We all know that U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett was not in Washington D.C. on Tuesday for the big Congressional vote “admonishing” his now infamous fellow South Carolina Congressman, Addison Graves “Joe” Wilson.
According to the official excuse offered by his gubernatorial campaign, Barrett was busy “campaigning” in South Carolina.
But where was Barrett, exactly? And what was he doing?
Well, at the time the vote on Wilson’s fate was being taken on the floor of the U.S. House, Barrett was meeting in downtown Columbia with the S.C. Chamber of Commerce, an uber-liberal “business” lobby that has consistently placed the interests of government bureaucracies over South Carolina businesses.
Seriously, people … unless you belong to one of the chosen few corporations on the Chamber’s board of directors, you will not find a more left-leaning special interest lobby in this state, as their so-called “pro-business agenda” invariably involves “full-funding” of various government agencies.
They have also consistently fought against government spending caps and tax cuts, two things you’d think businesses would support.
Anyway, it’s no secret that the Chamber will be endorsing Barrett in the 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary, which he will no doubt trumpet with the same faux conservative zeal as his ill-gotten Club for Growth endorsement.
Hmmm … so there’s an endorsement out there that everybody knows is coming … maybe that’s why Barrett was reportedly able to give such curiously rehearsed-sounding answers to Chamber questions that he may or may not have been provided in advance.
“It was like listening to a robot,” said one source who listened to Barrett’s “answers.”
At the conclusion of the Chamber meeting – which was closed to reporters – Barrett hopped on an elevator and headed up to the Capital City Club where a poorly-attended fundraiser was held in his honor. Seriously, people … our sources say there were no more than ten actual donors there.
Who sponsored the event?
Former Chamber President Hunter Howard, who was joined at the event by current President Otis Rawl and Chamber lobbyist Darrell Scott.
Again … not a pro-business bone amongst them.
Anyway, whether it should be or not, the vote on Wilson’s “admonishment” has become something of a litmus test for a certain segment of the GOP electorate here in South Carolina. They may not have necessarily approved of the violation of decorum, but something about his outburst struck a nerve with them – like it was something they wish they had been given the opportunity to do themselves.
But whether you agree with Wilson or not (and we don’t, mostly for strategic reasons), the fact remains that Barrett bailing on him to hang with a bunch of liberal special interests is rubbing a lot of Republicans the wrong way.
“That’s not the kind of guy I want next to me in a foxhole,” said one GOP activist we spoke with.
Not that a guy named “Bailout Barrett” every really was, of course.
By Pete R. Griffin September 17, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Care to mention who else was there? Every single candidate for governor. Even your girl Nikki. You’re like a low fat blog – half the facts half the truth.
By Heather Robertson September 17, 2009 at 6:33 pm
FITSNEWS,
I am confused. For years, you have said great things about Barrett. In fact you said:
August 30, 2007 – Oddly enough, U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett could be the best thing that ever happened to fiscal conservatism in Columbia, S.C. – …
the third-term Republican Congressman has a voting record that fiscal conservatives are nuts about…
Now, I know that was a couple of years ago, but Gresham Barrett still has one of the strongest fiscal conservative rankings in the country. He scores a 98% lifetime ranking from the ACU. That’s higher than Sanford’s and just less than DeMint’s.
I guess I’m just confused. I’ve heard from a lot of people that you’re getting paid from other candidates. I didnt believe it at first but now it’s starting to make sense.
By fitsnews September 17, 2009 at 7:37 pm
1)
Pete R. Griffin,
Aren’t you supposed to be spooning with Bill Clinton or fighting a chicken or something?
Here’s our questions back to you – Did any of the other candidates get the questions in advance? And did any of the other candidates then get escorted upstairs to a swanky private club for a fundraiser?
And did any of the other candidates have what many Republicans view as an important Congressional vote to make?
No, no and no?
That’s what we thought.
-FITS
2)
Heather,
We are not and never will be on the payroll of any of the 2010 candidates (or any other politician, for that matter). You need to go to the Palmetto Scoop or Wolfe Reports if you want bought and paid for commentary.
We have ripped the hell out of all of the candidates – Barrett, Bauer, Grooms, Haley and McMaster.
Sure, we rip Barrett, Bauer and McMaster a little more than the others, but frankly they deserve it a little more than the others for being SC’s version of Tweedle Dumber, Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumbest, respectively.
Anybody who tells you we are on ANY politician’s payroll is lying to you.
-FITS
By Matt September 17, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Good post FITS. Barrett and Inglis both need to be called out, one for not making the vote and one for voting with Pelosi and against his own fellow SC Republican.
Just wanted to point out that the “Club for Growth” endorsement you mentioned was really one of those “friends of the taxpayer” award thingys-which you were correct in your earlier post in saying Barrett should not have gotten-and not an endorsement of his 2010 campaign.
As a supporter of what the work that the SC Club for Growth is doing I certainly hope that they won’t be giving out any primary endorsements to Barrett anytime soon…
By Sic-ly September 17, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Will, you obvioulsy don’t know Darrell Scott very well. He’s conservative and definitely PRO BUSINESS. Do you know him?
By fitsnews September 17, 2009 at 9:13 pm
No. But we know he works for a bunch of fucking communists.
-FITS
By Sic-ly September 17, 2009 at 9:41 pm
That makes sense. I guess since you worked for Sanford you’re a cheater, oh wait, just a beater.
By Interloper September 17, 2009 at 9:44 pm
This a very schizophrenic blog entry. Incoherent and contradictory. The two sides of your brain need to have a meeting.
By Short on Facts September 17, 2009 at 9:54 pm
1. Chamber supports government spending caps.
2. Name a tax cut that chamber has opposed other than property tax relief that has actually been a tax increase on business? Can you name one? Just one. still waiting. Do you agree that 2006 tax swap your boss signed has been bad for business?
By Patrick September 17, 2009 at 10:17 pm
He’s a rising star under the dome.
By Hank September 17, 2009 at 10:53 pm
I’ve worked in the mental health industry for years. I’m not a doctor so I can’t say without a doubt, but after seeing it many, many times I’d venture a guess and say Will has borderline personality disorder.
Read the Google Health Description and see if it doesn’t add up to you…
https://www.google.com/health/ref/Borderline+personality+disorder
“Borderline personality disorder is a condition in which a person makes impulsive actions, and has an unstable mood and chaotic relationships.”
“Relationships with others are intense and unstable. They swing wildly from love to hate and back again. People with BPD will frantically try to avoid real or imagined abandonment.”
“BPD patients may also be uncertain about their identity or self-image. They tend to see things in terms of extremes, either all good or all bad. They also typically view themselves as victims of circumstance and take little responsibility for themselves or their problems.”
Impulsive – check (just look at how he responds)
Relationships intense and unstable – check (does anyone need to be reminded of his very public misfortune)
Issues regarding self image – check (the guy has a blog devoted to himself)
What do you think?
By fitsnews September 17, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Hank-
We thought you were talking about Sanford!
Is all that psychobabble for lil’ ole us?
May we humbly suggest you insert the obvious – MULTIPLE PERSONALITY DISORDER!
Danke,
-FITS
By will's ex September 18, 2009 at 12:16 am
Will Folks violent outbursts against Gresham Barrett are like his violent outbursts against women. Will Folks is a puppy in need of a leash. Do you really think that Gresham Barrett cares what you think Will? Because he could care less. You should stick to doing what you do best which is “servicing” Nikki Haley. Your attacks against Gresham will be no more effective than your attacks against Mitt Romney.
By baked September 18, 2009 at 8:19 am
hey will’s ex…didnt romney lose?
By Chamber Not Uber-Liberal September 18, 2009 at 8:21 am
The SC Chamber is not uber-liberal. The SC Chamber is moderately conservative on some issues, but not on education. The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce run by Frank Knapp is uber-liberal. It is important to distinguish between the two. The SC Chamber can be in ally in many fights when pressed by other groups like NFIB and BIPEC. We should be focused on getting the word out about Frank Knapp’s fraudulent media coverage.
By Toyota Kawaski September 18, 2009 at 8:24 am
Yes darling Niki we will be your bitch! use us anyway possible yes we will report half truths.Just because you run a monkey f@#$ blog that contributes nothing to the business world don’t be mad.Most business wont hire convicted woman beaters.BTW thanks for the section number at the stadium.
By Jonny D September 18, 2009 at 11:05 am
You’ve got Dumb as Bricks Should Be Shoveling Shit On A Pig Farm McMaster, Don’t Believe a Word I Say Used Car Salesman Barrett, Dim Witted I Can’t Drive Fifty-Five Boyfriend Bauer, and Grooms who does not even merit a mention. So say hello to Darling Nikki, the next Governor of the great state of South Carolina!
By Knappy - Knapp Doesn't Count September 18, 2009 at 11:42 am
@Chamber Not Uber-Liberal -
Knapp wasn’t mentioned by Folks because he is a clear fraud – not too mention looks like a cheesy version of the Joker. It has been well-documented that he is nothing more than a front for the claimant attorneys – I understand the insurance department has proof of that from Knapp under oath as part of a deposition. Most of his members (other than the claimant attorneys, of course) were given free membership — and even most of those have since asked to be removed from his membership lists since his gig is up. That’s why he no longer lists his member organizations on his website, because it pretty much is just claimant attorneys now. Seriously folks, he can’t even get people to buy what he’s selling for free. He just counts all of the claimant attorneys in the state (and folks we know there are way too many of them) and claims them all in his # of members.
But, I must say – I may not always agree with Rawl and the positions taken by the SC Chamber of Commerce (aka the Real Chamber) — from what I’ve seen they do a good job of representing the interests of SC businesses.
By S. Barger September 18, 2009 at 2:50 pm
So what exactly is the USE in being in DC during a ‘non-binding’ vote? It is like a representative from Hawaii being in DC for the vote on the renaming of a post office in Wisconsin. What is the purpose of a nonbinding resolution except to make some sort of agenda drive ‘statement’? It is far more productive to the citizens of SC for a candidate for governor to be IN SC talking to the people of SC chamber of commerce about JOBS IN SC than on the floor pressing an electronic vote button that is meaningless except time and money wasting. How much $$ was saved by Barrett not flying up to DC to make a political statement in one paper vote and meeting with anybody in SC instead? Time better spent letting the people of SC talk to Barrett than political posturing in DC.
By HD September 19, 2009 at 10:10 am
Will:
You have turned out to be quite a disappointment. You’re intellectually dishonest and careless with the facts. Too bad – you had some potential. I now take everything you write with a grain of salt because it isn’t reliable.
By Richard September 19, 2009 at 10:33 am
Awe, the little Barrett people are busy bees trying to unwind a flawed and very fake candidate. Keep posting boys, it just makes Barrett look more stupid.