“Reformer” Cuts A Deal

LARRY GROOMS OFFERS HIS VOTE TO LIBERAL LEADER IN EXCHANGE FOR SUBCOMMITTEE SLOT … This website has generally had good things to say about S.C. Sen. Larry Grooms (R-Berkeley). His voting record is more fiscally conservative than most “Republicans” in the State Senate, and he’s played a key leadership role…


This website has generally had good things to say about S.C. Sen. Larry Grooms (R-Berkeley). His voting record is more fiscally conservative than most “Republicans” in the State Senate, and he’s played a key leadership role in the past on expanded parental choice – an issue that’s obviously very important to the future of the Palmetto State.

For these reasons, we endorsed Grooms’ 2013 bid for the U.S. Congress – although last fall we ripped him in no uncertain terms for his role in promoting a totally unnecessary Lowcountry highway boondoggle.

“Grooms sold us out on this one … and as a result we will think long and hard before we ever endorse him for higher office again,” we wrote at the time.

Well Grooms’ sellout is picking up momentum …

Rather than standing firm against the unnecessary expansion of South Carolina’s bloated government-run system of higher education, Grooms has been leading the charge in support of this wasteful spending – working with uber-liberal S.C. Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell to force “research university status” for the College of Charleston.

Missed his role in that drama? Here’s a refresher …

Now, sources familiar with the situation tell us Grooms has struck a deal to vote for S.C. Sen. Hugh Leatherman (RINO-Florence) in this week’s election for Senate President.  In fact since we last wrote about this race, Leatherman has dramatically expanded his vote total – with seventeen Democrats and as many as ten “Republicans” (including Grooms) agreeing to support his bid for Senate President.

That’s easily enough votes to deliver this powerful post to the diminutive former Democrat – who is already the most powerful politician in state government given his chairmanship of the Senate’s finance committee and his seat on the S.C. Budget and Control Board (SCBCB).

So … what did Grooms receive in exchange for his vote? According to our sources, the veteran lawmaker will receive a finance subcommittee chairmanship position from Leatherman.  In fact he has reportedly been promised the subcommittee chairmanship being vacated by S.C. Sen. Yancey McGill (D-Williamsburg) – who is leaving the Senate to serve as lieutenant governor for the next six months.

We’re sure Grooms – always ready with an excuse – will argue that his new position enables him to better protect taxpayers. And we’re certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that.

But when you make a deal with the devil, the devil has demands … and Grooms’ waning commitment to taxpayers’ bottom line renders any promise of “protection” laughable.

He’s part of the dark side now …

Related posts


Tropics Watch: Disturbance Off Florida Coast

Will Folks

South Carolina Islanders Brace For Luxury ‘EcoTourism’ Development

Callie Lyons

Pastor John-Paul Miller’s Personality Test: Mining for Clues

Callie Lyons


G.O.B June 17, 2014 at 11:36 am

Does it really matter if Leatherman is Senate Pres? We’re fucked regardless.

Will Folks aka Sic June 17, 2014 at 12:16 pm

C’est vrai …

you know me June 17, 2014 at 3:15 pm

Hey Larry, casse-toi!

GMG June 17, 2014 at 11:49 am

FIRE GROOMS! He has proven he is only a “conservative” when it benefits him. Votes for liberal budget. Voted to re-elect liberal Toal. He doesn’t care to be our senator. Every time an office opens up, he runs for it (Congress, Governor, etc.).

No Rookie June 17, 2014 at 11:51 am

Hell, FITS, he could remain a “back-bencher” with little or no influence. Most men of any substance aren’t interested in sitting on the sidelines like eunochs.

Looks like your man has learned how to win friends and influence others, commonly known as successful politicking.

Stinkbait June 17, 2014 at 1:14 pm

— interesting concept, dealing with the opposition. I don’t think it’s been tried in SC since the mid-80s. I hope it’ll work out for him.

I ? wielding power over others June 17, 2014 at 2:12 pm

“Hell, FITS, he could remain a “back-bencher” with little or no influence.”

Yep, that’s what it’s all about. Influence and its associated power.

“Unlimited power!” as Palpatine says.

ted June 17, 2014 at 12:31 pm

Maybe Larry should consider becoming a Christian.

guest June 17, 2014 at 1:13 pm

God, your rhetoric is so over the top all the time. It’s so obnoxious; not everything is the “END OF LIBERTY”.

GrandTango June 17, 2014 at 1:47 pm

Looks like Sanford is scared of getting his @$$ kicked, down the line. Trying to damage his challenger, beforehand.

I knew Grooms should have stomped out that worthless piece of $#!* when it would have been a slam dunk…Sanford is DISGUSTING…

South of Broad June 18, 2014 at 9:36 am

Um, GT? Grooms ran in the 1st congressional district GOP primary, and lost to Sanford. I’m no fan of Sanford, but the fact remains, Grooms tried to beat him, and failed. Get your facts straight.

anonymous June 17, 2014 at 2:06 pm

We haven’t found out what Grooms got for voting for Toal yet as a favor to Harrell. He didn’t do it for nothing, that’s for sure.

Sam June 17, 2014 at 2:31 pm

Leatherman has made promises to Kevin Bryant and Ray Cleary. One gets a subcommittee chairmanship and the other gets a boatload of money for his district.
These Senators see their honor rather cheaply.

Didnt Know That June 17, 2014 at 7:29 pm

I have found Grooms to be a not particularly bright individual who frequently sounds shrill as he blows off on subjects that he seems to have little knowledge of.I never knew he was considered a “reformer.”

Native Ink June 18, 2014 at 8:58 am

Grooms is a reformer? LOL. I only hear him speak up when it’s time for him to support another pork barrel project. Remember when he called up the S.C. DOT board (an executive agency completely out of his purview) and told them to back down on a vote to kill the I-526 boondoggle? What a reformer.

C'Mon June 18, 2014 at 12:17 pm

There were four members of the subcommittee: McGill (vacated), Grooms (14 years on Finance), Paul Campbell (2 years on Finance), and newly elected Democrat Kent Williams (<1 year on Finance). Grooms had been on the subcommittee for over a decade and Campbell didn't want the position. There was no deal cut.

Are you saying the position should have gone to the Democrat Kent?


Leave a Comment