Browse News+Opinion
Browse Calendar+Scene
Browse Arts+Movies
Browse Food+Drink
Browse Music+Clubs
Monday, August 30, 2010
S.C. Attorney General McMaster not alone in 2010 primary failure
The GOP's McCurse
Posted by Greg Hambrick on Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:20 PM
The conventional wisdom would have been in Attorney General Henry McMaster's favor going into 2010. There was a crowded field of contenders for the GOP gubernatorial nomination. McMaster had proven statewide support with two solid victories in 2002 and 2006. Before that, he led the South Carolina Republican Party as it expanded its ranks and took control of the state legislature.
Some have suggested McMaster's third-place finish was due to an anti-establishment fad that has made political experience about as desirable as a sexually transmitted disease.
But state Rep. Nikki Haley, who eventually won the nomination, is an outsider only in the sense that her six years in the legislature were spent supporting the governor instead of legislative leaders. That doesn't make you an outsider — it makes you an ineffective politician.
No, McMaster was a victim of the attorney general curse. It's an office that provides a high-profile platform for pushing your partisan political message and winning favor for being tough on crime. But that will only take you so far.
There are notable success stories coming out of the AG's office: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist come to mind. There's also Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, though he's struggled out of the gate since his win in November. And who can forget former New York governor and future CNN host Eliot Spitzer.
We can't speak to what motivated voters to elect those lawyers, but we can say that whatever it was, it hasn't been in South Carolina for a decade (Attorney General Charlie Condon didn't make it to the primary runoff in 2002, either) and it wasn't in Florida last week.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, an early favorite in the Sunshine State's GOP gubernatorial primary, lost to a self-funded millionaire. Aside from a shared McHeritage, the McLosers campaigned heavily on their leading roles in a legal challenge to federal healthcare reform. Another plaintiff in the case, Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox was also easily defeated in what was supposed to be a close gubernatorial primary race.
In McMaster's TV spots, the line about fighting healthcare reform ran over an image of the candidate flanked by three intimidating men, including one actor in a police uniform. For the record, the campaign told the City Paper it was a recreation of the press conference where McMaster announced the legal challenge. It would appear that they should not have gone to all the trouble.
McMaster's biggest asset was his ability to be tough on crime — most notably snagging pedophiles and child-porn proliferators all across the state. And he's had a chance to provide some wrong-headed, but politically advantageous opinions on issues like abortion and or state-issued license plates.
Among the many issues McMaster tried to highlight on the campaign trail, there was a handful that he could legitimately argue played to his strengths among conservative voters: executive experience, public safety, traditional values, anti-abortion, and Second Amendment rights. Haley not only couldn't compete with McMaster, she also had more than a few Republicans questioning her credentials on her leadership ability, family values, and her voting record on women's health issues.
But, like the spoiled red meat that is healthcare reform, none of that garnered the interest of a majority of GOP primary voters. McMaster, McCollum, and Cox couldn't offer the strengths GOP voters were looking for in a troubled economy: someone with a record of being pro-business and anti-taxes. National partisan court battles? Pandering legal opinions? That's what Republicans look for in their lawyers, not their leaders.
Comments (18)
Showing 1-18 of 18
"Bob McDonnell, though he's struggled out of the gate since his win in November."
Except for his stupid move on Confederate History Month, he's been doing rather well...
like
dislike
To factchecker: If by 'right' and 'courageous' you mean 'stupid' and 'borderline racist' than you are correct.
Oddly enough, I suspect one reason McMaster may not have done well in the GOP primary is that he was too "liberal."
Our previous Attorney General, Charlie Condon, made his pet issues the sort of "red meat" that is catnip for social conservatives. Until McMaster's recent foray into challenging Obamacare, he received most of his press as Attorney General for his work strengthening the prosecution of domestic violence and animal cruelty. Think of the number of news stories the past seven years about the AG's office toughening the prosecution of CDV. Think of the number of high profile cockfighting and dogfighting cases the AG's office has brought.
Advocating on behalf of abused animals and women, McMaster seems like a typically "liberal" attorney general: fighting the powerful on behalf of the powerless. I wonder how many GOP primary voters picked up on this and decided McMaster couldn't be trusted.
War's over, factchecker. Fold up yr flag and come join the rest of us in the 21st Century.
By the way, I have never once seen you actually check a fact here.
Never. Once.
Get a clue!
McMaster represented old school, good ol' boy politics as usual. People reacted against him (and his two good ol' boy clones in the race) because they saw there was no real desire for change in them.
McMaster--who, unlike Barrett and Bauer, seems to be a really well-liked and affable fellow--was especially representative of the one-party state government we essentially have here where the Dems and Repubs have mated with each other while they continue to screw the taxpayers.
McMaster was looking for his reward, like the other two good ol' boy goofballs in the race. He thought he deserved to be gubnah for his years of public self-service and would have "retired" in the ceremonial gubnah's office while he allowed the hogs in the Statehouse to continue to feed on our wallets.
The only change and reform was seen by the voters in Nikki Haley who has clearly shown her willingness to fight the establishment no matter what you may imagine her motivations to be. I've found her to be the real thing, however. Being governor for a couple of terms is going to be it for her. There's no stepping stone here despite what a lot of supporters would like to see. She's got an agenda of real reform--returning power to the people of the state and gutting the bloated pork belly of fascist pig, money-funneling, middleman politics as usual exemplified by Jake Knotts and others.
@Gregory Foreman: you have a point that he did have notable and successful campaigns but in my opinion he let his high-profile acts leading up to primary season out-shine his successes:
1. His crusade against Craigslist, a service that makes it even easier for vice cops to catch prostitutes. Oh, and this crusade was complete with a public smiting by Craigslist president Jim Buckmaster. D'oh... not good.
2. His lawsuit against Obamacare... while healthcare is a devisive issue, it reminded everyone that he's a lawyer and his solution to everything is to sue. Man do people hate that.
I think Tommy C has it right: Nikki Haley got a pass on her party adherence because she lacked the "boy" requirement to be part of the Good Ol' Boy club. That club threw a lot of wrenches at her, which certainly didn't work. This is a state with a skeleton in every closet, it seems, so hers didn't offend anyone. I knew who I wanted to vote against in the primary: Bauer (I wish I could have voted more times against him!) and McMaster.
"Fact: If not for the tourist dollars that the unfurled flag brings, the unemployment rate in South Carolina would be much higher than the present 11%."
Show us your source for this "fact".
Oh, FCB, quiet down with your "rules" and "concrete definitions of words." Let's stick to the facts: ninjas are mammals, they fight ALL the time, and their purpose is to flip out and kill people.
See: those are facts! Source: http://www.realultimatepower.net/index4.ht…
It says so, in black-and-white. Actually, in white-on-black, yowza!
FC, you had me looking for another post as your comment does not seem to jibe with what I asked for in my last post: Factchecker's source for his latest "fact".
I was agreeing with your demand in a "picture is unrelated" sort of way. He trotted out a speculative opinion as a "fact" and you called him on it.
I'm also waiting on the citation... though as I showed there is a quality gradient to sources.
Why should there be a problem with a Confederate history month?
We already have a Black history month which, in part, deals with the history of slavery and the civil rights movement. Confederate history is just as important in the sense that it reminds us of the other side of the conflict.
Our nation went to war with itself over one of the central principles of the Declaration of Independence, which states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Well, how do you square "all men are created equal" with "but some men are the property of others".
The simple answer is: You can't.
Does anyone think that the evils of slavery will go away by simply "forgetting" the past?
It seems to me that we should remember our past mistakes, so that we don't repeat them. Maybe that is why the eighteenth amendment is still a part of our constitution.
Just as our own bodies have scars from past insults and injuries to remind us of prior traumas, our nation has scars of its own, to remind future generations of our prior painful (and bloody) national mistakes.
Does anyone really think that Confederate history month is just a sneaky propaganda device, designed to convince the folks that one group of human beings subjugating another group is the way to progress and morality?
It just doesn't add up.
So, people visited the Hunley. Which does not prove your original point. It seems like that has very little to do with a rebel flag flying on the statehouse grounds.
The reason, IP, that it is offensive is that when one declares a month "____ history month" it sounds an awful lot like you're honoring that group. You don't think the Italians have a "Mussolini history month" do you?
So for every visitor to the Hunley, how many do not come here because they are put of by stuff like confederate history month?
After all, most of the tourists are "Yankees".
Still not checking facts. Still not checking facts. Still not faxing checks. Still not fasting Czechs. Still water burn throat.
Yawn.
What was the article about, again?
Nikki Haley was supported by Sarah Palin and that is one of the biggest reasons she won the primary.I support her and the Tea Party movement as well.
as for the confederate History month,why not?? we have Black History Month and we hear the same old song and dance routine year after year.did these same people who oppose Confederate History Month NOT know that more than 60,000 blacks volunteered to fight for the south and more than 33,000 of them gave their lives doing it? and why is it always a "racial" issue? why not a history issue?
oh yeah,thats right,when you have no facts,you accuse.
60,000 is the correct number. do a little research. I have seen many of your posts its always the same drivel.complain about truth and skew the rest. and your quote "borderline racist" how friggin lame is that? trolls are everywhere and they are always liberals who hell bent on lying,deceiving and chrurning up that worn out old race card.get over this crap.stop acting like Jesse Jackass and Al Sharptongue.people who have never held a real job instead they become black agitators for hire.
I'm unable to anything supporting what you said. Do tell, how do people who aren't considered people volunteer for anything? From the slavery supporter's perspective you might as well say that a million mules volunteered for the confederate army.
What's more, the presence of a few blacks in the army wouldn't prove that the confederacy wasn't racist. The 1876 governor's race here was waged on explicitly racist grounds, and yet there were still black Redshirts present at Hampton's rallies. Furthermore, every colonial power in Europe employed indigenous peoples in their armies. That doesn't mean that the indigenous people liked colonialism or that it wasn't extremely unjust.
- Lata's Ordinary Oyster Hall revealed5 comments
- The same-sex marriage debate is a distraction48 comments
- Do conservatives want Obama to throw citizens in jail without trial?2 comments
- Author William G. Lord is a cold warrior for Christ5 comments
- Five tips for surviving Spoleto Festival5 comments
- Truth & Salvage Co. sift through 50 songs to make the perfect record1 comment
-
Charlie Brown Seafood
Garlic crabs we're delicious. Wish it was a small restaurant where you could sit and… -Danielle Ashe England
-
Little Tokyo
ITADAKMASU = Let's eat! -Christopher Bernique
-
Brittlebank Park
Tehn maybe you should go back to New York. -Chrystal McConnell
-
Diamonds North
There is nothing worse than a bitter fired employee. I work at a plant near… -boeingguy51
-
Pearlz
Fantastic service!
We visited on a busy Friday night and the restaurant was… -twa318
-
Is S.C. State University's board of trustees really so bad?
A Matter of Degrees
-
50 Shades of Grey's most notorious scene as read by Stephen Hawking
No strings attached
-
Do conservatives want Obama to throw citizens in jail without trial?
A Permanent Police State
-
Author William G. Lord is a cold warrior for Christ
The thinking Baptist's Glenn Beck sees socialism as a pervasive enemy of the church
-
The War on Women enters its Creed years thanks to Nikki Haley and Pinata-Gate
