SCGOP: Up Dawson’s Creek Without A Paddle
Sources tell FITS that Katon Dawson – still smarting from his defeat in last week’s acrimonious race for RNC Chairman – will announce this weekend whether or not he will seek another term as Chairman of the S.C. Republican Party.
Great – we’ll be on pins and needles.
Dawson has already broken his term-limit pledge once, but surprisingly it’s not his decision that interests us.
We’re focused instead on the lasting “legacy issue” Dawson and former SCGOP Chairman (and fellow “whites only” buddy) Henry McMaster have created for the Republican brand.
On the surface, everything’s Peaches & Cream for South Carolina Republicans. They’ve got plenty of money and the party controls nearly every statewide office, including the Governor’s Mansion.
Also, Republicans can claim both U.S. Senate offices (sort of), as well as healthy legislative majorities in both the S.C. House of Representatives and State Senate.
Here’s the only problem – not all of those elected officials are Republicans.
In fact, when you start stacking them up against the gold standard of Ronald Reagan, hardly any of them are Republicans.
After a rash of party-switching, campaigns of convenience and ideological abandonment, what exactly does the SCGOP stand for?
Because it’s sure not fiscal conservatism and individual liberty.
Specifically, how can a party claim to stand for the legacy of Reagan when it’s got dyed-in-the-wool Democrats like Joan Brady, Dan Cooper, Bobby Harrell, Hugh Leatherman, Billy O’Dell, Luke Rankin, Bill Sandifer and dozens of others not only filling – but leading its ranks?
This ideological fall from grace was highlighted just this week when Senate Democrats proposed privatizing some of South Carolina’s port facilities while Republicans bickered over the best way to expand a failed system of excess government interventionism.
Seriously, whose party is it anyway?
We’ll be a step closer to finding out the literal answer to that question after Dawson makes up his mind this weekend, but the larger question is one that will take much longer to be determined …
Republicans may be “large and in charge” in South Carolina, but they turned the party of Reagan on its ideological head to get there … which sort of defeats the purpose, if you ask us.
Comments
By Wes Wolfe on February 6th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I know it is picking nits, but you are a Republican if you have an R by your name. Whether someone is a conservative or not can be open for debate, however.
By Toyota Kawaski on February 6th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
let me puke another Reagan reference
By James the Foot Soldier on February 6th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
toy-boy: may you wallow in your bile throughout the night and wake with the crusty after-math covering your vile being…
By Ron on February 6th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Nice article Will,
And great question, “Whose party indeed?”
Ron
Summerville
By BIN News Executive Editor on February 6th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Mr. Folks,
Great picture, but the Reagan myth is busted. He has an airport named for him, but have you seen his face on a coin? A bill? No, you won’t.
But you can get a coin with President “O” on it.
For $19.95 you can get three!
BIN News Executive Editor
Always, Flair and Balanced
By Gillon on February 6th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
You might want to take a closer look at the “gold standard of Ronald Reagan” and his supposed policies of “fiscal conservatism and individual liberty.” As for “fiscal conservatism, he never balanced the budget in his eight years in office, left office with the largest national debt of any president up to that time, and oversaw a 25% increase in the size of the federal gov’t. (adjusted for inflation.) He did lower taxes, but it mainly benefited the wealthy–the middle class largely stagnated economically in the 1980’s. As for protecting individual liberty, he backed a right-wing gov’t in El Salvador that employed death-squads, and was a strong supporter of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. His support of the Iran-Contra Affair was such a blatant attack on the laws of this country that it should have been an impeachable offense. Maybe to be a RINO, if you choose to use Reagan as the standard, appears from an historical standpoint to not be such a bad thing.
By Mab on February 7th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Kumbaya kudos to BIN, on his non-venomous comment for “Mr. Folks.”
Sic Willie, you have apparently redeemed yourself…