Pages

Sunday, January 15, 2012

South Carolina Senator Davis endorses Ron Paul


The crazy Republican primary process takes another wild turn with the endorsement of Ron Paul by Sen.
Tom Davis. Here's the report by fitsnews.com
S.C. Sen. Tom Davis – the leading fiscal conservative in South Carolina state government and one of the most coveted endorsements of the 2012 “First in the South” presidential primary – will announce his support for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul on Sunday.

Davis will endorse Paul’s candidacy at a campaign event Sunday evening in Myrtle Beach, S.C. – confirming a report published earlier this week on Buzzfeed.

Paul’s campaign has described Davis’ forthcoming endorsement as “consequential” and “game-changing.” Why?

A first-term State Senator, Davis wields a disproportionate impact given his stellar fiscal voting record and his advocacy on behalf of key state-level reforms including a taxpayer rebate fundand an aggressive government restructuring bill (unlike the “restructuring in name only” pushed last year by Gov. Nikki Haley).

Source

11 comments:

TexasFred said...

You can't fix stupid...

James Shott said...

I'm amazed at how much support he has garnered, from young people, especially.

Really weird.

Anonymous said...

as a liberal, Ron Paul is the only one who could sway my vote... i love his fiscal stance and his opinion on our military and level of involvement overseas... but we see very differently on almost all social issues so there that goes...the GOP need to watch out because he could run as an Indy and really cut up the conservative slice of cake...

James Shott said...

A third party challenge would likely doom the U.S. to four more years of Obama. I fear we won't survive that.

Ron Paul certainly has many appealing positions.

As well as some pie-in-the-sky fantasies.

Anonymous said...

I think the GOP and their values are fading fast... you'd be hard pressed to find a conservative who isnt older, whiter and more 'christian' than the typical american. the talking points and family value discussions are so antiquated as they seem to strive for a return to an unrealistic 1950's America, like something out of Leave it to Beaver or the Donna Reed Show...

our 2 party system is horrible as it leaves no room for "mixed beliefs".. if you are pro-choice and pro-coal, you'll be hard pressed to find a candidate... and I think the GOP have chosen the wrong side on several fronts that will alienate them from the larger public... god, guns and gays being the big ones...

Population estimates predict "white americans" will drop below 50% of the population by 2050, and with that vote already fractured among liberal and conservatives I'm not sure who the GOP will have voting for them at that time...the clock is ticking and the writing is on the wall...

James Shott said...

To our mutual detriment the “old values” that were in force for the first 175 years of the republic, when it grew and developed into the greatest nation in human history, are fading fast. Although, a surprising number of young people are supporters of Ron Paul, and some of what he advocates is sensible and needed.

I don’t see a return to strong two-parent families, traditional marriage, rare out-of-wedlock child-bearing, a little old fashioned patriotism, a strong work ethic, personal responsibility, self-reliance, and if not true religious fervor, at least returning to the Judeo-Christian values that shepherded us along for so long, as a bad thing. Perhaps it will never happen, given our gross failure to protect our values, but wishing for it isn’t a bad thing.

Abandoning our traditional values has contributed to the “mixed beliefs” you mentioned. As we abandoned our cultural mores, we had no philosophical or moral system to take their place, hence the hodge-podge of weirdness that defines America today. The GOP may be home to people sticking to a code now largely left behind, but the Democrat party has become the home to all manner of odd bedfellows: liberals/socialists/statists, unionists, the Occupiers, illegals from where-ever, minorities who have been made to feel they are victims, a growing faction that feels it is owed the support of others, etc. Frankly, I don’t know which party is worse off. The GOP may have few voters, but the Democrats have a base so diverse that it’s going to be more and more difficult to support it with taxpayer money, which so many of them expect.

The problem facing us is far broader and more serious than just the GOP.

Anonymous said...

i agree... our votes tend to be for "the lesser of two evils" and you have to decide who you agree with 'more'...

some of the European countries do it a bit different which allows for more representation... in some places... if a 3rd, 4th and 5th political party get a fraction of the vote, say 10%, then their representatives actually get 10% of the seats in parliament... its not a 'winner take all' format like we have, where 51% = 100% ...

I'd be curious as to how such a system would shake out in America...

James Shott said...

Only a few of us actually get to vote for someone who truly fits our image of the perfect candidate. And, to be realistic, how often should we expect to find someone who fits our vision that well?

I think I prefer a candidate winning the election rather than a party. But it's an interesting idea.

Jennifer said...

mahal na mahal kita bernalie grace

natalie sassy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
natalie sassy said...

i encourage people to be more observant on why this happen like. Let us chose candidates base on their previous projects/program and credential. Again and again vote wisely.
cheaper limo rate in Charleston sc