When Morons Attack: SC Politics Edition

“ETHICS REFORM” ATTACK BACKFIRES …  In case we haven’t made it abundantly clear in the past, this website has zero use for Columbia, S.C. shyster Joe McCulloch.  He’s precisely the sort of lawyer who gives lots of other lawyers a bad name – and he’s an absolute dunderhead when it…


In case we haven’t made it abundantly clear in the past, this website has zero use for Columbia, S.C. shyster Joe McCulloch.  He’s precisely the sort of lawyer who gives lots of other lawyers a bad name – and he’s an absolute dunderhead when it comes to policy.

As further evidence of McCulloch’s intellectual bankruptcy, the Democratic nominee for S.C. House District 75 has been launching broadside after broadside on the issue of ethics reform against his opponent – incumbent S.C. Rep. Kirkman Finlay (R-Columbia).

Why is this dumb?  First, Finlay is one of the handful of lawmakers in the S.C. General Assembly who has been consistently advancing credible ethics reform legislation.  Not only has he been a consistent champion for expanded income disclosure, but more recently he helped negotiate a deal that would have created a truly independent ethics oversight panel (as opposed to the corrupt “cover-up” committees currently used by lawmakers to police themselves).

Those reforms didn’t make it into law, but that wasn’t Finlay’s fault …

Allow us to make two things perfectly clear:  1) There are no two more important ethics reforms than expanded disclosure and , and there is no member of the S.C. House who has more aggressively advanced both of them than Finlay – which is why it’s so surprising McCulloch keeps bashing him.

According to S.C. majority leader Bruce Bannister – who has chided McCulloch in the past for false attacks – this is just the latest example of the liberal lawyer’s inability to tell the truth.

“Rep. Finlay’s bills did nothing that you accuse them of doing,” Bannister wrote in a recent letter to McCulloch.  “A cursory reading of the legislation – rather than taking the word of others – would lay that fact out to you.”

Indeed …

“As this debate progressed, people fell into two camps,” Bannister’s letter continued.  “The first were people like Representative Finlay who put their ideas, their political capital and their reputations on the line to further a critical issue.  The second were people obsessed with sniping, attacking and mischaracterizing what was going on for their advantage and to fundraise from people who have no interest in actually supporting ethics reform.”

We rarely agree with “Republican” lawmakers in Columbia, but Bannister’s assessment of Finley’s leadership on this issue is 100 percent accurate – while McCulloch’s attacks are 100 percent inaccurate.

Hopefully voters in District 75 will remember that when they go to the polls this November …


Related posts


Prominent South Carolina Attorney, Former Citadel Quarterback Passes Away


Former Lowcountry Municipal Leader Focus Of SLED Investigation

Will Folks

Palmetto Past & Present: The Greatest Hurricane In South Carolina History

Mark Powell


An ambulance a day.... July 14, 2014 at 6:24 pm

A lawyer that traffics in untruths. Oh my word, SHOCKING!

James July 14, 2014 at 10:34 pm

Lawyer haters fall into one of the 5 types:
1. Criminals whose lawyer could not get them off
2. People who lost big in a divorce
3. People who screwed someone and a lawyer made them pay.
4. People who were stopped from screwing someone by a lawyer.
5. People who have never used a lawyer in their life and listen to crap from the other four groups.

euwe max July 15, 2014 at 8:54 am

Definition of a tragedy – a bus full of lawyers careens off a cliff…. with an empty seat.

EJB July 15, 2014 at 12:36 pm

What do you call 1,000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean?

A good start.

James July 15, 2014 at 12:45 pm

So which of the types are you? I’m guessing criminal or lost big in a divorce.

euwe max July 15, 2014 at 1:12 pm

He’s either a chain manufacturer or a bus driver.

shifty henry July 15, 2014 at 10:10 pm

A lawyer was arguing for his client before the judge on two matters. In the first, the man’s
wife was trying to get a divorce because he was impotent. In the second, his secretary wanted child support. The man lost both cases!


“You seem to have more than the average share of intelligence for a man of your background,” sneered the lawyer at a witness on the stand.

“If I wasn’t under oath, I’d return the compliment,” replied the witness.


Two lawyers are walking down the street when they see a gorgeous woman walking toward them.

The first lawyer says, “See that woman; boy would I love to screw her!”

The second lawyer says, “Out of what?”

Soft Sigh from Hell July 15, 2014 at 8:51 pm

“Lawyers–the thin line between American freedom and fascism” — that pretty defense lawyer on Night Court.

shifty henry July 14, 2014 at 11:38 pm

What’s the difference between a lawyer and a rooster?

When a rooster wakes up in the morning, its primal urge is to cluck defiance

shifty henry July 14, 2014 at 11:52 pm

If I gave you an orange, I’d simply say, “I give you this orange.”

But when the transaction is entrusted to a lawyer he puts down —–

“I hereby give and convey to you all and singular, my estate and interest, rights, title, claim and advantages of and in said orange, together with all its rind, juice, pulp and pits and all rights and advantages with full power to bite, cut and otherwise eat the same, or give the same away with and without the rind, juice, pulp and pits, anything herein before or herein after or in any other deed, or deeds, instruments of whatever nature or kind whatsoever to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding.”

Then another damn lawyer comes along and takes it away from you!

shifty henry July 14, 2014 at 11:41 pm

It was one of the most gruesome cases ever to come before the court, and if found guilty, the defendant would spend the rest of life behind bars. The case had not been proceeding well for the defense.

Though there was no direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence was quite compelling. The only chance the
lawyer had was to cast some doubt in the minds of the jurors. His only hope was to attack the testimony of the medical examiner.

Lawyer) “And prior to declaring the victim dead, did
you check his pulse?”

Doctor) “No.

Lawyer) “Did you perform CPR?”

Doctor) “No.”

Lawyer) “Did you do anything to determine if the
victim was still alive prior to declaring him dead?”

Doctor) “No.”

Lawyer) “Then, Doctor, isn’t it possible that prior to your declaring the victim dead that, in fact he may have been alive, and that it was your negligence that caused the death?”

Doctor) “Aside from the fact that his brain was in a jar on my desk, I suppose he could have been out practicing law.”

major major July 15, 2014 at 10:28 am

Q: What’s the difference between a dead snake in the middle of the road and a dead lawyer in the middle of the road?

A: Once in a while you’ll see skid marks in front of the snake.

James July 15, 2014 at 12:48 pm

So which of the five types are you?

major major July 15, 2014 at 1:12 pm

I’m the sixth type. The type who likes to tell a little joke now and then just to get under the skin of those with no sense of humor.

GrandTango July 14, 2014 at 7:10 pm

Ethics reform is only interesting to boring wonks, like Cindy Scoppe, FITS and Sanford.

If you can construct Byzantine laws, it’s easy to ensnare Republicans, who are the only players in SC….That’s the whole idea behind “Ethics Reform.” So don’t sweat it if your democrat botched it. Voters don’t really care.

Read real (pertinent) politics here:

Deo Vindice SC July 14, 2014 at 7:57 pm

You got that right ! SC is a clown state !

Roseanne July 14, 2014 at 7:41 pm

The real dunce is a candidate who campaigns on an issue that almost no one cares about.

Queen Jean July 14, 2014 at 8:24 pm

Now, you just hold on one minute, Sic. I told my friend, Joe McCullough, when I cooked, simmered and served up the Richland County elections last time, that if he would just go along with the loss, so nobody would get indicted and the Feds could be kept out of it, that I would fix it this time so he can win. He has served his dues as a long time Democrat and I have had dismissed and hidden forever all of his ethical violations and messed up legal cases since I completely and secretly control the entire attorney discipline system in South Carolina. That is how I reward lawyers loyal to me and punish lawyers who dare challenge me.

So we do not care what you think or write, Darryl Jackson and James Smith are already on this for me. They will get Lillian McBride to do as I want.

Have a nice day.

Manning Street Man July 15, 2014 at 10:18 am

This post would be funny —– if it wasn’t so close to the truth. Toal and her servants know they got away with it last time in Richland County – so they are confident they can get away with it again. The Democrats in Richland County do not even try to hide the corruption now. Toal has complete control over Joe McCullough, Dan Johnson and a few others of the lawyers involved in politics because she has let them slide with her secret discipline group. It’s a complete joke. It is a sad situation, really. Kirkman, I am sure there will be plenty of money out there on election day to “rent” the Democratic votes. Be prepared for more dirty tricks than you ever thought possible.

T Davis July 14, 2014 at 9:27 pm

New low Willie. Not only do you not even link to, quote, or even paraphrase McCulloch’s attack, you wrote an article mere months ago slamming Harrell for pushing the bill McCulloch is attacking Finlay on. Hope the check was fat

shifty henry July 14, 2014 at 9:55 pm

Hmmmmm — looking at that picture, somehow I had the image of the GrandTurnip with long sideburns and a droopy mustache.

Really? You Think? Promise? July 14, 2014 at 11:35 pm

Ethics reform? You mean, moving the marbles around a little but its all still the same. Best thing to do, have an independent panel of voters decide ethical violations. Otherwise, its till just another day – but the same old fucking bullshit.

Thomas July 15, 2014 at 10:02 am

Oh, like a grand jury made up of voters? Grand juries, truth be told, are made up of a judge and a prosecutor. Has anyone ever served on a grand jury? How about a panel of duly elected and impartial county Sheriffs doling out ethic punishments?

easterndumbfuckastan July 15, 2014 at 12:57 pm

I know someone that served on a grand jury for a year. Since their investigation and proceedings are secret, unless you are close friends, family or their direct supervisor you’re likely will never know. Though they are allowed to tell people they are on a grand jury they usually don’t as it bring about stupid questions from stupid people.

Thomas July 15, 2014 at 9:55 am

How in the world does Sheheen earn 300k? From traffic court and general session charges brought about by an “arrest anything that moves” Kershaw County Sheriff? No wonder Matthews was reelected…he is a money maker and family breaker.


Leave a Comment