SHARE

This website aggressively supported the candidacy of S.C. Sen. Larry Grooms (R-Berkeley) in this week’s GOP primary for the first congressional district. Why? You can read our endorsement here …

Bottom line, we believed Grooms was the candidate most likely to vote consistently on taxpayers’ behalf while aggressively promoting free market principles and protecting our individual liberties. We weren’t alone in that assessment either … as two fiscally conservative champions, U.S. Reps. Mick Mulvaney and Jeff Duncan, also endorsed Grooms.

Unfortunately, Grooms finished third in this week’s voting … missing out on the chance to run against former S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford in the April 2 GOP runoff election by a handful of votes.

Who edged him out for second place? Curtis Bostic – a big government trial lawyer who doesn’t even live in the first district (and has some seriously questionable prior associations).

Our concern with Bostic, though, isn’t his residency issue or the squirrelly answers he’s provided to questions regarding the controversial “adoption” agency he represented (answers like … “it is not the job of an attorney to ascertain what the truth is. It is the job of an attorney to represent people”).

Our problem with Bostic is purely fiscal – and not just as it relates to his history of supporting government growth that far outpaces population and inflation growth.

Our concern is the impact Bostic’s election would likely have on the South Carolina Congressional delegation – which over the last three years has evolved into the closest thing to a unified pro-taxpayer front you’re going to see in Washington, D.C.

As it stands now, Mulvaney and Duncan (along with U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy) represent a solid bloc of fiscal conservative votes. That bloc has forced U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson to move considerably to the right on fiscal issues over the last three years – and has (at least initially) kept newly-elected seventh district U.S. Rep. Tom Rice from following his big government leanings.

Bostic’s election could – and likely would – disrupt this delicate balance.

“He will give Rice cover,” one conservative consultant told FITS. “And let Joe go back to being Joe.”

Obviously that would be a terrible development … and represents the best argument we’ve heard against supporting Bostic in this runoff election.

The best argument we’ve heard for supporting Bostic? We’ll address that in a subsequent post …

***