Beth Bernstein For S.C. House

YES, SHE’S A DEMOCRAT We can go ahead and predict the responses to this endorsement from South Carolina’s “Republican” establishment … “FITS endorses liberal Democrat over Republican” “Conservative blog endorses liberal trial lawyer.” Yeah, yeah, yeah … The only problem with this line of attack is that Democrat Beth Bernstein…


We can go ahead and predict the responses to this endorsement from South Carolina’s “Republican” establishment …

“FITS endorses liberal Democrat over Republican”

“Conservative blog endorses liberal trial lawyer.”

Yeah, yeah, yeah …

The only problem with this line of attack is that Democrat Beth Bernstein – who we are endorsing over incumbent S.C. Rep. Joan Brady (RINO-Richland) – is far less liberal than the “Republican” she’s running against.  Does that mean we expect her to be a taxpayer hero in the event she’s elected?  No.  In fact from a fiscal perspective this House race is a classic example of the “less expensive of two evils” choice that far too many voters in the Palmetto State are facing this election cycle … assuming they have a choice at all.

But no matter how “liberal” Bernstein is accused of being – she simply couldn’t be worse than Brady on our bread-and-butter issues of taxes and spending.  In eight years at the S.C. State House, Brady has yet to meet a tax hike she hasn’t supported – whereas Bernstein has pledged her support for a small business tax cut.  Will she keep her word and sponsor such a proposal?  We hope so … but even if she’s lying about her support of tax relief she’s still no worse than Brady (who has repeatedly voted to raise our taxes).

Meanwhile Bernstein’s campaign has pledged that she is “opposed to new taxes to pay for additional government spending.”

On education, both Bernstein and Brady are guaranteed “no” votes on expanded parental choice – despite the fact that Brady pledged to support choice legislation prior to her election in 2004.

So no difference there … except for the fact that one candidate (Brady) is a hypocrite on the issue.

Where this choice becomes much clearer, though, is on the issue of ethics reform.  Bernstein has endorsed a thoughtful batch of proposals aimed at shutting down the rampant corruption that exists in state government, whereas Brady has played a starring role in the self-serving shadiness.

For starters, she’s one of the “Republican” lawmakers on the so-called House “Ethics” committee who voted to clear S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley on a wide range of major violations despite compelling evidence attesting to the governor’s guilt.  More recently, she’s been the recipient of campaign largesse from disgraced S.C. Speaker Bobby Harrell – despite the fact that she is supposed to be investigating Harrell’s campaign finance scandal.

Maybe that’s what Brady means when she rolls out her ridiculous “a woman’s work is never done” campaign slogan …

Joan Brady is “exhibit A” when it comes to “Republicans in Name Only” in South Carolina.  She’s a corrupt fiscal liberal who supports our state’s increasingly costly status quo – an opportunistic hack who slapped an “R” behind her name because it was politically expedient for her to do so.

In fact when you think about it we’re not really endorsing a Democrat over a Republican in this race … we’re endorsing a Democrat over a fiscal liberal.

Voters in S.C. House District 78 should give Beth Bernstein a chance to make good on her tax and spending pledges.  Lord knows their representation on these issues couldn’t get any worse …


Gary Johnson For President
DeeDee Vaughters For S.C. Senate
Katrina Shealy For S.C. Senate
Joe Thompson For S.C. Senate
HELL No To The Penny Tax
Kirkman Finlay For S.C. House


Related posts


When South Carolina Celebrated ‘Franksgiving’

Mark Powell

Contraband Prison Phones, Corrupt Public Officials: A Recipe For Disaster

Will Folks

William Cogswell Elected Mayor Of Charleston

Dylan Nolan


Orangeblood October 31, 2012 at 8:18 am

“Conservative blog endorses liberal trial lawyer.”

Evidently I’ve been reading the wrong blog.

Swingline October 31, 2012 at 8:30 am

If you think Beth is a “trial lawyer”, you’re an idiot.

Teddy October 31, 2012 at 8:23 am

The last thing we need are more lawyers in the legislature, especially liberal ones.

Swingline October 31, 2012 at 8:34 am

How about small business owner? Or job creator? Law firms employ a very large number of non-lawyers all over the state, why would you demonize that?

I’ve got an idea, how about someone that has the good sense not to stalk their ex like that shining example of conservative leadership, Mr. Viers? Or, we could elect someone that is competent enough to pay their taxes on time, unlike Mr. Crawford.

You’re blinded by a total misconception of what lawyers are. What bad thing happened in your life that made you this way? Did you get taken to the cleaners in a divorce? Or are you feeling a little inferior?

Smirks October 31, 2012 at 8:41 am

While I agree that lawyers shouldn’t be the only people running for office, lawyers are typically well educated and understand law to a good degree. Those are good qualifications for the position.

Also, if you think that businessmen or people of other professions aren’t capable of being corrupt, self-serving douchebags, you are sorely mistaken.

Silvio Dante October 31, 2012 at 8:55 am

Swingline, good point and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Start with the governor and work your way down.

Staffer October 31, 2012 at 9:24 am

Yeah, you would hate for someone especially trained in understanding the law to be writing laws wouldn’t you? That would make no sense. We need to have people who have no idea on the implications of laws writing the laws- like insurance executives. While we are at it, let’s don’t let doctor’s write medical journals anymore either. Dumbass, do you think that lawyers are the only self-interested people in the legislature?

? October 31, 2012 at 10:07 am

If I might break in with a moment of sanity:

I think the problem is the suggestion that any legislature be made up of a preponderence of any particular profession, whether it’s lawyer, insurance executive, or garbage man for that matter.

Supposedly the grandness of representitive gov’t is that you get everyone to “contribute” their world view for a supposedly better outcome in legislating.

You only need a few lawyers to help in the writing process or understanding the larger ramifications of legislations(and trust me that they miss stuff too), but let us not say that the insurance executives insight or the garbage man’s is any more or less important(topic dependent of course)…see that would be un-PC, but more importantly it may or may not be true depending on the person.


Astute1 October 31, 2012 at 10:11 am

I’ll take a lawyer over a career politician like Brady who has no occupation. I wonder how she affords her red Jaguar on that House salary of $10,500.00?

Frank Pytel October 31, 2012 at 12:03 pm

Lawyers are one of the main reasons we are where we are. In general the “educated”. When a group of people take it upon themselves to say ‘I know better therefore I can do better’ you start going down hill fast. Particularly as they typically want to suplant others in order to congragate power for themselves.

I agree with ?, but I think lawyers should be specifically excluded from holding ANY gubment position (judiical,legislative and administrative(whatever the gov or pres is.).

This should be relegated mostly to the marginally educated. The departments, all of the departmens, should run minimal services or simply be closed.

We’d be a hell of a lot better off.

Have a Great Day!! :)

Frank Pytel

Original Good Old Boy October 31, 2012 at 12:19 pm

Lawyers should be excluded from being judges, Frank?

That’s some genius thinking right there.

Staffer October 31, 2012 at 12:23 pm

Lawyers are the main reason we are where we are? Frank, where are you exactly? Mars?

Frank Pytel October 31, 2012 at 1:14 pm

OGOB and Staffer;

Yes. Most of the good judges are not lawyers. NOT lawyers. 64 Supreme Court Judges were not lawyers. There have only been 111 total. Most magistrates, those that handle criminal and civil trials at the local level are not lawyers.

ALL FAMILY COURT judges are lawyers and must have served as a judge at some point prior to being allowed to be a family court judge. Women get custody of the child, regardless of the childs age, well over 80% of the time.

I’ll take a non lawyer judge any day of the week. They are more likely to understand what is going on with your case (Parents in family court, an engineer in a civil suit for liability, etc.) than a lawyer who is trained to simply disect the facts in order to get at the desired truth.

Have a Great Day!! :0

Frank PYtel

Original Good Old Boy October 31, 2012 at 3:14 pm

Frank, you’ve got your facts wrong. The 64 number that you mention are probably the number that did not attend law school because in the old days you could become a lawyer through an apprenticeship by “reading the law,” and studying under the tutelage of a lawyer. They are, nevertheless, lawyers even though they have no law degree.

As to the magistrates, yeah small claims judges and traffic judges are not necessarily lawyers (civil claims under $7500 and criminal cases under 30 days in jail). If you want those guys to preside over a significant civil or criminal trial, have fun with that.

Frank Pytel October 31, 2012 at 4:49 pm


I seem to remember your tirades on Ben Gal. Its amazing. Your always right. Shit. What the fuck was wrong with me. Of course I see it now. Because you post, it’s law. Shit man. You straightened me out, and the 64 justices whom must have been lawyers because you say so. Shit. Holy Shit!!.

What do you say. Same Bat time, Same Bat(shit) channel the next time I post??

Have a Great Day!! :)

Frank Pytel

King-Tut October 31, 2012 at 7:48 pm

@ Staffer…..yea, how’s those weak DUI laws working? Written by lawyers looking out for their profession (other lawyers). And how does S.C. rate amoung other states in DUI related fatalities?

toyota kawaski November 1, 2012 at 8:46 am

take a bath you stinking indian Pytel

Lance Riprock October 31, 2012 at 8:49 am

At first I thought she was butt-ugly in an Ann Coulter kind of way. After further review, she’s more butt-ugly in a Karen Floyd kind of way. Why do they want to look like that?

Silvio Dante October 31, 2012 at 8:56 am

Lance, you have quite the eye. Regarding your point on why women want to look like that: What’s your take on Joan Brady?

Lance Riprock October 31, 2012 at 9:03 am

Joan Brady? Tacky, ugly, stupid. Query: why do they spend $200,000 trying to get elected to a job(?) that pays $10,000 a year? Same reason Nikki Haley and all the others in the House do it or have done it. Influence, at least in the eyes of Wilbur Smith, is marketable.

Frank Pytel October 31, 2012 at 9:13 am

Not me man. I will be voting for the evilist I can find. Oshitforbrains2012. Let the frackin jack boots finish running it into the ground. Then we can start picing up the pieces. Have you bought your pitchfork stock yet?? Its going to go through the roof.

Have a Great Day!! :)

Frank Pytel

Robert October 31, 2012 at 9:13 am

To my knowledge, this lady is not a “trial lawyer”. (although I don’t know what we’d do without them)

She handles real estate closings for the most part. Does someone know different?

AsianSuperfly October 31, 2012 at 9:42 am

She also helps people write their wills.

Anyone trying to call Beth a “trial lawyer” (as if that is a bad thing) is either misinformed or is trying to mislead you, neither of which is good.

Silvio Dante October 31, 2012 at 9:58 am

Same garbage Haley and her morons pulled in 2010. Just come up with a few buzz words and the brainless morons will eat it up, then start their knuckle-dragging walk to the polls so they can vote straight ticket.

Can’t decide what I want more: Romney to win so she rides away with him on her broomstick, Curtis to destroy her in the primary, or Vincent to take her out in the general (least likely scenario).

vicupstate October 31, 2012 at 12:27 pm


Do you really think Romney would take Nikki after the SCDOR fiasco? If SC went fot Mitt in the primary, then maybe, but he was EMBARASSED here in the primary. After 2014, Nikki will be out of a job one way or another.

Justus October 31, 2012 at 9:15 am

If laws were the answer America would be in Heaven!

? October 31, 2012 at 10:11 am

LMAO! Great comment.

Every year we get likes more laws….yet the quality of life for most people doesn’t seemt to be improving.


Paraphrasing Confucious(I think, who knows):

“Every time a law is created a criminal is made.”

My wife was pulled over for having our 5 year old not in her booster seat(but buckeled) and I reminded her with a hearty laugh now that she was a criminal that had she been a mother 30 years ago doing the same thing that should wouldn’t have been.


What about October 31, 2012 at 9:24 am

“We can go ahead and predict the responses to this endorsement from South Carolina’s “Republican” establishment …

“FITS endorses liberal Democrat over Republican”
“Conservative blog endorses liberal trial lawyer.”

Yeah, yeah, yeah …”

I don’t think anyone’s talking about your endorsement…

Lance Riprock October 31, 2012 at 9:34 am

If you don’t think that Sic Willie is the way and the light, then why do you come here? “Of all the gin joints…” (with a tip of the hat to Bogart in Casablanca)

Dead Michael Jackson October 31, 2012 at 9:36 am

Worthless. Going to hold my nose and vote for the aging cougar over the former MILF..

toyota kawaski October 31, 2012 at 9:39 am

wish i had her nose full of nickles i would retire

Astonished October 31, 2012 at 9:42 am

It’s not about an R or a D – it’s about the qualifications and character of the person!!!!!!!

Lance Riprock October 31, 2012 at 9:49 am

Character? Wake up and smell the coffee. That ship sailed a long time ago. This is 2012. Character indeed. There is no interest like self interest, especially among politicians who take that concept to exponential levels.

? October 31, 2012 at 10:12 am

“It’s not about an R or a D”

Oh yea? Let’s see how the “petition” candidates fare this cycle.

You can only herd the sheeple so far….

Lewis October 31, 2012 at 9:53 am

I know that Beth Bernstein was a witness in a difficult legal ethical issue case 10 years ago. She did the right thing. She was honest, professional and showed integrity. Qualities and words which have never been used in the same sentence with Jean Toal and the Her Office of Disciplinary Counsel. I am going to vote for Beth even though Dick Harpo and Queen Jean will think they own her. I don’t think they will.

ED October 31, 2012 at 10:21 am

Beth is a very smart lady. She has held her composure with class after the attack by chad connelly at her office. I guess desperate times call on desperate measures.

Recovering Lobbyist October 31, 2012 at 11:03 am

Given this line of reasoning, why aren’t you endorsing Mitt Romney. He is the lesser of two evils and the Libertarian candidate (whom you endorsed) is a joke.

2012 October 31, 2012 at 11:35 am

Why are all of these comments written so close together? Who is Beth paying to put these up here to make believe that different people are actually commenting on this? It is weird.

Beth Bernstein endorsed by FITSnews. Pathetic, might as well be endorsed by the National Enquirer.

Joan Brady endorsed by The State Paper. That says it all.

Jan October 31, 2012 at 5:48 pm

Beth is paying no one. The Voucher lobby is paying to try to unseat a Republican opposed to their Voucher scheme. SC’s worst in the nation private schools do not need money from the State.

Astute1 October 31, 2012 at 8:41 pm

Yeah, The mis-State “reeks” of credibility. Nice try Emily (Brady).

2012 November 1, 2012 at 5:37 pm

Sorry it’s not Emily. Nice try, Beth.

Harry Winston October 31, 2012 at 11:46 am

Anyone who’ll fight corruption. I’d support an honest dog catcher, pest control person, librarian, truck driver, whoever.

Lawn Sharts October 31, 2012 at 12:18 pm

if Bernstein is going to replace Joan Brady, do we know if she has the requisite gaggle of kids to concurrently prop-up??

Jeffy01 October 31, 2012 at 2:15 pm

She is nice, smart and HOT. Certainly qualified.

But you are now a RHINO? Hi pot…meet kettle.

Ashlee may want to take some “time off”!

Jan October 31, 2012 at 3:46 pm

Look, the goal of Fits here is totally transparent. He does not care who is elected this time so long as she unseats a Republican who is opposed to giving taxpayer dollars to South Carolina’s worst in the nation private schools.

The thought process is that we need to get Representative Brady out, so that next time we can run a Republican who will vote for school vouchers. That is the entire substance of this endorsement. Nothing more. Please don’t be fooled. The voucher crowd have no morals and no ethics, when it comes attacking SC’s Public School system. Fits has no credibility in this campaign, because he is bought and paid for one issue propaganda.

Raspy October 31, 2012 at 4:36 pm

Brady needs to go away! Has anyone else noticed how she always uses that tired old argument, “it’s for the children”, to prop up her proposals and arguments. Those are the ones that are not viable enough to stand on their own merits because they have no merits. Brady is a believer that more nanny government is better. She believes that more laws and nanny government are the way for us to go. Joan Brady is the one who wants to make yet another law, to criminalize kids sending dirty pics to each other. Yeah, they shouldn’t be doing that but that should be a matter for parents to deal with, NOT the government and the police. Let’s send Joan Brady packing.


Jan October 31, 2012 at 5:20 pm

Says it all. Voucher lobby is behind this. If Beth Berntein were elected, in two years these same people would run a pro-voucher Republican against here and blast her with out of state money, lies and bogus arguments why she is not conservative enough.

Don’t listen to these people, they just want a government check. They do not care about the children of this state, the taxpayers of this state, or making this state better and more competitive.

Principle October 31, 2012 at 10:37 pm

South Carolinians should wake up and recognize that party affiliation has no meaning at the local level in our state. Most citizens here are fairly conservative on social issues. Vote for Republicans at the national level, but don’t spare the rod on these local losers who play on your simple-minded party loyalty way of thinking.

Master Po Chang October 31, 2012 at 10:38 pm

Voting in USA is a joke.

Banksters own ALL politicians in USA.

Principle October 31, 2012 at 11:58 pm

Most of you rubes will vote for Brady, and she’ll be laughing at you. “All I have to do is put the letter “R” by my name, and these unsophisticated hicks will vote for me.”

Frank November 1, 2012 at 9:26 pm

Someone shed some light on the Joan Brady/Thad Viers story…


Leave a Comment