Grooms Won’t Make Haley Eat Stimulus Vote
With the economy dominating the political discourse, the road to the S.C. Republican gubernatorial nomination is shaping up as a race to fiscal right wing of the party – which means that any opportunity to position oneself “to the right” of an opponent on fiscal issues is solid gold real estate.
In the race for that coveted ground, the two candidates who are best positioned to pick up significant swaths of GOP voters are State Sen. Larry Grooms and Rep. Nikki Haley – both of whom are widely-regarded as having the most conservative voting records in Columbia.
Well, almost.
Haley is beginning to take steady incoming fire for a vote she cast earlier this year authorizing lawmakers to accept a controversial pot of stimulus funds – specifically, the $700 million that has been at the center of a months-long political battle between S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford and pretty much the entire South Carolina political establishment.
And while you’d think Grooms would be pouncing on this opportunity, he’s not.
“I’m not going to make an issue of that,” Grooms told FITS. “All I know is I was against it and I voted against it. I’m going to run on who I am and what I’ve done.”
Haley supporters argue that her vote to accept the funds was not a vote to spend them, making it similar to Sanford’s decision a month later to certify the controversial funds, ostensibly so that he could continue his fight to have them allocated to debt repayment.
To her credit, Haley opposed this portion of the “stimulus” funds going toward recurring expenses, which is reflected in her budget votes as well as her support of Sanford’s “stimulus”-related vetoes.
But did both Haley and Sanford’s decisions let the camel’s nose under the tent? In other words, did they open the doorway just wide enough for the big government brigades of Speaker Bobby Harrell, Sen. Hugh Leatherman and Sen. Glenn McConnell to come busting in?
Obviously, we disagree strongly with both Haley’s original vote to accept the money and Sanford’s decision to certify the funds.
In fact, we’ve written the definitive post mortem of Sanford’s conduct during the stimulus fight, and it’s not at all flattering.
Conversely, eight House members – Nathan Ballentine, Eric Bedingfield, Dan Hamilton, Joey Millwood, Wendy Nanney, Garry Smith, Jim Stewart and Thad Viers – voted to refuse this $700 million outright.
Also, in addition to Grooms nine other Senators – Lee Bright, Kevin Bryant, Chip Campsen, Tom Davis, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Rose, Greg Ryberg, Phil Shoopman and Danny Verdin – also voted to flat out refuse this portion of the “stimulus.”
Sen. Shane Martin originally voted to accept the money, but had his vote changed in the Journal after he was called out in a story by FITS.
Comments
By CNSYD on June 8th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Thanks FITS for listing the legislative nay voters. It is good to know who be on the lookout for and make sure they are never behind me with a knife. IRT Haley. I am having a hard time determining your position. Are you for her or do you think uour repeated attempts to tie her to Sanfraud will sink her candidacy?
By CNSYD on June 8th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Upon further review I looked up the bios on the House and Senate nay voters. Several patterns emerge. Many are not SC native born. Imports or carperbaggers. Most attended either SC private schools or out of state schools. I have to wonder if their votes against SC public schools show a bias.
By Time to Call on June 8th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
“Haley is beginning to take steady incoming fire for a vote she cast earlier this year authorizing lawmakers to accept a controversial pot of stimulus funds”…..
“To her credit, Haley opposed this portion of the “stimulus” funds going toward recurring expenses, which is reflected in her budget votes as well as her support of Sanford’s “stimulus”-related vetoes”…..
was Haley also just a little bit pregnant when she had her kids….
It’s funny how FITS will spin for their friends. As you would say, a vote is a vote, and doesn’t matter the reasoning. She supported the stimulus by voting YES
By Nathan Earle on June 8th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
It is fair that Nikki Haley should have to explain her vote to accept the stimulus cash. Just ask Gresham Barrett what one lousy decision can do for a political career.
By CNSYD on June 8th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Who is Gresham Barrett? I hope he is someone we never hear from again.
By Steven on June 8th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Eat the stimulus vote? The vote was to DEBATE one bill with the stimulus and one without. Hardly was a vote for the stimulus. Her vote when it came down to it was a NO vote on the stimulus.
Time to Call…record shows on the actual vote for the stimulus she voted NO.
This is a far stretch and twist of another Folks story.
By Matt on June 8th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, but every Republican in the General Assembly voted for the state budget that included stimulus funds. Then the governor line-item vetoed his portion of the stimulus money, and some conservatives including Haley voted to sustain that veto.
And I also think her vote in question here was not to use stimulus funds but simply to allow the House to draft two versions of the state budget for the purpose of debate–one that included stimulus funds and one that did not.
By Smelly Cat on June 8th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Does it really matter what spitting contest Haley or Grooms get into? Neither one will have a chance to win.
What we have here is two folks fighting within the chambers and it will ultimately hurt Andre’. McMaster is about as much a factor in this race as Nelson, so who wins? Gresham Barrett. Those who vote for Haley and Grooms will switch to Barrett in an eventual run-off.
I predict that Gresham and Andre’ will be in a run-off. Barrett will be our next nominee, but in a very close and bitter race. The biggest negative (besides the stimulus vote) that Barrett has right now is his hiring of Heath Thompson. Thompson was the bonehead that lost it for Peeler in 2002. Which eventually got us into the situation we are in now. I like Sanford, but he needs to learn to compromise a little bit. Just a little bit, please.
By CNSYD on June 8th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Smelly cat, do you live in the 3rd district? I do and would not vote Barrett for dogcatcher. Constituent service is unknown to him.
By Smelly Cat on June 8th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I do live in the 3rd, and you are correct. Constituent Service used to be excellent. Then it crapped out. Not sure what happened, but that is a fact CNSYD.
I will vote for Gresham Barrett 3 times. Once in the primary, once in the run-off and once in the general. Of all the candidates, he is the best. But he needs to get his 3rd District offices back in shape.
By Liberty on June 8th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Gresham Barrett has about as much of a chance becoming the Governor of SC as I do of becoming President……and I am not even American.
That guy is a dumbass.
By Jack on June 9th, 2009 at 6:17 am
When a Candidate for higher office promises to support pending legislation in his current position to numerous different people, on various occasions and still has made no effort to sign on as a cosponsor 3 months later, one has to question ALL of the representations he has made on the campaign trail. If you oppose the concept, so be it, just state your opinion. Gresham Barrett cannot be trusted to act as he promises on the campaign trail, or did the stimulus vote not make that clear already?
By CNSYD on June 9th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Gresham Barrett is a weasel. He never gives a direct yes/no answer to correspondence urging his support or non support of pending legislation. His response is usually that he will give consideration to your input. That means absolutely nothing. Why is he afraid to take a stand? Who does he have to check with before casting a vote? It is obviously not the people of the 3rd district.
By Yawn on June 9th, 2009 at 8:29 am
JACK, get your facts straight. Gresham Barrett voted with every other republican in Washington to OPPOSE the stimulus. He’s a conservative that will do what the Governor in this state is supposed to do — CREATE JOBS.
By Toyota Kawaski on June 9th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Wont even make out the primary