service at Rock Hill's First Baptist Church on Dave Lyle Boulevard was to honor law enforcement, while paying tribute to slain officers. Some people in the audience were family members of officers killed in the line of duty.

"It's not a job that you do halfway," Sanford said, when discussing the commitment of the job.

Sanford said the service was about peacemakers, and cited a passage from the biblical book of Matthew. He also discussed police as role models.

He used Hilton as an example of a modern role model, but not a lasting one.

"Paris Hilton will be in a movie," Sanford said. "There will never be a movie about Paris Hilton."

Sanford also discussed the courage and responsibility he said police work requires.

"You all consistently walk the walk in what you say you're about," Sanford said. "And in the process, are an inspiration to the rest of us."

But the governor didn't have to convince Rock Hill police Officer Ken Tallmadge.

"It makes me proud to do what I do," said the 36-year-old rookie officer, who has been on the job for about 10 months.

Tallmadge said he had owned his own business in Myrtle Beach, but after 9-11, he had a desire "to do something worthwhile."

"Something was missing," he said. "This filled that void."

Charles D. Perry • 329-4068 | cperry@heraldonline.com

Update from Congressman Barrett

2006-05-17T11:44:00.000-07:00

As some of you may know, members of the Anderson, Oconee, and Pickens county chambers of commerce recently traveled to Washington, DC for their annual National Issues

Forum. I was able to speak with them about legislative issues currently being debated in Congress. They also enjoyed speeches from Susan Whitson, Press Secretary to Mrs. Bush, Charlie Hurt, Capitol Hill bureau chief for the Washington Times, Judy Schneider a specialist with the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, Majority Leader John Boehner (OH, 8), Chairman of House Intelligence Committee, Representative Peter Hoekstra (MI, 2), and other distinguished colleagues of mine in Congress including members of the South Carolina delegation.

Additionally, the House acted to pass several important provisions addressing several key issues affecting all Americans.

Ø Energy Independence:

The House passed H.R. 5143, introduced by Representative Inglis, which will summons the imagination and creativity of the American scientist to develop hydrogen energy - a more cost-efficient and environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuel. There is no doubt that the private sector is an engine of growth that breeds innovation and ingenuity. The role of the federal government is not to come up with the idea or the science, but rather to provide incentives and promote an atmosphere that encourages such research to take place.

We are working to find long-term solutions to our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Nuclear power is another source of power that our nation has placed on the back burner for decades, since arriving in Congress I have been promoting South Carolina as a national leader in advancing the nuclear industry. In fact, both SCANA and Duke Energy are currently exploring locations in South Carolina as possible sites to construct a next generation nuclear reactor. It makes sense for South Carolina to lead the nation - we already produce over half of our electricity from nuclear power plants, making us third nationally in nuclear generation.

Ø Port Security:

We passed legislation in the House that requires the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to expand

nuclear and radiological detection systems pertaining to

incoming maritime containers, and to establish standard

operating procedures for examining containers. Securing

our nations ports is important to South Carolina since the

Port of Charleston, Port of Georgetown, Port of Port Royal,

together provide more than 280,000 jobs and pumping in

more than $23 billion in state investment. Our ports are

vital to the nation's economy as well, ranking as the nation's

sixth in international shipments.

Ø Lobby/Earmark Reform:

The House also renewed our commitment to increased

transparency in congressional activities by approving H.R.

4975, the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of

2006 - the most comprehensive lobbying reform bill passed

in over a decade. The recent actions of a few individuals

remind us of the importance of holding ourselves to the

highest standards and the need to maintain the trust of the

American people. Additionally, it seeks to curtail the

number of Member appropriation projects by enhancing

transparency. The new system for appropriation requests is

already working. Appropriation requests are down 37%

from last year. This important piece of legislation will hold

members of Congress and those they work with to the

highest standards while ensuring that Americans can still

effectively petition the government - a constitutionally

protected right.

There can be no greater honor than to help protect our freedoms as we serve one another, and our nation. As your representative I pledge to always remember the contributions of those who have served before me and the responsibility you have entrusted to me. I will honor God and one another with my words, thoughts and actions, and pledge to always put the best interests of my constituents and the nation at the forefront of every decision by committing everyday to: uphold strong ethical and moral standards, provide excellent constituent service to everyone equally, and be your common-sense voice for local concerns and values.

Gresham Barrett

Barret opens new offices

2006-05-17T11:42:00.000-07:00

WALHALLA — U.S. Rep. Congressman Gresham Barrett, R-S.C., plans to open satellite offices in Walhalla and Seneca on Wednesday. A representative will be available for constituent service from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m. at the Oconee County Courthouse in Walhalla and from 1:30 to 4 p.m. at Seneca City Hall. For more information or to make an appointment, call the Anderson office at (864) 224-7401.

President's plan draws mixed reaction in S.C.

2006-05-17T11:40:00.000-07:00

JESSICA L De VAULT

Local supporters of the Hispanic immigrant movement and some Spartanburg residents are raising eyebrows at President Bush's plan to handle the flood of immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.

South Carolina lawmakers in Washington, meanwhile, say the president is on the right track.

On Monday evening, Bush outlined his plan to control illegal immigration and create a guest-worker program for immigrants.

That plan includes sending 6,000 National Guard troops to protect the 2,000-mile border.

But S.C. National Guard spokesman Pete Brooks said the Palmetto state is not being asked to send soldiers.

"We're not anticipating any change," Brooks said. "We haven't had any indication that South Carolina will be involved at all."

Southeastern coastal states have obvious concerns about troop availability with hurricane season on the horizon, said Joel Sawyer, spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford.

Though South Carolina's National Guard remains untouched by Bush's plans, many local people still have strong opinions on the president's approach.

At the Spartanburg Mi Tierra Mexican grocery store, manager Salvador Torres said sending thousands of troops made little sense.

"I don't think it's going to work," said Torres, 32. "It's not the way to fix the problem. They are going to spend a lot of money with all these people.

"There are too many laws in place. They got to enforce them."

His 27-year-old brother, Agustin, agreed, but said the guest-worker program was a good idea.

"That'll be fine," Agustin Torres said. "They need us (Hispanics) as much as we need them."

Spartanburg resident Steve Harvey also supports the guest-worker program.

"I think the president is right, you can't address illegal immigration without addressing the fact that people are desperate to come here for jobs," Harvey said. "And since there are jobs available for them in this country, I think it's natural and very reasonable to set up a program to match up workers with those jobs."

Louise H. Jones, a 61-year-old Spartanburg native, said she's fed up with what she considers to be minimal enforcement of immigration laws.

But beefing up the border patrol wouldn't fix America's current problem, Jones said.

"That may stop what we got coming in, but that's just a Band-Aid," Jones said. "He (Bush) has not done anything to correct what is here."

Despite the president's comments in opposition to amnesty, Jones said the guest-worker program was granting just that.

"That is rewarding crooks, robbers, illegals," Jones said. "If you come over here and stay hidden long enough, the president is going to say its OK."

On Capitol Hill

Meanwhile in Washington, Rep. Bob Inglis said he supported Bush's open-ended plan to send National Guard troops to the border, adding that an increase in enlistments is likely to follow.

"It makes sense to use the military at the border, and to make sure to strengthen the border patrol forces that we have … many Americans would want to help with that mission," Inglis said.

The National Guard deployment does not signal a war on illegal immigrants or a militarization of the border, he said, but a "need to control the flow" of people.

The South Carolina Republican said he could support a guest-worker program as long as it is coupled with stricter border controls.

Getting into the country through legal channels should be easier for those who want to work here, Inglis said. In the "heyday of Ellis Island," he said, as many as a million people a year were allowed to enter the country.

Sen. Jim DeMint said, "Any measure to strengthen our border security would be better than what we have now." Illegal immigration, he said, is a threat to the country's national security.

DeMint, a Republican, said he could support a temporary worker system, but would not endorse "amnesty," which rewards "illegal behavior with citizenship or voting rights."

William Frey, an immigration expert at the Brookings Institute, said the president's decision might affect immigrants who are thinking about crossing the border, but more likely it is a "symbolic" gesture for concerned voters.

"At some point it actually is going to make a difference, but you have to realize that a lot of the undocumented immigrants aren't people who cross the border, they're people who overstay their visas," Frey said.

Staff writer Blathnaid Healy contributed to this report.

Don’t use tax money to subsidize gas consumption

2006-05-17T11:37:00.000-07:00

SO THE GOVERNOR and the House want to give drivers a $2.50-a-week break at the tank. For three months. Just in time for the fall elections.

Pardon our cynicism.

When members of Congress floated a similar idea a couple of weeks ago, they were appropriately shouted down by angry constituents who saw through their pandering and were insulted that this was our leaders’ answer to rising gasoline prices.

To his credit, Gov. Mark Sanford doesn’t pretend that temporarily suspending the state’s 17-cent gas tax will solve the nation’s energy problem. It is, he admits, just the latest way to package his plan to keep tax money from being spent on public programs.

He needs a way to sell it because it’s a bd idea. Think back a few years, to when the economy tanked and took tax collections with it. Mr. Sanford and legislators said the state had to live within its means — just as a family would — rather than raising taxes. So they slashed the Highway Patrol, reduced the number of prison guards, laid off mental health workers and forced schools to cancel summer school and even cut back on teachers.

And then the economy rebounded, and tax collections are up enough that the state has a surplus — which simply means the state is collecting more money than economists had predicted, though still less per person than most states. Now our governor and lawmakers no longer find the family budget a convenient metaphor. Little wonder. It’s hard to imagine that a family that suddenly came into some money after years of privation would say, “Let’s give the money back to the boss.” A smart family would invest the money.

The governor says giving out some kind of tax rebate is the only way to stop the Legislature from spending surplus money on ongoing programs (which will cause financial problems in the future) or pet projects that are at best local responsibilities and at worst pure pork.

We don’t want to see lawmakers spending tax money so irresponsibly or wastefully either. But there is an alternative: Use surplus money to pay for one-time needs. Actual needs. Like more school buses. Or textbooks. Or highway repairs. Jasper Rep. Rubin Rivers told the House last week that he could just hear the response from his constituents if the gas gimmick passed: “You mean you've got $100 million lying around, and you're not fixing our roads?”

Granted, $100 million won’t make a huge dent in our state’s backlog of crumbling highways that need resurfacing or dangerous shoulders that need widening or bridges that need replacing. But whatever it could cover on that very long list would do more good for more people than putting an extra $2.50 a week in everybody’s pocket. For three months.

At least in theory, higher gasoline prices will eventually force us to change our driving habits — to drive less, carpool more, buy more efficient automobiles, slow down. And that will mean we’re doing a little less to prop up Middle Eastern despots.

Suspending South Carolina’s gas tax won’t have a huge effect on the global marketplace, or even on America’s addiction to oil. But investing in our infrastructure could nudge us in the direction of making our state safer and more attractive for ourselves and would-be investors. That’s what our governor and our Legislature should be doing with our tax money, instead of subsidizing gasoline consumption.

Gas tax proposal going nowhere fast with Senate opposition

2006-05-17T11:36:00.000-07:00

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Plans to eliminate the state's gasoline tax for three months this fall are running on empty in the Senate even though Gov. Mark Sanford tried to rally support for the idea Tuesday.

Even some who like the idea of eliminating the state's 16.8 cent-a-gallon tax don't want to do it between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31 because of the November elections.

"In Louisiana, we call that vote buying," said Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston and a New Orleans native.

"It's a political ploy to get votes out in November," said Sen. Jake Knotts, R-West Columbia.

Ford introduced a resolution that would have cut the tax from July through September and tried to get the Senate to put it on a fast track for passage.

But Senate Finance Committee Chairman Hugh Leatherman, R-Florence, objected. Leatherman says there's no guarantee the tax break would ever reach consumers.

It's a sentiment that Leatherman will carry into a budget conference committee that begins meeting Wednesday. The House passed a plan for the gas tax break in its final version of the budget last week. But Leatherman and at least one of the two other senators on that conference committee would have to agree to keep it in the state's $6.5 billion spending plan.

Supporters say growth in state revenue from a surging economy will pay for the break.

"The big spenders in the Senate can play with the numbers until they're blue in the face," Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer said. "The fact is this budget doesn't return any new dollars to the people of this state despite nearly a billion dollars in new revenue."

Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Greg Ryberg, R-Aiken, made his fortune selling gas through a convenience store chain. He said retailers can be trusted to pass on the savings.

"There's not going to be any adverse impact," said Ryberg, a candidate for state treasurer. "That's your friends back home, the retailer."

Ryberg was one of five Senators who showed up to support Sanford's plan to suspend the tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day, which would cut $134 million in tax revenue.

Senate Minority Leader John Land, D-Manning, says there is no guarantee that economic growth will make up the difference.

Land also doesn't like the idea of lifting the tax and then letting it fall back in place. That happened a few years ago with a temporary reduction in grocery sales taxes. That's "unfair to the taxpayer," he said.

Sen. David Thomas, R-Fountain Inn, is on the budget conference committee with Leatherman and Land and says there are other concerns. For instance, most of the gas tax goes into road projects and repaying bonds for that work.

The governor's spokesman said Sanford's proposal guarantees bonds will be paid by other sources, but bondholders could get jittery about those promises.

At the same time, reducing tax collections for a few months could become a factor in determining what the Department of Transportation can borrow for road projects in the future.

"The bond issue is a real serious problem," Thomas said.

Apart from those concerns, local governments get almost a quarter of the fuel excise tax - nearly 4 cents on the gallon, said Sen. Dick Elliott, R-North Myrtle Beach. Losing that would hurt those projects, he said.

Knotts agreed.

"We can barely find money now to repair our roads and bridges," Knotts said. "If we just set them back three months, we're going to have to make up for it later."

Sawyer says it's not a problem.

"The proposal we've laid out fully funds what would have been generated by the gas tax," he said. "Our proposal holds DOT and road funding harmless."

Board delays auction plans for Sullivans Island land

2006-05-17T11:34:00.000-07:00

COLUMBIA, S.C. - A planned auction of land on Sullivans Island pushed by Gov. Mark Sanford is on hold for a month.

The Budget and Control Board on Tuesday said it would delay action on the property the Town of Sullivans Island wants for its municipal operations.

Sanford chairs the board and lives on the island. He said he would continue to support auctioning the land to the highest bidder.

In 1949, the federal government gave the state the property for free. It had been used since 1915 as part of the Army's operations at Fort Moultrie. There are two pieces of property: a rundown dock with a dock house and a warehouse on a neighboring parcel of land........

Barrett on the President's speech

2006-05-16T06:17:00.000-07:00

Rep. Gresham Barrett (R.-S.C.)

“Troops on the border will immediately help stop the flow of illegal immigrants and most importantly, increase our national security. However, this is not a long-term solution. We should not rule out other solutions like those passed by the House in December, including the construction of a fence.

“The American people deserve to know their government is doing everything possible to secure the borders. All options should be on the table. I look forward to hearing what the President has to say this evening.”

South Carolina Governor: Sanford (R) With Solid Lead

2006-05-15T13:02:00.000-07:00

Sanford 52%
Moore 33%

Frist hints strongly at White House run

2006-03-31T07:17:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says his high-profile job is a "terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible" post for seeking the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

Making it clear that a White House bid is all but certain, Frist said that remaining in the Senate would make a presidential run impossible. Frist plans to step down when his second term ends this year.

"I know the perch not to even consider," he said. "That would be, for me, the United States Senate or being majority leader."

Asked if trying to run a campaign from such a position would be difficult, he replied: "Terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible."

One of possibly a dozen Republicans interested in the GOP nomination, Frist said late Tuesday that once out of the Senate, "you'll see, as you do now, the real Bill Frist, but unencumbered by having responsibilities of leading this body, which results in negotiated positions."

The most recent senator to succeed in his presidential bid was John F. Kennedy in 1960. Another Massachusetts senator, John Kerry, lost to President Bush in 2004, hampered in part by an extensive Senate voting record that opponents used against him.

In 1996, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas realized that trying to pursue the White House from the Senate's top job would be an obstacle. He resigned in June and lost to President Clinton five months later.

Frist, a heart surgeon, was the White House's choice for majority leader after the undoing of Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., whose favorable comments about Strom Thurmond's segregationist past cost him the post in 2002.

Before vaulting into his leadership post, Frist had gained notice as an expert on health care. He was widely credited for offering a reassuring and knowledgeable voice in 2001 when an anthrax-laced letter shut down Congress briefly and closed a Senate building for months of cleaning.

Political analyst Norm Ornstein called the majority leader job a "millstone" around Frist's neck.

"It was the biggest political mistake he made in terms of his political career," said Ornstein, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "Before that, Frist was beyond any doubt an enormous star in national politics."

Ornstein said as majority leader, Frist has had to carry water for an increasingly unpopular president and has had to keep other senators in line, a job former majority leader and fellow Tennessean Howard Baker once described as herding cats.

Frist said as soon as his term ends he will return to Nashville.

"I've got it planned out pretty well in terms of once I leave here. I'll go back and live in the house I grew up in," he said.

Re-establishing those roots could be helpful. Tennessee voters picked George Bush over native son Al Gore in 2000 partly because of concerns that Gore was out of touch. Had Gore carried his state, the presidency would have been his.

Frist has made the customary trips of a presidential candidate, traveling to early primary states New Hampshire and Iowa.

He further demonstrated his determination to be a contender earlier this month when he bused dozens of supporters to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Memphis and emerged as the winner of a straw poll of possible GOP candidates.

Frist still faces political obstacles and may have legal problems.

He is under investigation for possible insider trading after his sale last year of stock in the hospital chain HCA, which his family founded. Frist has said he did nothing wrong.

He acknowledged that he needs to improve his speaking skills, particularly for a campaign.

"I will have to really work hard on it," Frist said. "As a surgeon, I did my best work when people were sound asleep, cutting out their hearts, putting new hearts in.

"And now what I need to do, everybody says, is do your best work and not put people to sleep. That's what I'll work on."

Eliot Peace:Sizing up 08 SC prospects

2006-03-04T05:41:00.000-08:00

COLUMBIA, SC -- Why has Mitt Romney spent so much time in South Carolina recently? Perhaps his own words shed some light: "I don't think it's lost on anyone who is considering a national run that no Republican has been elected president that didn't win the South Carolina primary," said Romney.

Of course, Romney won't admit he's running for president, he's merely "keeping [his] options open." But, he continues, “to keep your options open, you have to get out and be seen and do some work for, particularly the early primary states."

Few who pay attention to the rumor mill in politics doubt that Romney will make an all-out effort to capture the Republican nomination in 2008. He has the national profile: CEO of the Salt Lake City Olympic Games; conservative Republican governor in the nation’s bluest state; and opponent of the Massachusetts same-sex ‘marriage’ debacle, his name is no stranger to the front pages of newspapers nationwide—by the way, on the judges who made the ‘marriage’ decision, he said, “I think they’re wrong.”

Governor Romney has ventured to the Palmetto State several times in the past year, most recently in late February for events in the top three most heavily Republican counties in the state. Townhall.com attended two of the three events and garnered some insight into his chances to capture the First in the South primary in 2008.

Romney, who identified himself as a nuanced pro-choicer in his Senate battle against über-liberal Ted Kennedy in 1996, is a changed man. “I’m pro-life,” he offers, “So, the issue is settled.” Skeptical pundits believe he might have flip-flopped on abortion with the gleam of a 2008 run in his eye and decided to reach out to the GOP base. Certainly, being pro-life is a pre-requisite for achieving victory in South Carolina these days.

Other pundits say that the GOP base, many of them evangelical Christians, might reject a Mormon candidate. However, Romney chalks those assertions up as total bunk. “Most people in South Carolina want a person of faith as their leader. But they don’t care what brand of faith that is,” he said. Surprisingly, he may be onto something.

Dr. Bob Taylor is a dean at Bob Jones University, an evangelical school in Greenville, and generally the political thermometer for the most faithful of South Carolina voters. Political types close to Taylor quote him as not viewing Romney's religion as a crippling issue. As long as Romney maintains his faithfulness to conservative principles, the faithful will accept him.

In one of his speeches, Romney identified three potential problems facing America today: fiscal, military and economic.

On the fiscal front, he identified the challenges, including out of control spending. “We’re spending too much and we’re borrowing too much; it can’t keep on going like this,” the governor said. The budget is too large, government is too irresponsible,” he said.

Spending too much on entitlements threatens the defense budget, which leads right into his second front, the military. While the world is under attack by extremist Muslim terrorists, only one power keeps a radical caliphate from controlling the entire Middle East: the United States. Thus, the American president and the military must ensure that that doesn’t happen.

Leading into his final front, Romney said, “We want to make sure that this country always remains the superpower economically and militarily on this planet. And you can't be a tier one military and a tier two economy." Though the economy is growing so well, he said, we’re losing a lot of high-tech jobs to Asia. Asian high-tech workers are cheaper, say several business executives, and Asia has more ‘knowledge workers.’ China and India have more engineers than the U.S. “Nothing is more vulnerable than entrenched success…let’s avoid becoming the France of the 21st century,” Romney said.

Romney is serious about reforming immigration. However, his focus is not on keeping people out, but keeping them in. Government policies that keep the southern border open to illegal aliens, but keep other borders “absolutely sealed against those people who are the best and brightest in the world,” are ridiculous. He cited stories of PhD candidates receiving fast-track visas to study at his home state MIT but then being forced to return to their native lands upon graduation, taking their knowledge and skills with them. He wants to help them invest their intellectual capital in American industries and American technologies—not China’s.

Romney also offered solutions. First, we must raise the bar in education, especially by increasing funding for science and math. Second, he wants to invest billions more in technology—healthcare, fuel, and power technology. Third, take the burdens off workers and businesses by passing tort reform. Finally, large government overwhelms the playing field and makes it difficult for private enterprises to compete, so shrink it.

One year ago, Romney spoke at another fundraiser in South Carolina. At that time, he was an outsider with little chance of appealing to voters. How much can a year change political realities? This time around, political operatives from around the state were scrambling to meet with him and his staff. Knowledgeable political types whisper that he may have some real traction in South Carolina in 2008.

Scott Malyerck, Executive Director of the South Carolina Republican Party, believes South Carolina voters have been thoroughly impressed with Romney. “His remarks have been well-received by both moderate and conservative Republicans,” said Malyerck in an interview with Townhall.com.

Continuing, Malyerck said, “I think Mitt Romney understands that if he decides to run for president, he will spend many weeks talking to South Carolinians about the future of our country and the challenges that lie ahead. So far, Republicans seem to be impressed with him, like his enthusiasm, and enjoy hearing what he has to say. I suspect we will be seeing a lot of Governor Romney in the future.”

Make no mistake: Romney’s running for president. And there’s no better place to start earning legitimacy than South Carolina.

Thurmond to seek political office

2006-03-04T05:39:00.000-08:00

CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) - The youngest son of the late U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond says he will seek the Republican nomination for a seat on the Charleston County Council.

The 30-year-old Paul Thurmond is the first of his father's five children to seek public office. Paul's brother, Strom Jr., was appointed U.S. attorney for South Carolina but resigned the post
about two years ago.

Paul Thurmond left the Charleston County prosecutor's office for private practice last fall. He downplayed any notions he might seek
higher office in the future.

The seat Thurmond is seeking is held by council chairman Leon Stavrinakis, a Democrat whose term expires in December.

South Carolina 2008:Romney heads South

2006-03-02T07:29:00.000-08:00

This is my report from the Greenville County convention of two weeks ago.
2008 is already here. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney spoke at the Greenville County South Carolina GOP convention today. He was articulate and personable and was received very well, even by the most conservative of attendees. The result of this appearance cemented in my mind that Romney will not only be competitive but a force in 2008.
Let's take a look at 2008. Here is the breakdown of all the factions in the GOP primary electorate and the pieces of the pie.

Bush Wing 30% of the Party

Center Right, Moderate Conservative including Conservative "pragmatics" or "realists." This wing contains those that care deeply about politics and polls and base many of their actions on the next election. This wing also contains those that are totally apathetic. They will vote but the package will be more important than ideology. This wing also includes Evangelical Christians who care deeply about social issues but could care less about the size of government.

Reagan Wing 25% of the Party

True die hard conservatives who believe in traditional values, limited govenment and strong national defense. Almost all of the "Christian Right" would be in the Reagan Wing. Doesn't like politics for politic's sake but feels called to get involved, these are purists.

Rockefeller Wing 25% of the Party

Believe in liberal social policies and corporate welfare for big business. They believe in Big Government and quasi-elitist oligarchy.

Buchanan/Taft Wing 10% of the Party

America first, Protectionists, Isolationists, and strongly anti-illegal immigrant and sometimes legal immigrant.

Goldwater Wing 10% of the Party

Die hard conservatives, libertarian leaning, not in Reagan wing because of mistrust of "Christian Right."

With the primary getting started earlier than ever before, John McCain is the clear frontrunner. McCain has been mending old wounds from his go around in 2000 so well that many are worried and have already started "A Stop McCain Movement." The appointed candidate to stop McCain is Senator George Allen of Virginia who is also doing well in early committments and support. I have to wonder how Allen can be the "anti-McCain" for conservatives when indeed Sen. Allen is to the left of McCain on three big 2008 issues. The Medicare bill, No Child Left Behind, and the Right to Life.

Senator Allen also has huge Romney problems. There can also be no doubt watching Allen and Romney speak that if Romney was a Presbyterian from Virginia he would be President right now and if Allen was a Mormon from Massachusetts he would be back in Boston practicing law. Romney has the "package" that Allen lacks. Mitt Romney will hurt Allen.

But McCain also has problems of his own, mainly Rudy Guiliani.

Both Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee will put together great organizations but both of their positions on immigration make them persona nongrata, or unelectable to thirty percent of the electorate right off the bat. I doubt that either of them connects with "small government conservatives" but they will get support from liberal to moderate Christians.

With Huckabee, McCain, Romney and Allen already running around South Carolina, things in 2008 could get interesting. In the end, from Upstate to Low Country I see Guiliani and McCain splitting the Rockefeller wing with some small scraps going to Romney. Senator Bill Frist, Allen, Huckabee, Brownback, and Romney will all compete to the death for the Bush Wing. In the end, Allen will get a "plurality of Bushies" but not enough to carry South Carolina. Senator McCain will pick up a third to a half of the Goldwater wing but his real test will be to see if he can pick up any in the Bush wing.

Congressman Tom Tancredo will win the Paleo wing and "in South Carolina the protectionist wing will go with Allen."

What does that leave????

The Reagan Wing

I do not think anybody already listed can win the Reagan wing. The conservatives in the Reagan wing are done compromising and want a real conservative. The last ten years have been very disappointing for the Reaganites.

Who will they go for???

Speaker Newt Gingrich?

No

Christian Reaganites will remember Newt's infidelity and limited government Reaganites will remember his support for the Medicare bill and his caving on the budget as speaker. If the Speaker runs he will have to compete for votes among the Bush wing further hurting Allen and splitting up the vote.

I feel like the only candidate that can get the Reagan wing to vote in bloc and pick up the Goldwater wing is Indiana Congressman Mike Pence. He isn't well known, but either is Allen or Romney. Pence has what they lack: true Conservatism that will appeal to both fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. Pence already has support Upstate and I'm sure his message will resonate throughout all of South Carolina.

Pence has everything it takes to win the GOP primary. He can communicate, is telegenic, and those who have been paying attention already know he can lead. From what I hear, he gave an amazing speech at the Club For Growth's winter conference in Aventura, FL yesterday. He fires up the base like nobody else. When Reaganites find out about him they will fall in love with him.

Romney will do better than expected in 2008, but Pence will blow the roof off. The only question is, "When is Mr. Pence coming to South Carolina?"

Sanford a free agent in 08?

2006-02-24T13:46:00.000-08:00

Posted at 08:04 AM ET, 02/23/2006
S.C. Primary Watch: Sanford a Free Agent in '08

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Gov. Mark Sanford (R) made clear
Wednesday in an interview in his statehouse office
that he is a free agent when it comes to the 2008
Republican primaries.

That news may come as something of a surprise to
supporters of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), whom Sanford
backed in South Carolina's 2000 primary. But the
Palmetto State governor insists his decision (or, more
accurately, indecision) is not meant as a "slap" at
McCain but rather part of a concerted effort on his
part to find the candidate in the field truly
dedicated to fiscal conservatism.

"I am not committed at this point," said Sanford, who
acknowledged that "a long list of characters"
considering the 2008 race have reached out to him. "I
am really going to look very hard at somebody who will
espouse that notion of fiscal discipline and financial
stewardship. That would be at the top of my list."

Sanford said he has every intention to pick a
candidate in the '08 field at some point. "I'm gonna
get involved," he said. "I am in the process of
governance because it gives you leverage in terms of
trying to push for the ideas you believe in. One of
the biggest debates on ideas and where they go next is
obviously the presidency."

Assuming he is reelected to a second term this
November, Sanford will emerge as one of the two most
important GOP political powerbrokers in the state not
aligned with a 2008 candidate. Sen. Lindsey Graham is
backing McCain. The other uncommitted lawmaker in a
statewide post is Sen. Jim DeMint. (Rep. Joe Wilson is
with Sen. George Allen (Va.)

Don't expect a Sanford endorsement the day after the
November election. He said he wants "to take a
complete inventory of who best matches up with where
I'm coming from" before declaring support for a 2008
candidate.

For more on The Fix's interview with Sanford --
including his 2006 reelection prospects -- check this
space next week.

Sanford update from Bill Westmiller

2006-02-24T13:43:00.000-08:00

Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Dear Friend,
We are in the middle of a battle â€“ right now â€“ over how your taxpayer
dollars will be spent this coming year. The tide in that battle is starting to
turn in our direction, but we need your help.

In our Executive Budget, we outlined very specific budget goals â€“ fully
funding core government services like education, healthcare and public safety;
paying off deficits and borrowings from prior years; capping overall government
spending at the rate of inflation plus population growth; and then returning
to taxpayers all of the surplus revenues that have been pouring into state
coffers by the hundreds of millions as our economy continues to improve.
Based on the current revenue forecast by the state Board of Economic
Advisors, we could meet our budget goals and still return $400 to each taxpaying
family. And the availability of that dividend will likely increase next month
when the BEA issues its updated revenue forecast.

However, some powerful members of the House Ways & Means Committee â€“ the
committee that puts together the budget â€“ have said they will not pay back all
the money borrowed from prior years or return any of the surplus revenues to
taxpayers. Instead, they have said they will spend every last dollar on
government programs â€“ which would mean yet another double-digit percentage increase
in government spending.

Fortunately, as stated in two stories published today in The Spartanburg
Herald-Journal and by the Associated Press â€“ printed below â€“ powerful leaders
in the House are standing with us this year on holding the line on spending,
paying off deficits and borrowings from prior years, and returning the surplus
revenues to the taxpayers:

Â· Rep. Jim Harrison, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, says that â€œ
we have a unique opportunity not to repeat the mistake that has been made over
and over in the past â€“ spending every dollar that comes in to state
government.â€

Â· House Speaker Pro Tem Doug Smith echoes that, saying that this could be
the year that we succeed in â€œcontrolling the growth of government spending.â€

Â· Rep. Harry Cato, Chairman of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry
Committee, says that â€œwe can use this year to set a new precedent for running
government more like a business in terms of our spending practices.â€
These House leaders â€“ true conservatives who believe in limited government â€“
have taken a stand with us, as have many other House members. I urge you to
contact your House representative â€“ by telephone, email, letter, or in
person, and as soon as possible â€“ to let them know that you expect them to join
them and us in taking this stand. The contact information for your House member
is online at www.scstatehouse.net and then click â€œHouseâ€ and â€œEmail Address.
â€

Thanks for your help in this very important matter. If you make your voice
heard â€“ now â€“ we have a real chance this year to adopt a truly conservative
budget, to avoid wasteful spending on legislatorsâ€™ pet projects, and to return
the surplus revenues to the rightful owners â€“ you, the taxpayers.
Mark
************************************************************************
PUBLISHED BY THE SPARTANBURG HERALD-JOURNAL
Thursday, February 23, 2006
House debates use of budget windfall
ROBERT DALTON Staff Writer
COLUMBIA -- State Rep. Annette Young says the best thing the House can do
with $547 million in new money expected to come into South Carolina next year
is spend it.

Spend it all. Spend it like there's no tomorrow.
"Should we just give it to the Senate to spend?" said Young, R-Summerville,
a member of the House budget writing committee. "That would be irresponsible.
I'm in favor of spending limits, but until we get that bill passed and get
it through the Senate, we have to spend the money."

The problem with that, said Rep. Scott Talley, is that there is a tomorrow.
And he doesn't want it to resemble the yesterdays that came after Sept. 11,
2001, when an economic downturn forced the Legislature to slash budgets and
raid trust funds.

The differing philosophies on how to handle all that cash have caused a rift
in the usually chummy House Republican Caucus.
Some members side with Young, saying that some agencies are still playing
catch-up from the belt-tightening days.

Others agree with Talley and say the House has an opportunity to practice
what it started preaching at the beginning of the session.
When the majority caucus announced its agenda in early January, limiting the
growth of government spending was No. 5 with a bullet.
When the House passed its version of a property tax relief bill earlier this
month, it included an amendment to limit the growth of government spending.
And a bill pending in the House that would cap growth has more than 90
sponsors.

That's why Talley scratches his head when he looks at the budget that the
Ways & Means Committee is putting together. As it's currently written, the $6.5
billion spending plan that takes affect July 1 increases spending by 10.75
percent over the current budget. Spending limit proponents would like to see
growth of about 5 percent.

Talley, R-Moore, said it's time for House members to put their money where
their mouths are.
"The people back home are tired of out-of-control spending," Talley said.
"With the surplus that we have, we have the opportunity to set aside some money
and plan for the future.

"That's the way families do it. That's the way businesses do it. But I guess
some people don't think those rules apply to us."
House Speaker Pro Tem Doug Smith has for years advocated for spending
limits. It was his amendment â€“ limiting spending increases to population growth
plus the consumer price index â€“ that was attached to the property tax relief
bill.

Still, Smith said he understands the budget writers' predicament.
"There's a reason why this is happening, and that is because we have to
start the budget process," said Smith, R-Spartanburg. "More money is projected to
come in and it starts a spending frenzy."

Smith said he's confident that the House leadership will honor the spending
limitation that it passed.
To do so, Ways & Means Chairman Rep. Dan Cooper said, will require some
tough choices.

The working version of the budget includes $51 million to give state
employees an across-the-board 3-percent pay increase. It also includes $26 million
for new school buses and $26.7 million to help pay for fuel to run those buses.
"We can certainly (adhere to the spending limitations) if that's what the
House chooses to do," said Cooper, R-Piedmont, who is in his first year as Ways
& Means chairman. "But we'll have to decide what we're not going to fund.
Are we not going to buy school buses, or fund Medicaid?"

Gov. Mark Sanford, not surprisingly, sided with those who want to put away
some money for the inevitable rainy day. He said it's still early in the
process, but that he's concerned that some representatives are "headed in the
wrong direction when it comes to keeping an eye on the taxpayers."
"The good news is that this year there are also a number of people in the
House who are committed to the idea of limiting government growth and restoring
trust and reserve funds, and I will continue to work with these like-minded
people to stop this spending train early before it gets too far down the
tracks and hopefully send a dividend back to the taxpayers in the process,"
Sanford said.

Sen. John Hawkins, R-Spartanburg, said that there is a strong movement in
the Senate to cap spending as well. But he conceded that there would be
pressure to spend the money.

Hawkins said House members should be guided by their conscience, not by what
they believe will happen in the Senate.

"The House ought to do what it thinks is the right thing to do regardless of
what it thinks we're going to do," he said.
************************************************************************
PUBLISHED BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Sanford, legislative leaders try to pressure budget writers
JIM DAVENPORT Associated Press
COLUMBIA, S.C. - House budget writers who rushed to spend all that extra
cash the growing economy is delivering have run headlong into opposition from
Gov. Mark Sanford and three top House leaders.
Those challenges could delay work on the $6.5 billion budget until next
week, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Cooper said.
Sanford "basically wants us to adopt his budget," a frustrated Cooper said
Wednesday.
The budget committee, helped by having $500 million more to spend than
expected, has followed many of the governor's budget recommendations this year as
it works on the spending plan.
But Sanford doesn't think the House committee has cooperated enough.
For instance, Sanford wanted $173 million set aside to repay money raided
from a state reserve and trust accounts as legislators struggled to balance
budgets between 2000 and 2004. But the House budget committee socked away just
$66 million for that.
"It's debatable what's a trust fund and what's not," Cooper said.
In a prepared statement, Sanford said, "I think some in the House are headed
in the wrong direction when it comes to keeping an eye on the taxpayers."
Sanford said there also were House member committed to limiting government
and restoring the trust and reserve funds. "I will continue to work with these
like-minded people to stop this spending train early before it gets too far
down the tracks and hopefully send a dividend back to the taxpayers in the
process," the governor said.
Last week, Sanford said he wanted $388 million earmarked for a tax rebate
for state residents that would give about $400 to each South Carolina
household. That plan isn't in the proposal the Ways and Means Committee is mulling.
Sanford wants the state's budget to be no more than $5.9 billion this year
after paying off trust accounts and giving the rebate. That would be an
increase of just over 5 percent from the last budget. But the spending plan being
debated could be anywhere from a 10 percent to a 16 percent increase from last
year, according to different estimates.
Sanford is siding with several leaders that made unsuccessful runs for House
Speaker against Rep. Bobby Harrell last year. House Speaker Pro Tem Doug
Smith, R-Spartanburg; House Judiciary Chairman Jim Harrison, R-Columbia, and
House Labor, Commerce and Industry Chairman Harry Cato still have enough clout
to force changes on the budget now or when it gets to the House floor in about
three weeks.
In the news release, Cato praised Sanford as a "watchdog for the taxpayer"
and said there is "absolutely no reason to not repay all of our trust and
reserve funds this year."
Harrell noticed his three former opponents on the news release and pointed
out all had sought special spending projects in the budget.
Harrison told a reporter later that there's no intent to sabotage the budget
committee's work.
"It's obvious from our discussions and the (Republican) Caucus discussions
that there are some concerns" that the state's budget is increasing yearly,
Harrison said. "We've got to have some spending limitations and those
discussions need to be had."
The episode shows a disconnect between the governor and Cooper - the
legislator with the clearest shot at helping Sanford get his proposals into the
budget bill.
Cooper said he was surprised about Sanford's problems with the budget
because the two hadn't talked about the budget since earlier this year. "We haven't
even adopted dollars yet and he's thrown a grenade at us," Cooper said.
Sawyer said Cooper was, at a minimum, briefed with other House leaders when
he released his executive budget in early January.
"If Chairman Cooper ever has any question on where the governor is on state
finances, all he has to is open a copy of the executive budget or give us a
call," Sawyer said.
Harrell also wasn't happy with the governor's office sending out the news
release in the middle of the Ways and Means Committee meeting. "It was a pretty
sneaky way of doing a press release," said Harrell, who added the move
lacked "common courtesy."
The episode "is not productive at all," Harrell said. "I think it would have
made a lot more sense to call up the chairman of House Ways and Means."

GOP White House hopefuls storming South Carolina

2006-02-16T12:33:00.000-08:00

GOP White House hopefuls storming South Carolina
By Peter Savodnik
thehill.com

Republican presidential politics is hitting South Carolina much earlier this cycle than it did last time around, with possible contenders already canvassing GOP strongholds, attending fundraisers and organizing networks of paid staff and volunteers.

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts have been the most aggressive, said GOP consultant Terry Sullivan, who engineered Republican Jim DeMint’s successful 2004 Senate campaign in the state.

Sen. George Allen (Va.) and Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas have also visited the state many times, although Allen must now concentrate on his 2006 reelection, GOP officials added. James Webb, secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan, recently announced he would run as a Democrat against Allen, who is seeking a second term.

“The presidential welcome mat is out,” South Carolina GOP Chairman Katon Dawson said, noting that the fact that the race for the White House is wide open has generated a great deal of early buzz.

Back in 1998, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush waited until the midterm elections to take his first campaign trip to South Carolina, Dawson and other South Carolina Republicans said.

Now, with nine months to go before the midterms, Romney and Huckabee are already hitting GOP events in the Republican strongholds of Spartanburg and Greenville counties, and McCain and Allen are working behind the scenes to build support.

Romney, in particular, party officials and consultants said, has aggressively courted grassroots activists. One Republican operative attributed this to Romney’s concern that he has yet to overcome “the Massachusetts factor” and Southerners’ distaste for Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.).

“Not that we’re leery of them,” he said of Massachusetts candidates, “but we are.”

Romney has also ramped up his involvement in local elections, Dawson and Sullivan said.

In 2004, Sullivan said, Romney gave between $40,000 and $50,000 to Republicans running for the state House and in other races in South Carolina.

This year, Sullivan said, “he’s turned around and given money to the party … and they’re looking for a full-time person down here just to hand out checks.”

There will be plenty of opportunity in 2006 for Romney, or anyone else for that matter, to contribute to Republican candidates — and, presumably, pay for their support in the upcoming presidential primary.

Many seats are up for election in the state House of Representatives, although Republicans enjoy a supermajority in that legislative body. And Republicans have mounted competitive bids to knock off the two Democrats who hold statewide office.

Also, the entire GOP establishment, including Gov. Mark Sanford and Sens. Lindsey Graham and DeMint, have rallied around Republican state Sen. Ralph Norman’s bid to unseat Rep. John Spratt (D) in the 5th District.

PACs run by Romney and by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) have contributed to the Norman campaign. Allen is scheduled to attend a Norman event in March while Huckabee is planning to attend an event in 5th District for the local Republican committee.

Norman’s campaign manager, Nathan Hollifield, said, “We’re very lucky to be running in a year that these types of folks are willing to come down and help a conservative Republican get elected.”

Hollifield said he would welcome it if Spratt started stumping with Democratic Party leaders in the mostly rural district, stretching from the north-central part of the state to Sumter and Florence to the south and east.

“I would love for him to bring down Nancy Pelosi [D-Calif.] and Howard Dean,” Hollifield said, referring to the House minority leader and the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. “I’d even be willing to pay.”

Romney and McCain have also sought to secure some of the state’s most prized political talent. Both campaigns have approached Sullivan and his partners, Warren Tompkins and Heath Thompson, about working for them.

Sullivan declined to comment on job proposals, but he did say that Tompkins Thompson & Sullivan, headquartered in the state capital, Columbia, would be signing up with a campaign at some point down the road.

McCain has avoided high-profile events but has tapped into Graham’s network of supporters as he begins to assemble his 2008 campaign, the Republican operative said.

The senator backed McCain in 2000, against George W. Bush, and has said he would do so again in 2008, should McCain, 69, run again.

Richard Quinn, who worked for McCain’s campaign in 2000 and serves as Graham’s pollster and consultant, is helping McCain reach out to state Republican lawmakers, the operative added.

The one possible presidential contender who has not been seen much on the campaign trail is former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, GOP officials said. In the past six months, Giuliani has visited South Carolina once, said his spokeswoman, Sunny Mindel. Other than seven visits to Florida in that period, Giuliani largely appears to have steered clear of the South.

Arkansas Governor coming to South Carolina

2006-02-07T17:10:00.000-08:00

ROCK HILL, S.C. - Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee will speak at York County's Republican convention next month.

He is among several possible presidential contenders who have visited or are planning trips to South Carolina.

The Palmetto State's 2008 GOP primary is the first in the South. In 2000, the state was crucial to the campaign of then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush.
Karen Kedrowski, chairwoman of Winthrop University's political science department and an expert on the role of the mass media in politics, said Huckabee's conservative credentials will play well in York County. Huckabee ran the Arkansas Baptist State Convention for three years before terms as lieutenant governor and governor.

"There is no doubt Huckabee is looking to make friends in South Carolina," Kedrowski said. "York County is a natural. He will be fishing for votes."
Other Republicans fishing for votes at the March 2 convention will include Gov. Mark Sanford and Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer who are running for re-election this year.

emails capture uncertainty of the majority leader race

2006-02-07T17:09:00.000-08:00

E-mails capture drama, uncertainty of the race
By Jonathan E. Kaplan

From inside the Cannon Caucus Room on Thursday, House Republican lawmakers and aides traded scores of e-mails with colleagues, lobbyists and allies while electing Rep. John Boehner as their new majority leader and Rep. Adam Putnam as policy chairman.

Boehner (R-Ohio) was the victor in a hard-fought contest against then-acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.).

More than a half-dozen staffers and lobbyists shared e-mails with The Hill that were sent and received that day on the condition that the senders and the receivers remain anonymous. The messages include the time they were sent and the content.

Limited changes to punctuation were made for the sake of clarity. Any information added to the e-mails appears in brackets. Additional reporting is italicized.

12:14 p.m.: Prayer by [GOP Conference Vice Chairman Jack] Kingston [R-Ga.]. Pledge, and now election for leader.

12:23: Subject: Blunt’s speakers

[Rep. Kay] Granger [R-Texas] led off, [Rep. Charlie] Norwood [R-Ga.] second, [Rep. Dave] Camp [R-Mich.] third.

12:25: Subject: [Ways and Means Chairman] Bill Thomas [R-Calif.] leads for Boehner.

12:26: Subject: Blunt’s speakers

Theme was not inspiring. The old “can’t change horses” in midstream [referring to Granger’s speech].

12:29: Boehner’s seconders: [Rep. Steve] Buyer [R-Ind.], [Rep.] Gresham Barrett [R-S.C.].

12:34: BTW, this place is FULL. Standing members.

12:34: [Rep. Mark] Souder [R-Ind.] is shredding Blunt and [the] establishment in Shadegg nomination speech.

12:40: Just started leader voting.

12:43: Voting for leader.

12:56: Still counting.

1:01: Holy S**T more ballots cast than were members. Re-voting now.

1:01: Re-vote!!!! More ballots than Members!!!!!!!!!!!

1:13: They are now saying it may have been a clerical error. No word on whether the first ballot is voided. We are in for a wild one.

1:14: [GOP Conference Chairwoman Deborah] Pryce [R-Ohio] now saying there was a clerical error. Just said [she is] now trying to figure [out] which ballots to use.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) tells reporters that the vote of Resident Commissioner Luis Fortuño [R-Puerto Rico] was not counted.

1:17: Pryce using a floor-voting list that did not have Luis Fortuno on it, which may be the problem. No word yet on which ballots they are using.

1:18 PM: Chairman Pryce has ruled first ballot valid, and members seem to agree.

1:19: Now entertaining parliamentary questions.

1:20: It was just announced that no one voted twice.

1:23: First ballot. The original one: Blunt 110, Boehner 79, Shadegg 40, [Rep. Jim] Ryun [R-Kan.] 2.

1:25: Shadegg just asked to drop out of second ballot. Here we go. …

1:26: Maj. Leader Results: Jim Ryun’s name is being dropped off. This is weird. So top 3 stay in. 231 voting. As long as we have write-ins we can be here awhile. Shadegg has just asked for his name to be dropped off. Standing ovation. We go to round two.

1:28 : High drama and grace: Shadegg just withdrew.

At 1:30, Sean Spicer, press secretary for Pryce, shares results of the first ballot with reporters.

1:32 : Collecting second ballot now.

1:33: Ryun and Shadegg ask for unanimous consent to drop out.

1:39: More impatience: still counting, both camps look tense.

1:40: Subject: FW: Leadership update

Analysis of 1st vote: As Ryun was a public supporter of Shadegg, this may have been a move to break up 2nd ballot commitments. This may free up votes to move to Shadegg to the next round and try to survive over Boehner. Unlikely, but possible. All of this is bad news for Blunt. Odds are strongly against him winning.

At 1:41, Spicer reemerged from the room to confirm that Fortuno’s vote was not counted and that Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.) was absent. At 1:46, an aide to Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) handed her an extra-large iced tea in a Styrofoam cup.

1:49: Second ballot: Blunt 109, Boehner 122

1:49:58 : Boehner wins.

1:50 PM:Boehner wins with 122!!!!!!!

1:56: Looks like we are on to policy.

2:01: Boehner gave impassioned speech for unity and such (in the room, after winning).

2:24: Counting first-ballot policy chair votes.

2:28 : Blunt getting up to speak.

2:32: Blunt just got up to give heartfelt “thanks,” and I-look-forward-to-working-with-John Boehner-speech while they tally votes.

2:35: Subj: My thoughts

Roy got as far as he could with inside votes and vote counting. Then he did the classic fourth-quarter basketball stall protecting his lead rather than charging after the undeclared and second ballot what-ifs. Meanwhile, Boehner and Shadegg worked the outside D.C. game of conservative groups and editorial pages. Roy did not engage in this tactic as he regarded the election as a members-of-Congress-only affair. As talking heads started pontificating about need for reform, Roy was seen as Mr. Status Quo, Shadegg as darling of reform, and Boehner as the acceptable guy in between.

At 3:15 p.m., Putnam (R-Fla.) fended off three GOP lawmakers to become the new policy chairman and, shortly after Spicer announced those results, the new GOP leadership team spoke to reporters.

Looking to the Palmetto State

2006-02-07T17:05:00.000-08:00

February 2 '06
By Thomas F. Schaller
Published: Thursday, February 2, 2006 9:26 AM EST
E-mail this story | Print this page

Two years from now, Democratic and Republican presidential aspirants will be scrambling across South Carolina attempting to win their party's 2008 presidential nomination.

Virginians could have a special interest in the Palmetto State's early primary, which may be the proving ground - or graveyard - for two of the state's former governors, Republican George Allen and Democrat Mark Warner. Both men are viewed by an increasing number of political insiders as their party's alternative to the putative frontrunners, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his New York counterpart, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

In my next commentary, I'll discuss Warner's chances in South Carolina in 2008. For now, let's look at whether McCain might be tripped up there again, and what that may mean for Allen's presidential aspirations.

Six years ago this month, McCain was riding high in his "Straight Talk Express" on the heady fumes of a 14-point victory over Texas Gov. George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary. War hero and avuncular maverick, McCain was the media's darling. He was raising gobs of money on the Internet. He had independents and many moderate Democrats giggling like teenage girls at a Jake Gyllenhaal film fest.

He had the "Big Mo."

But when McCain's bus reached South Carolina, there might as well have been road spikes out in front of Pedro's famed "South of the Border" I-95 tourist trap. The GOP's fundamentalist Christian base, with the help of some nasty push-polling, dismantled the bus' engine, removed its tires and put it up on blocks.

Since that time, McCain and Bush have reportedly repaired their relationship, a feat achieved in large part thanks to the Endorser in Chief role McCain assumed during the president's 2004 re-election. Given what the Bush gang did to him in 2000 - whether those phone calls are traceable or not, it's obvious who had the motive - it is sadly curious how quickly the straight-talking McCain transformed from a useful accomplice to an accomplished user.

During a recent visit to Greenville and Spartanburg - two upcountry South Carolina cities in the heart of Bush country - McCain assured locals that Bush went to war based an "over-abundance" of intelligence. Over-abundance? If that's straight-talk, James Frey's "A Million Little Pieces" is a documentary.

McCain did criticize his party for its profligate spending. But he pointed that finger at congressional Republicans rather than at a president who has raised the debt ceiling more times (three) than he's vetoed spending bills (zero). It's unclear from reports whether McCain expressed any public disgust with the White House's torture and wiretapping policies.

McCain's biggest state ally is fellow Sen. Lindsey Graham, who endorsed McCain four years ago and no doubt will again. Graham, along with Gov. Mark Sanford and consultant Richard Quinn, are key figures in the "independent" wing of the South Carolina Republican party.

But the "establishment" wing - headed by newly elected Sen. Jim DeMint and Warren Tompkins, a Bush adviser and former aide to the late Gov. Carroll Campbell - may again determine McCain's fate.

But according to Rod Shealy, a top political GOP operative in the state, McCain cannot count on their support. "He's suspect among the more conservative elements, and appears to be working hard to erase those suspicions," Shealy told me. "But the Bush wing will definitely NOT line up behind him, having more to do with local personalities than McCain himself."

Still, Shealy regards McCain as the front-runner, and stresses that the Bush campaign's decision in 2000 to circumvent state spending limits by forgoing the federal matching fund program was a major factor.

Which brings us to Allen, the junior senator from Virginia whom many insiders view as a potential McCain-slayer.

Allen is young, sharp, southern and doesn't speak "senatorese." But to stop McCain, he will need to apply the Bush formula: Cultivate the idea among the base that McCain is illegitimate; assuage the fears of establishment Republicans that McCain is the party's only hope of holding on to the White House; and raise enough money to be able to spend at will during the primaries.

I have a real hard time seeing Allen stoping McCain.McCain is more conservative than Allen.We need a MIke Pence or Tom Coburn to stop McCain.

Sanford in the news

2006-02-04T06:24:00.000-08:00

As The Campaign starts to get closer, it is time for all South carolina Republicans to start paying attention and supporting the Governor in his conservative legislative priorities

Candidates blast Sanford's Medicaid proposal
The State - Columbia,SC,USA
... state's cigarette tax and replace Republican Gov. Mark Sanford. The two
Democrats - state Sen. Tommy Moore and Florence Mayor Frank ...
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/13758296.htm

Bill limiting local government billboard zoning back in Senate
WIS - Columbia,SC,USA
... public roads. The bill now goes back to the Senate. If approved, it
could be on Governor Mark Sanford's desk within a few weeks.
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4443156

A QUICK SPIN AROUND THE STATE HOUSE
The State - Columbia,SC,USA
... Lawmakers, of course, went hog-wild in 2004 when Gov. Mark Sanford
brought two pigs to the House chambers in the waning days of the session. ...
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/13760985.htm

South Carolina
Myrtle Beach Sun News - Myrtle Beach,SC,USA
... If the Senate accepts the final House version of the legislation, it
could be on Gov. Mark Sanford's desk within a couple of weeks. ...
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/13771462.htm

USC asks state to restore millions
The State - Columbia,SC,USA
... that Gov. Mark Sanford wants to cut, and to add $6 million to recruit
professors and conduct research on the Congaree River. The ...
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/13770302.htm

Fiscal House in Order

2006-02-02T13:37:00.000-08:00

This Article talks about the culmination of Operation offset which was the deficit reduction Act.This is the first step unto a long road to getting our fiscal house in order.We are luck to have true reformers like GOV Mark Sanford,Senators JIm Demint and Lindsey Graham as ell as my hero Gresham Barrett.

Sanford announced Thursday that health savings accounts for Medicaid patients should be in place by next January.
Sanford told a news conference in Charleston that the budget reconciliation bill passed Wednesday by Congress will allow South Carolina to implement his Medicaid reform proposal, South Carolina Healthy Connections. Gov. Sanford has asked that the S.C. Department of Health and Human Services move forward with implementing the majority of the plan, which could be in place as early as January, 2007.

The budget reconciliation bill also contained a provision to allow 10 states to implement South Carolina's proposal to start a health savings account pilot program for Medicaid recipients. Gov. Sanford said South Carolina will seek approval to become one of those states.

Because Congress has approved the language, no waiver from the federal government is needed.

Sanford said the idea is to give patients more of a stake in maintaining good health. The proposal is expected to save the state about $300 million a year by slowing growth in costs.

US Senators Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham and US Rep. Gresham Barrett applauded the passage of the reconciliation bill and its implications for improving healthcare outcomes in South Carolina.

The proposal has been criticized by advocates for the poor and disabled.

RALPH NORMAN

2006-02-01T16:44:00.000-08:00

In South Carolina’s 5th, GOP challenger Ralph Norman, a successful local businessman, is off to a strong start in his bid to unseat Rep. John Spratt (D), who is serving his 12th term. Spratt has been a longtime target of South Carolina Republicans who now dominate politics in the state.

His candidacy, not long out of the gates, Norman nevertheless finished the year with $345,000 on hand, all of which was raised in the fourth quarter.

Spratt, the ranking member of the powerful Budget Committee, is sitting on an even bigger pile of cash. His campaign has $736,272, after raising just a shade under $210,000 in the fourth quarter. An aide in Spratt’s office also downplayed Norman’s totals, noting that $148,000 of his final tally came from House leadership PACs.

But Nathan Hollifield, Norman’s campaign manager, noted that the majority of money raised has come from within the district.

Election 2008

2006-01-30T07:18:00.000-08:00

MIKE PENCE : CONSERVATIVE OF THE YEAR

With this year coming to a close, many conservatives have thought to themselves about the state of the conservative movement. Where have the ideas and principles of Ronald Reagan, which once were the inspiration that strengthened our party and our nation, gone? Why has our ruling majority succumbed to Big Government Republicanism? Who will carry the Reagan mantle and lead our conservative movement in these trying times? These questions have been at the forefront of every conservative’s conscience.

Ladies and gentleman, there is good news. Conservatives this New Year can now be jolly and cheerful as a national voice has emerged this past year to lead the conservative movement with moral clarity and unwavering principles. Indiana’s Mike Pence has provided Congress with conservative leadership that has garnered victories and led our ruling majority back to the right, earning him the honor of “Man of the Year” by Human Events.
Entering the House in 2000, Mike Pence’s conservative leadership made an immediate impact as he became one of only five freshmen in the past fifty years to chair a subcommittee. As a freshman committed to downsizing the scope and influence of the federal government, Pence made a bold stand against the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. In only his second term, Mike Pence became a deputy majority whip, a feat that most politicians spend their entire career to achieve. One primary responsibility of this new position was to gather votes among his Republican colleagues for legislation that the Republican majority had sponsored. It was the Medicare Bill of 2003, the largest socialized medicine bill to ever pass through the halls of Congress, that became the last straw and the catalyst that would go on to form the character of the hero and statesman.
Mike Pence valiantly led the revolt against the Medicare Bill along with 24 other House conservatives. Despite the band of rebels’ efforts, led by Pence, the longest vote in Congressional history went in favor of the GOP leadership and Big Government Republicanism. Afterwards, the six founding members of the Republican Study Committee approached Pence to take charge of the conservative caucus. Mike Pence is so humble that he demanded an election for the position. Because of his humility and his effective leadership, Pence was unanimously selected by over 100 House conservatives to chair the caucus. Immediately Pence went to the GOP leadership and willingly stepped down from his whip position while quoting scripture, “you can not serve two masters.” Pence became the first person in fifty years to willingly step down from leadership position.
With Pence’s strong and determined leadership, the RSC immediately turned the tide in the House this session. In March, Pence and his band of committed conservatives led the charge for budget reform. This principled stance led to House leadership adopting their budget-process reform giving House members the opportunity to vote to defend the budget on the House floor. This became a big victory for Pence and his colleagues as the RSC now became a viable and credible caucus for legislative authority. GOP leadership soon recognized that all legislation must now come through Mike Pence and the RSC in order to pass.
Immediately after Pence led a group of Congressman over to Iraq to build the morale among the troops, Hurricane Katrina hit our shores and our federal government responded. Pence and his conservative caucus also responded by calling for a press conference to announce “Operation Offset,” their plan for federal spending cuts of over $900 billion to offset Katrina spending. This bold move led to the chastisement of Pence by the House leadership. Yet, in his calm and ever graceful presence, Pence’s moral stance eventually convicted House leadership and led them to adopt many of the RSC’s proposed spending cuts.
Mike Pence does not only clearly and optimistically articulate our conservative message of limited government, fiscal discipline, strong national defense and traditional moral values, but his leadership effectively challenges his colleagues and GOP leadership to return to the principles in which our party and nation was founded upon. Pence has rightfully emerged as the leader of the conservative movement as his message and his stances have caused the GOP to side with the principles of the conservative base that has elected our governing majority.
Mike Pence boldly proclaimed in an article by Human Events, “I believe in my heart that this generation of Americans is going to produce leadership that will sit in the Oval Office and look the American people in the eye as adults, and say the party is over. We simply cannot continue to write hot checks on the backs of our children and grandchildren. We need to lay the problem out with moral and fiscal authority, to explain the truth of the matter, and treat the American people as the thoughtful and courageous people they are.” We couldn’t agree with you more Mr. Pence.
Pence, who calls himself, “A Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order” has inspired our nation to build upon the ideas and principles of Reagan. He has given hope to those of us who see our party being destroyed by careerism and Big Government Republicanism. He has truly led the charge to rejuvenate our conservative principles in our nation’s capital and to renew conservatism in the hearts and minds of the American people. And it shall be the efforts of this conservative leader that will strengthen our party and our nation once again, as we remain that shining city on a hill with 2008 on the horizon.

Health Care chaos

2006-01-28T18:13:00.000-08:00

by Deroy Murdock

New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a member of the Advisory Board of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Choice.

The Republican Congress can't seem to touch health care without making America sick. While Health Savings Accounts are a recent plus, the long-feared Medicare drug benefit premiered Jan. 1 to widespread panic.

Seniors are confused and frustrated, while fiscal conservatives stand aghast as tax dollars fly from the Treasury like bats fleeing a cave.

Congress can redeem itself with a simple and cost-free cure rather than a expensive complication. The Health Care Choice Act, sponsored by Republicans Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona and Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, would let American consumers buy health insurance across state lines, as they now may shop coast to coast for mortgages.

Shadegg-DeMint would let insurers licensed in one state sell to individuals in the other 49. As such, Congress would use its constitutionally enumerated powers to liberate interstate commerce and transform 50 separate, closed medical coverage markets into one open, national health-insurance market.

The proposal applies to state-regulated health plans, roughly 55 percent of the insured marketplace and purchased primarily by small businesses and individuals, according to America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade association for the health insurance industry. The other 45 percent of the insurance market are health plans purchased by large employers and labor unions, among others, and, as well as federal programs like Medicaid and Medicare, would not be affected.

"Two-thirds of the uninsured have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and most cite unaffordability as the top reason for why they are uninsured," said Mr. Shadegg, who hopes to succeed Rep. Tom DeLay, Texas Republican, as House majority leader. "Until consumers can purchase their health care like their auto, homeowners, or life insurance, we won't reform health care; we will only re-regulate it."

"Just as Delaware became a magnet for banking, some states will become magnets for health insurance," predicts David Gratzer, a physician and Manhattan Institute senior fellow, and one of this idea's earliest proponents. "People seem to understand intuitively that it doesn't matter whether their checks come from Delaware or New York or California. Likewise, the issues around health insurance are cost and availability rather than state of origin."

Location matters. A health policy for a single Pennsylvanian costs roughly $1,500 annually. Cross the Delaware into New Jersey, as George Washington did in 1776, and a similar health plan costs about $4,000, thanks to state regulations.

"When doctors worsen a patient's condition, we call it an iatrogenic ailment," Mr. Gratzer notes. "We lack an equivalent term for when politicians aggravate a problem."

By mandating benefits, state legislators have swelled the uninsured numbers. As Victoria Craig Bunce and J.P. Wieske explained in their January 2005 report for the Council for Affordable Health Insurance: "Mandating benefits is like saying to someone in the market for a new car, if you can't afford a Lexus loaded with options, you have to walk."

Making every health policy cover acupuncture, marriage therapy, or in vitro fertilization, as some states do, looks less compassionate when such adornments drive the humble from the market. CAHI estimates state mandates can raise insurance prices 20-45 percent.

"Guaranteed issue" rules, which let people wait until they ail to purchase coverage, also boost prices. Ditto "community rating." It slaps the same government-controlled price on insurance for everyone -- young or old, fit or fat -- in a given jurisdiction. This is as idiotic as charging 16-year-old boys and 60-year-old widows the same auto insurance rates.

Economics aside, Mr. Gratzer praises Shadegg-DeMint's clinical potential: "The more people who are covered the better. That means fewer people hesitate to get tests or follow up with physicians. Eventually, that will lead to a healthier population."

Critics argue letting consumers shop for health insurance will launch a dreaded "race to the bottom" as Americans buy inexpensive plans from unscrupulous insurers in unregulated states. But which states, precisely, let health insurers operate like numbers rackets? Of course, consumers could avoid questionable plans in clueless jurisdictions by patronizing reputable, sensibly supervised providers.

So, what's the cost? Nothing. Unlike nearly every act of this Congress, this proposal spends no tax dollars. Your wallet is safe. For now.

Democrats routinely complain 45 million Americans lack health insurance. Many are between jobs, young, or more prosperous, and decide to forgo insurance. Still, Democrats correctly call this a serious concern for many Americans. The Shadegg-DeMint proposal could be a key solution to this problem.

Democrats should embrace this Republican idea. If they would rather deny the uninsured an expanding array of lower-cost health-coverage options, let them say so this election year.

Sanford is not a communist

2006-01-28T18:06:00.000-08:00

I DON’T want people to lose sight of who they’re talking to, and I sound like a half communist by the time I’ve laid out all these different options,” said Gov. Mark Sanford at a pre-speech briefing on his State of the State address Wednesday.
“... which I’m obviously not,” he added with an easy laugh, the same laugh he uses when he calls me a “socialist,” which he does with some frequency.
I should add some context.
First, the governor isn’t any kind of communist — half, quarter or full. Nor am I a socialist; he just says that because he’s such a thoroughgoing libertarian, and I’m not. I’m sort of in the middle on the whole small-government-versus-big-government thing. Government should be as big or small as we the people, acting through our elected representatives, decide it should be, and whether taxes rise or fall should depend upon the situation.
The governor was mock-concerned about being perceived as a demi-Marxist because in his speech, he was actually taking a more pragmatic view of the whole tax-and-spend thing. While insisting that if lawmakers swap a sales tax increase for a property tax reduction it must be revenue-neutral or even an overall decrease, he went on to speak about the need to consider other aspects of our overall tax system. In other words, he was to an extent embracing our position that tax reform must be comprehensive.
He spoke positively of impact fees to transfer the cost of growth to new development, and proposed to “take the opportunity to look at (sales tax) exemptions that are not serving their purpose.”
Mr. Sanford tiptoed repeatedly around the question of whether he considers property tax relief — which conventional wisdom holds is Job One in this election year — really needs to happen in 2006.
His fancy footwork on that went over the heads of many legislators — the first time they interrupted him with applause for a policy statement was on page 21 of a 24-page speech, when he said, “We think this can be the year of property tax relief....”
The solons clapped like crazy, and I had to wonder why.
Can be? Not will be? What did he mean by that? Back at that luncheon briefing with editorial page editors, Charleston Post and Courier Editor Barbara Williams tried for several minutes to pin him down on that. Finally, with a somewhat exasperated tone, she said: “Are you pushing for it this year? This is what I’m asking. Are you going to be one of those who says we’ve got to absolutely do something this year?”
“Do you see that written in here?” the governor asked.
“No,” she said.
After a grunt that sort of sounds like “Yeah” on my recording, he concluded, “But that’s as much as I’m going to say.”
But even though he refuses to declare himself clearly as part of this headlong rush to placate angry homeowners before November, the governor need not fear that anyone will erect a bust of him alongside Lenin’s (assuming anyone still has a bust of Lenin).
Never mind that he has stopped saying overtly dismissive things about public education. Nor should you attach much importance to the fact that he keeps saying things like, “This is not about some philosophical jihad that says government is bad and the private sector is good.”
Make no mistake: Mark Sanford is still a libertarian to his core. It’s hard-wired into his reflexive responses, even while he’s trying to reach out to folks to the “left” of him by repeatedly citing Thomas Friedman.
Check out the one most radical proposal in his speech.
This is a man who ran for office on a plan to restructure South Carolina’s government so that each branch can exercise its separate, enumerated powers, with proper checks and balances. So you’d think he’d understand the way the system should work.
And yet, he proposes to undermine the central deliberative principle underlying the republican form of government devised by our nation’s Founders. He would do this by asking voters to approve a change in the state constitution that would set a specific formula for future spending growth, regardless of what future needs might be.
Does that sound good to you? Well, fortunately, George Washington and James Madison and Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton et al. realized that you couldn’t conduct the complex business of running a government — even one firmly rooted in the consent of the governed — through simple, up-or-down plebiscites. They knew that we would need to delegate the business of deciding what needed to be done through government, how much it would cost, and how to pay for it. And that if we didn’t like the decisions delegates made, we could elect somebody else.
If you ask most people, without context, whether they want to limit government spending — yes or no, no in-between — they will of course say “yes.” If you ask me that, I’ll say yes, and mean it.
But if you ask me whether I think this state is adequately meeting its duty to, for instance, keep our highways safe, I’ll say “no.” And if you ask me whether insufficient funds might be a factor in that failure, I’ll say “yes.” And if you ask me whether I have the slightest idea what percentage of our state economy the General Assembly would need to devote to that purpose to get the job done in future years, I’d have to say, “Of course not.”
And yet that is the kind of arbitrary judgment that the governor would have us make this fall — and lock into our constitution — with his proposed “Taxpayer Empowerment Amendment” plebiscite.
So never fear: Mark Sanford is still Mark Sanford, and he’s certainly no commie.
If Mark Sanford were not still the supply-side, privatizing, anti-tax, anti-spending guy we’ve all come to know over the past four years, I’d be disappointed in him. I’ve always respected his honesty and consistency. And those are definitely still intact.

Sanford for Governor update

2006-01-25T12:28:00.000-08:00

Dear Friend,

Two days ago U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint, Congressmen Joe Wilson and Gresham Barrett, along with South Carolina Legislative leaders Speaker Bobby Harrell and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Harrison were gracious enough to stand with me. What they did was not just about their support of me in the next election; it more importantly reflected their support of the ideas that fuel my run for a second term.

Reducing the tax burden on working South Carolinians, limiting government spending, improving education and reforming our governmentâ€™s structure - so that we create more high-paying jobs and a better quality of life for people in this state is what we have been about, and continue to work on advancing each day.

I write because all too often these days in politics people wonâ€™t take a stand, and if you run into them I would ask you to pat them on the back and tell them thanks for doing so.

If you want to see more of what was said, visit the referenced news summary below, or http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4397464.

Sincerely,

Mark

***********************************************************************

Sanford picks up support

(Columbia) January 23, 2006 - Most of South Carolina's Republican Congressional delegation is in Columbia Monday morning to endorse Governor Mark Sanford's re-election bid.

The group members are focused on the future, along with Governor Sanford. Gov. Sanford says, "Changes come slowly and the reason I'm running for a second term is to push these things again."

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham says if South Carolina is going to get what it needs, Sanford needs to be leading the efforts, "The world is in transition, South Carolina is in transition and the only way to be competitive in the 21st century is to reform the way we educate, tax, reform and put new ideas on the table. And Mark Sanford will do that."

Graham was joined Monday by U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, Second District Representative Joe Wilson and Third District Congressman Gresham Barrett.

Senator DeMint also spoke, "Big ideas take a while to develop and this state is in transition, but I really believe we're on the edge of the greatest period of opportunity we ever had."

Only two Republican members missed Monday morning's news conference, First District Representative Henry Brown and Fourth District Congressman Bob Inglis.

A letter was read from South Carolina House Speaker Bobby Harrell of Charleston, who says he is also endorsing the governor's re-election bid.

The group says their mutual goals this year include reducing the tax burden, limiting government spending, creating jobs and making sure every child has a first class education.

Democrats attack to distract by Senator Demint

2006-01-20T06:37:00.000-08:00

HUMAN EVENTS

by Sen. Jim DeMint
Posted Jan 19, 2006

While America begins a new year, Democrats refuse to turn over a new leaf. Democrats are stuck in the same negative attack mode they have been in for years, and Americans are sick of it.

The idea that Senator Reid would attack other senators for taking Abramoff-related donations is laughable. He’s among the top recipients of these funds in Congress, and still refuses to return or donate the money. And now he is using his taxpayer funded office to put out what amounts to campaign attacks. Senator Reid should clean up his own act before lecturing the rest of Congress on ethics.

Democrats shamefully tried to smear the solid reputations of men like Judge Roberts and Judge Alito, and Americans were rightfully appalled. Now they are trying similar personal attacks against senators, but this new smear campaign will also fail.

Democrats look like a bunch of rodeo clowns creating distractions. They are hoping that Americans don’t notice their lack of ideas or solutions for today’s challenges. It’s been months since they promised to unveil a real legislative agenda, yet we still have heard nothing.

The truth is that the Democrats have no agenda. They have no solutions or ideas to solve the problems our nation faces. However, Republicans have a bold agenda to secure America’s future. We made important progress in 2005, and we will build on that success in 2006. We will fight to secure America’s energy independence, maintain a strong economy, create more new jobs, and improve American’s healthcare.

I’ve heard Democrats say, “We can do better.” I agree, Democrats should do better. But at every turn, they choose partisan politics over serious legislative reform. While Democrats play games, Republicans will continue to prove why we are the party of ideas.

THis is good to see.Far too many Republicans refuse to fight back against the Democrats and call a spade a spade.We need 50 more Jim Demints in the Senate and this country would be a far better place.

Pence endorses Shadegg

2006-01-19T13:52:00.000-08:00

Myrtle Beach Sun

The Myrtle Beach Sun also picked up the story from the AP

Influential conservative endorses Shadegg for majority leader

2006-01-19T13:48:00.000-08:00

The State

WASHINGTON - Arizona Rep. John Shadegg's longshot bid to become the No. 2 GOP leader in the House got a boost Thursday when he was endorsed by the leader of a group of more than 100 conservative lawmakers.

"We need leadership with the energy and vision to steer this Congress back to our roots of fiscal discipline, limited government and traditional values," said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, chairman of the Republican Study Committee.
More than one-half of the 110-member committee had endorsed a candidate in the race to succeed Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, as majority leader.

About 40 had endorsed the acting majority leader, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the front-runner. Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, who claims more than 40 public supporters, counts about 15 members of the study committee in his camp.

The election is set for Feb. 2. It takes 117 votes to win the job.
Pence's move was hardly unexpected; Shadegg is a former study committee chairman. But it shakes up a race that Blunt claims to dominate with more than 80 public supporters.

Pence had said he would stay on the sidelines pending appearances by the candidates before a study committee retreat at the end of the month.

But Pence reversed course, saying it was appropriate to endorse "given the addition of a prominent RSC member to the field and given that many members have already expressed a preference."

Shadegg hopes to win support from the bulk of the remaining undecided conservative lawmakers and hopes to peel away RSC members who have declared for Blunt and Boehner.
DeLay, who stepped aside as majority leader last fall when he was indicted in Texas on charges of laundering campaign funds, announced this month that he would not try to regain the post. Fellow Republicans were concerned about DeLay's ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Pence's committee has become influential in internal House GOP politics and Republican leaders take pains not to cross the group. Last fall, the group successfully pressed GOP leaders to insist on a 1 percent across-the-board cut from appropriations bills to save about $8 billion from agency budgets as a partial offset for spending on hurricane relief.

Meanwhile, Shadegg and Boehner attacked Blunt for turning down invitations from two Sunday morning news programs to debate the issues facing House Republicans.
"At a time when House Republicans are having a serious conversation about our future, the candidate who claims to be the front-runner has so far refused to engage in a debate about how we will reform the House and change the status quo," Boehner and Shadegg said in a statement.

Blunt spokeswoman Burson Taylor said Blunt preferred to discuss the issues privately with House members and "not in front of TV cameras."

Taylor said Blunt's supporters "like what they hear and are not at all bothered that he has taken his ideas directly to them and not Sunday talk show hosts."
The majority leader sets the House floor schedule and drives much of the day-to-day agenda. Whoever wins the race could be well positioned to be the next speaker.

Sanford in money lead

2006-01-14T10:06:00.000-08:00

(Columbia-AP) Jan. 10, 2006 - Campaign finance reports show Governor Mark Sanford leading all his re-election challengers in the money race.

Sanford raised more than $900,000 in the fourth quarter. That leaves his campaign with $4.5 million on hand.

Sanford's challenger in the June GOP primary reported raising more than $51,000 in the fourth quarter. That leaves Prosperity physician Oscar Lovelace with more than $45,000 in his campaign account.

Democratic state Senator Tommy Moore reported raising more than $367,000 during the quarter for his bid for governor and has approximately $600,000 on hand.

The other Democratic challenger is Florence Mayor Frank Willis. His campaign raised more than $593,000 during the quarter and had $665,000 on hand. Those figures include a $500,000 loan from Willis to the campaign.

Reports were due to Tuesday at 5:00pm

Breaking News on Majority Leader's race

2006-01-13T07:14:00.000-08:00

Shadegg is Officially In...
Here’s his press release:

Phoenix - House Policy Chairman John Shadegg today announced that he will seek the post of House Majority Leader in the elections on February 2.

“For the past several days, I have spoken with members all across our Conference,” Shadegg said. “Based on those conversations, I believe that a majority of Republicans in the House understand the need for real, thorough reform. We must renew our commitment to the principles that won us a majority in the first place: fiscal discipline, smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, returning power to the states, and greater personal freedom.”

At the same time, Shadegg announced he will give up his position as Policy Chairman, the 5th-ranking elected position in the House Republican Leadership.

“I personally believe it is not appropriate to try to retain one position in our elected leadership while running for another. Therefore, I am resigning my position as Policy Chairman. My campaign is based on reform, and reform should begin with an open process.â€

Shadegg, who came to Congress in the Revolutionary Class of 1994, was elected by acclamation as Policy Chairman in January of 2005. He has previously served as Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, and as a subcommittee chairman on the Homeland Security Committee. He is a long-time member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

“I am aware of the difficulty of winning this election. I face well-organized opponents with tremendous resources,” Shadegg said. “However, I believe in the power of Republican ideas, and I believe that we need a clean break from the scandals of the recent past. I hope every member of the Republican Conference will join with me in the coming days to craft an agenda of reforms that will fully regain the confidence of the American people.”

Here is his letter (PDF) to fellow House Republicans.

Demint making friends

2006-01-12T14:43:00.000-08:00

Over at AEI Senator Demint appears to have made a critic.While the author does have some points,it is obvious to any who pays attention that Jim Demint is flat out one of the top five Senators in the nation and he is second only to Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn when it comes to Fiscal Conservatism

The Senate’s Fiscal Conservatism
By Philip Wallach

The permanent campaign has driven a wedge between rhetoric and reality when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Politicians of all stripes offer eager assurances that they will be responsible stewards of the budget, while also promising the services and reduced taxes their constituents demand. Voters like the sound of getting more for less, and are willing to overlook the glaring contradiction such promises entail, because they are able to unreflectively force the costs of their actions onto future generations.

For those who would argue that the foregoing proposition is needlessly gloomy, there happens to be a readily available (and surprisingly unexploited) source of data about where lawmakers say they stand on the issues: their official websites. In this forum, lawmakers have an opportunity to communicate directly with voters, free from media or opponent spin. Having visited all one hundred senators’ sites (six of which I deemed to be basically “substance-free”), I found that 56 of the 94 remaining senators made unequivocal statements to the effect of being fiscal conservatives. This claim transcended party lines, with 20 Democrats, 35 Republicans, and the lone independent all expressing their concern quite robustly. Eleven more senators (two Democrats, nine Republicans) were borderline cases, alluding to their sense of fiscal responsibility without ever supplying much substance to their claims.

Of course, not everyone invoked the phrase “fiscal conservative.” The locutions employed varied from the unintentionally comic (Senator Mike Crapo [R-ID] acts responsibly because his “naturally fiscally conservative nature” compels him to) to the folksy (Senator John Thune [R-SD] declares that “Washington needs to start living within its means.”) to the boastful (at least eight senators claim to be leaders in the field). Former Presidential hopeful John Kerry (D-MA) achieves the highest sense of gravitas, intoning, “Restoring fiscal responsibility in Washington matters to everyone who cares about our future. Whether or not Washington musters even a shred of fiscal discipline will help decide our economic future.”

This is all too true, of course, but unfortunately the federal government will need to muster considerably more than a shred of self-restraint if future generations (read: all Americans under 35) are not to find themselves paying taxes in a nation weighed down hopelessly in burdensome debt during their prime earning years. Most people don’t realize it, but even if we had no deficits today we would still have a serious long-term problem. Although they don’t help, our current woes are caused not by President Bush’s tax cuts or Congress’s pork addiction. Rather, our woes are caused by the juggernaut entitlement programs that both parties, apparently, have come to accept as political fact: Medicare, Social Security, and the less ensconced but equally menacing Medicaid. The projected growth of these programs means that our current fiscal imbalance could only be corrected by massive tax increases or massive entitlement reform, neither of which has any political constituency.

The problem, then, is not that there are senators left who, inexplicably, don’t make any claims of fiscal restraint. I suspect that at this particular moment, most everyone would be willing to self-apply the label of “fiscal conservative” if confronted. The problem is that our permanent campaign, from which senators should hypothetically be insulated by their six-year terms, has made hypocrites out of nearly all those who claim to be deeply concerned about our budgetary woes.

With just two exceptions—Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn and Arizona Senator John McCain—every senator’s website emphasizes local spending to various degrees, with five senators (two Democrats, three Republicans) making this their site’s central focus. Jim DeMint (R-SC), to pick on one senator, created a “Democrat Spendometer,” a poster he brought to the floor of the Senate to show just how wasteful the Democrats were in crafting their budget proposals. “We need to wake up,” Senator DeMint’s site declares, continuing, “We can’t just keep spending and taxing.” Having said this, however, Senator DeMint’s press releases announce multi-million dollar grants for South Carolina’s fire and police departments, which are not exactly hallmarks of a legislator out to shrink the federal government.

While the “spendometer” stunt is particularly obnoxious, Senator DeMint is hardly an outlier when it comes to having a double standard. Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) says, “I am also dedicated to balancing the budget and paying off the national debt, which will keep interest rates low and benefit the economy.” He also says, “Arkansas Comes First is more than just a sign on my desk,” and is sure to note that “agriculture plays a defining role in our economy.” Senator Pryor supports subsidizing teacher pay and is dead-set against base closings in his state. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), lately an object of ridicule for his defense of the “bridge to nowhere,” is no different from most senators when he insists that spending projects for Alaska are equal (more equal, even) to those for other states.

Of course, local spending need not conflict with a responsible budget, and any savvy politician will want to tout the federal spending they bring to their constituents. It is just good politics to do so. The painfully obvious consequence of this is that every senator takes a stand for their state, bristling at the idea of cuts, and spending invariably ratchets everupward. It seems that senators can restrain themselves fiscally only once they have already spent enough on their constituents to ensure easy reelection, to which incumbents in this country have come to feel entitled.

Several Republican senators have evolved what may be the most campaign-savvy message when it comes to the budget. This group tells voters that if we would only cut taxes enough, revenues would grow so quickly that we could have a bonanza of spending without going into the red. Senator Conrad Burns’s (R-MT) site, for example, manages to say the following all in one breath: “With a seat on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Burns has been able to bring in over $1 billion in federal funds to the state since he took office. He has been a champion of a fiscally conservative government and a strong voice for lower taxes to create new businesses and more jobs.” Even the most cursory examination of the long-term prospects of the federal budget discovers that this Norquistian worldview is nothing but a puerile fantasy. The only real rationale for such a policy in light of projections of future entitlement growth (non-discriminatory spending) is that we want to adopt a policy of redistribution from future taxpayers to present ones. Put in these terms, however, voters might start questioning just how necessary various spending projects of today really are instead of clamoring incessantly for more.

Meanwhile, there are precious few senators willing to take the plunge and address these topics with the gravity they deserve. Only Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) makes entitlement reform, probably the single most important challenge facing the federal government, one of his most prominent goals. And in terms of voting behavior—in the end, far more important than all of this rhetoric—few senators are willing to risk being attacked as withholding dollars from their constituents. Just four senators—John Cornyn (R-TX), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), McCain, and Gregg—were willing to vote against the famously bloated transportation bill this past summer, and the President (who, though you wouldn’t know it from his behavior, doesn’t need to win reelection ever again) balked at his promise to veto it.

The media’s current spate of attention to the budget is laudable, but everyone should realize that it isn’t a victory to make our senators tell us that they are fiscally responsible. They know this is what we want to hear, and they are perfectly willing to tell it to us. All talk about the budget is disingenuous, or at least extremely poorly considered, if we vote for senators who are only willing to pay lip service to this crisis without acting. Unless they are content to mortgage the future of younger generations, the American people need to start voting for politicians willing to put their lack of money where their mouths are.

Philip Wallach is a research assistant at the American Enterprise Institute.

Author’s Note: After the publication of this piece, Senator Jim DeMint’s staff convinced me that I was unduly critical of their boss and his website, which does have some excellent material on entitlement reform. The great thing about websites (and voting records) is that readers can go see for themselves. P.W.

Barrett backs Boehner

2006-01-10T14:40:00.000-08:00

Conservative Clique
Both sides can boast support from the right-leaning members of the Conference.

Blunt has won endorsements from conservative Rep's Jack Kingston (GA), Sue Myrick (NC), Charlie Norwood (GA), Joe Pitts (PA) and Joe Wilson (SC).

Boehner counters with Rep's Gresham Barrett (SC), Steve Buyer (IN), John Kline (MN), Steve Pearce (NM) and Pat Tiberi (OH).

As demonstrated in an email circulated last night by Boehner's camp, the candidates each have solidly conservative voting records.

Having taken himself out of the running today, Rep. Mike Pence (IN), the head of the conservative RSC coalition, is perhaps Target #1 among conservatives at this point. Although it is uncertain how many, if any, votes his endorsement could deliver, we feel safe surmising that he heard from Messrs Blunt and Boehner today.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/01/conservative_cl.html

Mike Pence not to run for Leader

2006-01-10T14:39:00.000-08:00

Dear RSC Colleague:
With the advent of elections in the Republican Conference, I wanted to write to clarify my intentions and to explain the role that I believe the Republican Study Committee should play in the upcoming debate.

First, as to my intentions, despite the fact that I have repeated for months that I had “no intention of seeking any leadership position,” there have been numerous media reports mentioning me as a possible candidate for leadership.

Because some of you have encouraged me to consider seeking a leadership position, Karen and I endeavored to give the matter the kind of prayerful consideration that such encouragement merits. I am writing to confirm that I will not be seeking any elected position in the Republican Conference at this time.

While I will always aspire to be available to serve my country when called, I believe I can do more good for the conservative movement by focusing my energies within the RSC. Those of you who know me well know that my passion is to look after my young family and serve the cause I was elected to advance: limited government, a strong defense and traditional moral values. There my focus will remain.

Second, as to our role, while I will not be a candidate, I believe the Republican Study Committee has a central role to play in the coming weeks. Rather than facilitating an unnecessarily divisive election for leadership, the Republican Study Committee should assist our members in selecting our new leadership and developing an agenda for the fiscal and moral reform our nation awaits from this majority.

By remaining focused on the role of the RSC, we will be better able to ensure that House conservatives play a decisive role in selecting our new leaders and setting the new agenda. To this end, RSC will be providing each of you with talking points from our 2005 RSC Agenda and inviting each of the candidates to address the upcoming Conservative Member Retreat in Baltimore (Jan 30-31), to take questions from our members in the days immediately preceding the leadership elections. I hope you will be able to attend.

These are times of great challenge and great opportunity for our Republican Majority. To see our way through, we must “be strong, courageous and do the work” for which the American people minted this Republican Congress. Thanks again to those who expressed words of support and encouragement in the past several weeks. It is one of the greatest honors of my life to lead the men and women of the Republican Study Committee.

May God, Himself, bless you with wisdom as you discern the right leaders and the right agenda for our nation in the coming weeks.

Your servant, Mike Pence Chairman Republican Study Committee

Sanford Update

2006-01-10T14:20:00.000-08:00

Dear Friend,

Last week I submitted to the General Assembly the Executive Budget for fiscal year 2006-2007. A full copy of the budget can be found online at www.scgovernor.com and I invite you to read it. In the meantime, however, I thought youâ€™d be interested in what our state's leading newspapers are saying about it.

The August Chronicle asks: "Do South Carolinians favor efficiency over waste? Simplicity over complexity? Slimmer government over bloated bureaucracy? Tax rebates over unnecessary government spending?" â€¦ and then answers its own question: "If they do, then they'll strongly support Gov. Mark Sanford's proposed 2006-07 budget."

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/010806/edi_6174535.shtml

The Spartanburg Herald-Journal says: "Gov. Mark Sanford issued an executive budget last week that sets a standard for fiscal restraint. Sanford's budget limits state spending growth to a combination of the increase in the state's population and inflation. State lawmakers should adopt such a goal as they consider their own state budget."

http://goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060108/NEWS/601080310/1022/OPINION

And the Charleston Post & Courier states: "Gov. Mark Sanford continues to have his budget priorities in order - first finish paying off the debt and restoring trust funds and then give substantial extra dollars for essential services such as education, law enforcement and job recruitment.â€

http://www.charleston.net/stories/?newsID=64013Â§ion=editorials

The referenced editorials can be accessed online at the provided links, and they are also reprinted below. Please take the time to forward them to your friends and family.

Take care,

Mark

***********************************************************************

A great budget plan for South Carolina

Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff

Published January 8, 2006

Do South Carolinians favor efficiency over waste? Simplicity over complexity? Slimmer government over bloated bureaucracy? Tax rebates over unnecessary government spending?

If they do, then they'll strongly support Gov. Mark Sanford's proposed 2006-07 budget - a budget that was forged in the wake of public hearings held around the state. Hence, the Sanford budget reflects the will of Palmetto State taxpayers more than any spending plan the Legislature comes up with. That ought to be important, especially in an election year.

The governor's budget is rooted in sound economics and common sense. Will majority lawmakers, who belong to the same Republican Party as the governor, have enough sense to listen to this guy?

There are two kinds of power struggles in South Carolina. One is familiar, Democrats vs. Republicans. The other is the legislative branch vs. the executive. Historically, power is weighted to the Legislature, even when the same party controls both branches. Legislators are simply loath to yield any of their power.

This leads to government by committee, which is terribly confusing, inefficient and expensive. It keeps the General Assembly in session for six months - nearly twice as long as Georgia's, yet South Carolina isn't as large in population or geography.

During all that time, legislators have to do something. So they tend to spend money they don't have, or make laws they don't need. Idle hands are, after all, the devil's workshop, and this could account for many of the state's problems, including its above-average unemployment and crime rates, low school performances and less-than-stellar credit ratings.

These are issues that Sanford's budget deals with. His $5.9 billion blueprint pays back trust and reserve funds while boosting spending on essential services such as law-enforcement and education.

The central feature of his plan, however, calls for limiting state spending to population plus inflation. Here's how it works: The governor would spend about $607 million of the $758 million in new money pouring into state coffers this year - which equates to a pinch more than 5.5 percent spending growth.

He would then rebate the other $151 million to taxpayers. That money, he says, "can be used to grow the economy and family budgets, instead of growing the government's budget."

He's right. The tax rebate would provide immediate property tax relief, and lighten some of the other spending burdens on families, such as energy costs and tuition increases. The question lawmakers ought to be asking is whether government can put that money to better use. The answer: not likely.

Government should never spend more money than it needs just because the economy is improving. It generates expenditures that can't be sustained during hard times, resulting in deficits, debt and weaker credit. Limiting higher spending to population plus inflation ensures that won't happen.

What South Carolina lawmakers ought to do, if they had any sense, is OK Sanford's budget and then go home. This could be done in 30 days or fewer. It would keep them out of trouble and probably get them all re-elected - a great year for them and taxpayers alike. Why not go for it?

***********************************************************************

Governor's budget sets a standard for limiting growth of state spending

Spartanburg Herald Journal Editorial Staff

Published January 8, 2006

Gov. Mark Sanford issued an executive budget last week that sets a standard for fiscal restraint.

Sanford's budget limits state spending growth to a combination of the increase in the state's population and inflation.

State lawmakers should adopt such a goal as they consider their own state budget. And they should do so early before they get caught up in a year that doesn't present the same tight budget they have experienced in recent years.

It's important to set the perspective early in the budget debate. The state expects to take in almost $815 million in new revenue. That's 8 percent growth in state income. But state agencies have requested $960 million in new spending.

Lawmakers will have their own spending goals. The test will be whether the General Assembly shows proper spending restraint or returns to the free-spending habits of the past.

Lawmakers should follow the broad priorities the governor set for his budget. Sanford allows for $313 million in new state spending: $120 million more for education, an additional $109 million for Medicaid and more for law enforcement. But his budget limits that spending to 5.15 percent.

Sanford suggests allocating the rest of state revenue to several specific priorities. He would repay the state trust funds that were borrowed during lean budget years. He would repair a recurring accounting budget deficit. And he would give taxpayers a rebate that would amount to about $75 per taxpayer.

The first two are necessary to restore the state's fiscal foundation and are likely to be priorities of lawmakers as well.

The tax rebates have been criticized by Sanford's many political enemies in both parties as an election-year gimmick, but they are part of the tax reduction Sanford has been trying to achieve since his election.

But they are not the only solution at a time when the state has many deferred maintenance needs. Lawmakers could take the $151 million that Sanford has allocated to tax rebates and spend it on one-time, catch-up measures such as bridge repairs or school buses.

But the governor's overall perspective on the budget should be followed: Limit the growth of recurring state spending, take care of the state's fiscal condition, and return any money left over to the taxpayers.

***********************************************************************

Sanford's solid budget plan

Post and Courier Editorial Staff

Published January 8, 2006

Gov. Mark Sanford continues to have his budget priorities in order - first finish paying off the debt and restoring trust funds and then give substantial extra dollars for essential services such as education, law enforcement and job recruitment. Not surprisingly, his proposal to return some of the money to the taxpayers has taken the hardest hit from state legislators.

The governor said his budget plan, if adopted, "will allow us to finish the single greatest goal this administration has advocated" since taking office four years ago - "getting our fiscal house in order." Mr. Sanford points out that when he took office three years ago, "the state had an overlooked $155 million unconstitutional deficit, nearly $500 million borrowed from trust and reserve funds, and a $105 million accounting deficit created by the General Assembly and executive branch, beginning in 1991."

"As of this budget, the $155 million deficit has been retired and approximately $324 million has been returned to trust and reserve funds. This budget proposes to completely repay the $173 million in outstanding balances to trust and reserve funds and eliminate the $105 million in the accounting deficit that has been on our books beginning 15 years ago," he said in his budget message.

Thanks to Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom, the long-standing accounting deficit issue was brought to a head several months ago when he decided to use excess funds to correct the mistake. While Mr. Eckstrom later was told only the General Assembly could correct the deficit problem, let's hope he made his point - an important one if the state's AAA credit rating is to be restored.

The governor's legislative critics have taken aim at his proposal to return $151 million in surplus funds to taxpayers. Those rebates, estimated to average $75 per taxpayer, have been decried as an election-year ploy and disdained as the sort of pork-barrel politics the governor has stood against. One legislator compared it to a company giving an employee two hams at Christmas.

The governor got it right in his response that a return to taxpayers of their own money hardly fits the definition of "pork barrel" spending. Mr. Sanford adds that this is the first year since he took office that the state's financial situation has allowed him to propose the rebate. "Taxpayers should share in good economic times, just as they have to pay through the bad economic times," he says.

The state's improved revenue picture has provided for substantial new contributions to critical needs. It proposes, for example, new education dollars, including a $63 million merit program for teachers, increasing the base student funding by $120 million and continuing to fund teacher pay at $300 above the Southeastern average.

There appears to be bipartisan support for the governor's plan to bolster the Department of Commerce's efforts for economic development and job creation. Critics of the lag in economic development score a point when they note that the earlier cutbacks in that department were initiated by the administration. The governor's new budget proposes $11 million in additional revenue for the Cabinet agency.

The budget seeks more support for additional law enforcement officers, including highway patrolmen, SLED agents and security for prisons and juvenile detention facilities. It recommends an additional $23 million for 320 officers, nearly comparable to last year's recommendation for bolstering public safety.

Overall, though, the governor contends that the number of state employees is higher than it should be, indeed, 43 percent higher than the national average. He recommends a cap on state spending, and restates his recommendations for restructuring government to limit duplication and cut waste.

So far, the Legislature has demonstrated an unfortunate reluctance to complete the restructuring of state government. The estimated savings of $19 million a year from a proposed merger of state agencies should finally convince legislative critics to support the governor's efforts to further streamline state government.

New Majority Leader?

2006-01-07T08:48:00.000-08:00

Mike Pence for Majority Leader
By: Blanton · Section: GOP

“Mike Pence can and Mike Pence should be given the opportunity.” A leadership vote will take place sooner rather than later to determine who will permanently replace Tom DeLay as the Republican Majority Leader in the United States House of Representatives. As Rich Lowry points out, there are two leading contenders.
One is John Boehner of Ohio. Representative Boehner is known for being an establishment Republican very well connected with the lobbyists on K Street. Boehner is perhaps best remembered for a May 10, 1996, Bob Herbert column from the New York Times wherein Herbert reported, "Mr. Boehner took it upon himself to begin handing out money from tobacco lobbyists to certain of his colleagues on the House floor. He was not deterred by the fact that the House was in session, and that he was supposed to be attending to the nation's business. He was not constrained by any sense that passing money around the floor of the House of Representatives was a sacrilege. He had the checks and he dispensed them."

The other major contender is Roy Blunt of Missouri, the acting majority leader. Mr. Blunt, likewise an establishment Republican, left his wife of 30 years for the loving embrace of a K Street lobbyist, a tobacco lobbyist no less.

There are other pretenders to the throne like Zack Wamp, who hides inside the Republican Study Committee, but would prefer to be a big spending "do as you are told" Republican leader, and Tom Reynolds who does not inspire the grassroots or the conservative base.

At a time when Democrats are trying to paint Republicans as unethical greedy crooks in the pockets of Jack Abramoff and his ilk, Republicans in Congress should look to one who is willing to work for the party, but who is not willing to give up the fight for the conservative base. Republicans need to start looking for a "do as I do" Republican and not continue on with hypocrits of power.

Right now the House Republicans need Mike Pence. He's done wonders revitalizing the Republican Study Committee. It has become an effective organization. There are others there like Jeb Hensarling, who can keep it going. There are not many in the Republican ranks who can revitalize Republican leadership in the House as a whole. Mike Pence can and Mike Pence should be given the opportunity.

Clinton wiretapped Strom

2006-01-07T08:38:00.000-08:00

During the 1990's under President Bill Clinton, the National Security Agency conducted random telecommunications surveillance of millions of phone calls daily under a top secret program known as Echelon.

But according to at least two people familiar with the spy operation at the time, some of the surveillance was far from indiscriminate.

In a February 2000 interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," NSA operator Margaret Newsham revealed that the agency's listening post in Great Britain was involved in monitoring the phone calls of at least one top Republican on Capitol Hill.

Questioned by "60 Minutes" interviewer Steve Kroft, Newsham recalled how she learned of the illegal surveillance:

"I walked into the office building and a friend said, 'Come over here and listen to--to this thing.' And he had headphones on, so I took the headphones and I listened to it, and I looked at him and said, 'That's an American.' . . .
Ms. Newsham remembered, "It was definitely an American voice, and it was a voice that was distinct. And I said, 'Well, who is that?'

"And he said it was Senator Strom Thurmond."

Until his retirement from the Senate in 2002, Thurmond was a frequent critic of the Clinton administration, who played a leading role in the 1998 impeachment drama - though there's no known connection to the decision to wiretap the South Carolina conservative.

During the same program, however, Kroft consulted with Mike Frost, who worked for Canada's version of the NSA for 20-years.

Asked if it was commonplace for the NSA to monitor the phone calls of top U.S. politicians, Frost told CBS: "Of course it goes on. Been going on for years. Of course it goes on. That's the way it works."

Solemn services mark anniversary of tragedy

2006-01-07T08:28:00.000-08:00

GRANITEVILLE — Teary-eyed but determined, hundreds of Aiken County residents gathered Friday to remember the worst disaster in this small community’s history, a train wreck that killed nine people and sent thousands fleeing for their lives.
Many said Graniteville has grown stronger and closer since the Jan. 6, 2005, Norfolk Southern wreck poisoned the air with chlorine from a leaking tank car.

“Our little town has proven to be resilient,” the Rev. James Abraham said. “I’ve seen change in our community. Our community is more caring.”
Friday’s first anniversary events included a pre-dawn candlelight vigil at the spot of the wreck and a community gathering later at USC Aiken to praise rescue workers for their efforts.

Dozens of emergency workers and politicians, including U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-S.C., and state Treasurer Grady Patterson, visited Graniteville for the later event. All said rescue and recovery efforts were outstanding; about 96 agencies had helped.
Abraham, who led people in prayer during both services, unveiled a song to commemorate the disaster.

“Down at the Railroad Tracks” tells the story of the town’s struggle with the accident and its faith in God. A recording filled the air of Graniteville for hours Friday morning, blaring from speakers atop the First Baptist Church. Abraham and other vocalists performed the song for the first time during the USC Aiken service.
Tears dripped down the cheek of Kathy McGowan as she listened.

Rusty Rushton, her ex-husband and the father of their two sons, died in the chlorine leak. Though the couple’s relationship had soured, McGowan said her teen sons practically worshipped their father, who enjoyed coaching them in football youth leagues and taking them to the mountains.

“Our oldest son is taking it extra hard,” she said. “It’s just better that he wasn’t here today.”

Sara Kennebeck, of Atlanta, said Friday was difficult for her, but she is glad community leaders organized the services. Kennebeck’s son, John Henry Laird Jr., died in the chlorine leak.

“I was hoping this would be a real good healing day, and it has been to some extent — to know that the community won’t forget them,” the former Aiken County resident said. “That’s the main reason we’re out here, so people won’t forget them.”
Last year’s wreck occurred when a rapidly moving freight train ran off the main track and onto an industrial spur at Avondale Mills, smashing into a parked locomotive. Chlorine spilled from a ruptured tank car, sending a toxic fog over the town. Chlorine inhalation killed all nine people, including the moving train’s engineer. Hundreds of others were injured; some still have problems breathing.
The National Transportation Safety Board blamed the crew of the parked train for the wreck because they failed to reset the switch to prevent a diversion onto the industrial line. It was the nation’s deadliest train wreck and chemical spill since 1978.

Norfolk Southern spokesman Robin Chapman told the crowd at USC Aiken that his company’s “heart goes out to the victims and their families.”
Few Graniteville residents expressed anger at Norfolk Southern about the wreck Friday, saying they were simply sorry the accident occurred — particularly for the families of the victims.

“It was kind of sad. But it made you remember more about the reason people died,” Elease Mathis said after the candle service.

Lindsey Graham at his conservative best

2006-01-04T08:07:00.000-08:00

Since I was just critical of our great Senator Graham, I thought I would post an article that highlights when and where Senator Graham is at his best for Conservatism and the Party.This article appeared before the 04 convention and was the result of conservative leaders trying to honor the great Henry Hyde who is retiring in '06.

Pro-life speakers sought for convention

More than half the Republicans in the House have signed a formal complaint to President Bush about the failure to give prominent conservative, pro-life party members even one prime-time speaking role at the Republican National Convention.

A letter signed by 127 of the 227 House Republicans, including the chairmen of several powerful committees, urges Mr. Bush to add Rep. Henry J. Hyde, Illinois Republican and longtime abortion foe, to what is a mostly pro-choice cast of speakers at the Aug. 30-Sept. 2 convention in New York.

"Henry's name has been synonymous with the pro-life movement for the last 30 years," said Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican, who wrote the letter and collected signatures. "When he is introduced at the convention, it is going to be like Elvis at Memphis."

Mr. Pence, who was still circulating copies of his letter among members late yesterday, said, "Pro-lifers are to the Republican National Convention what members of the teachers' unions are to the Democratic convention — they're just about everybody there."

The signers of his letter include such powerful names among House Republicans as Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. Bill Young of Florida, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe L. Barton of Texas, and Select Homeland Security Committee Chairman Christopher Cox of California.

The pre-convention rebellion by so many conservative House members is driven by re-election concerns and frustration over policy differences with the White House in the past 31/2 years, Capitol Hill Republicans said privately.

Public revolt is the last thing the Bush campaign wants to see, after the Senate Republican leaders failed Wednesday to get even 50 votes to back a constitutional amendment against homosexual "marriages."

Last month, Republican convention planners announced a prime-time speakers' list, which was approved by chief Bush strategist Karl Rove.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, New York Gov. George E. Pataki, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani — all of whom are pro-choice — are lined up for evening speeches.

Among three other prime-time speakers, Sen. John McCain of Arizona is a fiscal conservative with a pro-life voting record. But he publicly ran against religious conservatives in the 2000 primaries, frequently clashes with party leaders, and opposes such religious conservative touchstones as the marriage amendment.

Secretary of Education Rod Paige is little known outside of his home state of Texas. Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia is strongly pro-life, but he is a Democrat.

"The most conservative speaker right now is John McCain, who is truly a fiscal conservative. But a lot of conservatives believe the conservative movement that got us here is being ignored at the convention," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican.

Concern for the lack of diversity in the convention lineup went beyond the pro-life conservatives in the House.

"I would be very proud if Henry Hyde were to speak," said Rep. Jim Leach, Iowa Republican, who is pro-choice. "He would reflect the sentiment of an awful lot of Americans, and he is a first-class leader."

Mr. Pence said signers of his letter agreed that "millions of voters will be tuning into the convention to hear someone give voice to the traditional moral values that brought them to the Republican Party in 1980."

"The strength of the Republican majority in America is not in the California governor's office or in the moderate politics of George Pataki," Mr. Pence said. "It's in the millions of pro-family voters who will campaign for our candidates and turn out on Election Day."

Washington Times

Freemarket makes sense

2006-01-04T07:42:00.000-08:00

Gov. Mark Sanford recently stated in a recent commentary on school choice: "From day one, our administration has been focused on advancing ideas that are all about making South Carolina more competitive ... becoming more competitive means pushing for reforms that are consistent with market principles. ... "

Gov. Sanford should remain true to his economic philosophical stance and work to abolish our state's CON laws and promote free-market principles in health care. Market dynamics are far more reliable than the whim and fancy of a few Columbia bureaucrats.

It makes no sense to support an agency that does not meet its objectives. The state of our health-care system speaks for itself. It is time to rid ourselves of this biased, inefficient and "unAmerican" practice and allow free market principles to dictate behavior in the health-care industry.

Graham seeks more power

2006-01-04T07:36:00.000-08:00

Hell hath no fury like a branch of government scorned. The Republican Congress didn't mind rolling over for a popular president, but now that the Bush White House is a heavy burden, Hill Republicans are eager to put him in a lockbox.

As Sen. Lindsey Graham tells the Washington Post, "What you have seen is a Congress, which has been AWOL through intimidation or lack of unity, get off the sidelines and jump in with both feet." Some Hill Republicans are calling for a congressional investigation into Bush's domestic spy scandal, while Hill Democrats float words they used to hate, like "special prosecutor" and "impeachment."

Graham needs to get on board

Are you sure you really need to be investigating the President and getting in his way more than you already have? The President has work to do as Commander in Chief and he needs our support.

South Carolina 2008

2006-01-03T14:57:00.000-08:00

While Sanford would be a great President, it is good news that he will be able to focus 100% on his duties as Governor over the next three years.It is good that he took his name out of contention.Looking at the field without Governor Sanford in it is very disturbing and worrisome.None of these candidates have done anything for conservatism and none of them have led. The Senate is a mess and is getting worse.If this is the field expect McCain to run away with it.
I do not believe this will be the field because I believe Indiana Congressman Mike Pence will emerge from the pack and secure the nomination running on a platform of "faith,family,and Freedom." Only a strong Reagan Conservative like Pence can unite all the factions on the right and get us ALL focused on the same goal without infighting.Mike Pence has all the intangables required and I am sure he will begin to emerge in 06.

White House Resolutions
What the candidates of 2008 must do in 2006.

The next presidential campaign won't officially start until after the midterm elections, but it is of course already underway. Here's a roundup of the GOP field, with advice for what each potential candidate might do in 2006 to boost his (or her) chances of winning the Republican nomination in 2008.

Below, the contenders are listed in the order of how they placed in the National Journal's December "insiders poll" — a survey of 100 Republican politicians and consultants who were asked to rank the candidates and their chances. The results are based on a calculation that grants five points for a first-place vote, four for a second-place vote, and so on, for a maximum possible score of 500. In the parentheses after the candidates' names are two numbers: Their score in the National Journal poll, followed by the percentage of Republicans who picked them as their preferred choice for the nomination in a CNN/USA Today poll conducted in the second week of December.

GEORGE ALLEN (365/7%): The Virginia senator's top priority must be his own reelection, which shouldn't pose a serious problem because the one candidate who might give him trouble (outgoing Gov. Mark Warner) isn't running. Yet Allen knows the perils of looking upfield before catching the ball — and a lackluster win rather than an impressive one will raise eyebrows. Because so many Beltway Republicans think he holds the inside track to the nomination, Allen will be tempted simply to nurture his already good relationships with conservatives. But risk avoidance may also make him vulnerable, and the senator could benefit from picking a fight on an issue that motivates the Right, especially one that contrasts his own position against McCain's. Illegal immigration is one possibility, especially with McCain cosponsoring guest-worker legislation with Ted Kennedy. Another possibility is paycheck protection on the federal level, because McCain never bothered with it during the campaign-finance debate.

JOHN MCCAIN (337/22%): The Arizona senator is the most defined figure among the 2008 candidates. The upside is a high name recognition that will help him if the GOP field is crowded; the downside is that his relationship with many conservatives is beyond repair. McCain would do well to join forces with Sen. Tom Coburn and attack Washington's spendthrift ways — he has always been rhetorically strong on government spending, and conservatives are viewing the problem with rising levels of exasperation. It is perhaps the best and only way for McCain to offset his record of opposing President Bush's tax cuts. He would also do himself a lot of favors by campaigning for conservatives in 2006, including perhaps in a contested primary or two. McCain almost certainly won't endorse Steve Laffey over Sen. Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island. But suppose he did. Some conservatives might give him a second look.

MITT ROMNEY (168/2%): As the front-running governor, Romney of Massachusetts occupies a privileged position. This is his final year to accomplish anything as an office holder; starting in 2007, he'll be limited to delivering speeches. His top goal for 2006 is to enact health-care legislation that provides universal coverage through market mechanisms, which could put some real substance behind new claims of a Massachusetts Miracle. As head of the Republican Governors Association, he should travel the country and spend time among red-state voters who may be skeptical of a politician from Massachusetts. He will also need to burnish his pro-life credentials, possibly through a Cooper Union-style speech that explains his rhetorical record and convinces activists that he has experienced a conversion of conscience rather than convenience. Finally, Romney should establish a media presence during the Winter Olympics, in order to remind Americans explicitly of how he cleaned up the Salt Lake City games and implicitly of how he's unblemished by D.C. corruption.

RUDY GIULIANI (149/30%): The former mayor of New York City is both one of the best-loved and least-electable Republicans — conservatives embrace his anti-crime and post-9/11 record, but they can't see themselves supporting a man who holds the social values of a Manhattan liberal. To create goodwill, Giuliani should spend every waking minute stumping for conservative candidates at all levels. Visible and vigorous campaigning for Sen. Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania especially might help. He should also talk about judges as much as possible, and let everyone know that he regards John Roberts and Sam Alito as outstanding Supreme Court nominees. This would allow activists to believe that he'd be friendly on the issue that lies at the heart of pro-life and pro-marriage activism.

BILL FRIST (93/3%): For the Senate Majority Leader, the sooner the year ends, the better. Frist's current job has elevated his stature, but it also holds him at least partially responsible for Republican failings in the Senate. Has there ever been a Senate Majority Leader who was more admired at the end of his tenure than at the start? November's Senate elections will be interpreted as a referendum on Frist's leadership and losing seats — especially Santorum's in Pennsylvania — would be a major blow. Given the widespread expectation that 2006 will be a good year for Democrats, merely holding the GOP's 55-seat majority might be enough for Frist to declare victory and provide a bounce heading into 2007.

HALEY BARBOUR (92/2%): Hurricane Haley is perhaps the only elected official who boosted his reputation in the wake of Katrina. It's too bad that he couldn't have been the governor of Louisiana in addition to Mississippi. His challenge for 2006 is to help reconstruct his own state's coastal region without demanding unseemly levels of federal aid. He may also want to put out the word among his well-positioned network of GOP activists that they shouldn't sign up with other candidates. From his time as head of the Republican National Committee, Barbour retains enormous levels of goodwill among the party's county chairmen and grassroots activists. If he runs in 2008, he will need their help to run a flawless ground game and score some early upsets. But will voters flock to a successful former lobbyist or will the stench of K Street encourage them to pass over a man with Barbour's resume?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE (61/N.A.): Many candidates who run for president lack foreign-policy credentials. Rice's challenge would be the reverse: She has virtually no record on domestic matters — and what conservatives know about her isn't encouraging. On abortion, she is apparently pro-choice; on racial preferences, she is apparently a supporter of affirmative action. She would need to demonstrate that she is a conservative on just about everything else. It probably isn't wise to seek the presidency in a first attempt at public office, and Rice has said she isn't running. If and when she throws her hat in the ring, perhaps it should be for governor of California, in 2010. For now, it may best that Rice devote herself fully to the problems of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as well as jump starting the stalled world-trade talks.

GEORGE PATAKI (39/N.A.): Apart an unlikely round of tax cuts that will return the governor of New York to the form he displayed during his first term, there is probably only one thing that could revive Pataki in 2006 — and that's the tall order of seeing a Republican succeed him in Albany. It would go a long way toward undoing the perception that Pataki has been an abominably bad party builder in the Empire State. Without some new accomplishment, Republicans will wonder why they should support a governor who continues to preside over a state with the country's highest tax burden despite having served a dozen years in office.

NEWT GINGRICH (37/N.A.): The former Speaker of the House has made headlines recently for teaming up with Sen. Hillary Clinton on health-care legislation that would modernize medical record-keeping. It is apparently a worthy bill, and Gingrich should see that it becomes law as quickly as possible. This will allow him to quit having his picture taken with the front-running Democratic presidential candidate and also provide enough time for the law to have a noticeable effect. In addition, Gingrich would be smart to associate himself with House spending reformers, such as Jeff Flake (Arizona), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), and Mike Pence (Indiana). This would demonstrate that he's not an ousted revolutionary from a bygone era but the ever-watchful guardian of conservative reform. Gingrich is also probably helped if 2006 is a lousy year for GOP candidates — it might create a hunger for a guy who once demonstrated an ability to build majorities.

CHUCK HAGEL (35/N.A.): The Nebraska senator has been perhaps the biggest Republican critic of the Bush administration's policy on Iraq. In this one area, he should aspire to be more like McCain, the senator to whom he is often compared: He should be forthrightly pro-war. GOP primary voters are unlikely to find themselves casting ballots for the Council on Foreign Relation's pet Republican.

JEB BUSH (30/N.A.): If this presidential brother were to suggest he might run in 2008, he would immediately become a major contender. His last name would be both a blessing and a curse. The main reason why conservatives like him has much less to do with his bloodline than with his impressive record as governor of Florida. Because of this, Bush's priorities in 2006 should be to build upon prior accomplishments. Expanding school choice in his state would be an important victory.

MIKE HUCKABEE (28/N.A.): The governor of Arkansas should undo his second-term tax increases. Otherwise, he's just a pro-life Pataki.

SAM BROWNBACK (18/N.A.): Among social conservatives, the senator from Kansas possesses sterling credentials. He could become the John Ashcroft of this cycle, which perhaps isn't saying much because Ashcroft dropped out of the 2000 race before the first primary. Brownback would serve himself well by courting economic conservatives in 2006; he might begin by proposing a major piece of pro-growth legislation or identifying himself with the flat tax. If he can unite the former supporters of both Ashcroft and Steve Forbes, he might stand a chance. A better-than-expected showing in the primaries could catapult him to the top of many vice-presidential short lists.

MARK SANFORD (7/N.A.): The governor of South Carolina appears to have taken himself out of the 2008 race without ever having gotten into it, but conservatives applaud him so loudly he shouldn't be discounted until it really is too late. Sanford would be well served by achieving the major legislative accomplishments that so far have eluded him: Delivering on tax cuts or school choice would provide a big boost.

RICK SANTORUM (7/N.A.): Win!

TIM PAWLENTY (5/N.A.): The darkest of dark horses, the governor of Minnesota might have been wise to hold out for a better budget agreement than the one he got last summer, after Democrats forced a temporary government shutdown. Aggressive tax cuts should be the next item on his agenda. He could become an attractive running mate.

BOX OUT, GUYS!

2006-01-03T14:30:00.000-08:00

Pittsburgh 58, South Carolina 51
Dec. 28, 2005

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Freshman Sam Young scored a career-high 16 points to keep Pittsburgh undefeated with a 58-51 victory over South Carolina on Wednesday night.

Young's play saved the Panthers (10-0) from an overall sluggish performance as they shot less than 40 percent for the game and finished 19 points below their season's scoring average. Still, Pitt matched its start from last season and kept on the trail of the school's 18-0 start from 2003-04.

Keith Benjamin's jumper put Pitt ahead 24-22 early in the second half - the team's first lead since 2-0 - and then Young extended the margin with his three-point play.

Three minutes later, Young hit a 3-pointer as teammate - and Panthers' top scorer - Carl Krauser raised his arms along with the referees as the shot went through.

Young followed with four straight free throws and Pittsburgh led 38-29.

The Gamecocks eventually cut things to 49-45 with less than three minutes left and forced Pitt guard Ronald Ramon into a long, off-balance three-point try with the shot clock near zero. But Young cut across the lane from the right corner to collect the long rebound.

Krauser would eventually end the possession with a driving layup to maintain control for the Panthers.

South Carolina retired the No. 3 jersey of all-time scoring leader BJ McKie before the tip-off.

The Gamecocks (7-4) could've used the savvy and steadiness McKie showed during his four seasons from 1996-99. South Carolina squandered several chances to tighten the game near the end.

When Krauser hit both ends of a one-and-one to put Pitt ahead 53-47 with 51 seconds to go, Rocky Trice missed an inside shot as he got followed on the Gamecocks next possession.

Then Trice missed one of his two foul shots.

Pittsburgh closed things out at the foul line, making 11 of its final 12 attempts.

Krauser added 15 points, 11 in the second half, and Aaron Gray had 13 rebounds. Young also had seven rebounds, two assists and a steal.

Tre Kelley led the Gamecocks with 18 points while Antoine Tisby had 12 points. One of the most glaring weaknesses for South Carolina was on the boards where Pittsburgh held a 38-22 advantage.

AP NEWS
The Associated Press News Service

Copyright 2004-2005, The Associated Press, All Rights Reserved

PRO LIFE RALLY JAN 24th

2006-01-03T14:21:00.000-08:00

PRO-LIFE RALLY: The Voice of the Unborn will hold a Pro-Life Rally and News Conference inside the S.C. Statehouse at 11:45 a.m. Jan. 24. The rally will take place outside the office of Gov. Mark Sanford. During this rally and conference, the organization will petition the General Assembly to place a monument in front of the Statehouse to stand in honor and memory of South Carolina's unborn children.

Risk averse Republicans????

2006-01-03T13:57:00.000-08:00

Bloomberg

Senator Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, says the administration has become ``risk-averse,'' which he says may threaten the party's majority in Congress. ``If we don't go out with bold inspirational ideas and convince the American people that we're going to make the future better than today, I think we're going to lose big-time,'' he said in a Dec. 15 interview.