 She’s no longer a candidate, but Bobbie Rose is still active in the special election for South Carolina’s 1st Congressional seat. On Jan. 30, Rose endorsed Democratic candidate Elizabeth Colbert-Busch. Her decision to offer support during the primary election was based on similarity of their platforms, Rose says. “I’m glad there’s a candidate who shares my views.” In 2012, Rose’s campaign included platform issues of business development, labor, health care and environment. She says Colbert-Busch shares the same stances on those topics. She will join the Colbert-Busch team as an adviser, a job Rose says she’s ready to begin in full gear. “Time is an issue for every campaign,” she says, “especially in this special election cycle.” While Rose had nine months to campaign in 2012, this year’s March 19 primary date gives candidates only seven weeks to compete in this special election’s first round. The final election date follows only seven weeks later on May 7. Although she considered entering this year’s race, Rose formally withdrew on January 28, the last day of candidate filing. Other candidates on the Democratic Party’s slate are Martin Skelly and Ben Frasier.
 Less than 72 hours after filing to run in the upcoming special election, on January 28 Bobbie Rose withdrew.
The 2012 Democratic candidate for South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District formally stepped away from this year’s contest to fill that same seat after incumbent Tim Scott was appointed last month to replace resigning senator Jim DeMint.
Rose told the state Democratic Party of her intentions before the fiing deadline, and will thus receive reimbursement of her $2,800 filing fee. She had submitted her filing papers just last Friday.
A primary factor in her decision, Rose says, was “an obligation to respond to opportunities in the private sector as well as the political field.
“I have been campaigning almost constantly since February 2012. While I don't regret one minute of that campaign,” she says, “I feel I should now spend my time working to improve our district, our state and our country in other ways.”
Rose is yet to endorse any of the other Democratic candidates, but intends to soon.
“I will be speaking with the other candidates in our party and will offer my support to the candidate with the values, beliefs and commitment to the people that are most closely aligned with my own and those of my supporters.”
She also encourages voters to partake in the upcoming special election series. “Let’s all participate in the process and work hard to elect a voice of reason to speak for us in Washington.”
Three other Democratic candidates – Elizabeth Colbert Bush, Ben Frasier and Martin Skelly – will appear on the Mar. 19 primary ballots.
 Rep. Tim Scott will assume Jim DeMint’s U.S. Senate seat in January, Gov. Nikki Haley announced. At a 12 p.m. press conference on Monday, Haley said part of her decision was based on Scott’s pro-business but anti-worker stance, specifying his record of argument against the National Labor Review Board as example. “I have no doubt that the entire state knows that this is the right man for our state and for our country,” said Haley, who shared campaign events with Scott in 2010 when each was first elected to their current office. Scott returned the compliments when accepting the appointment. “South Carolina is better because we have Nikki Haley as our governor.” He said economic issues would be a primary focus when he takes the senate seat in January. He’d also spend time campaigning for the 2014 special election, he inferred. “I look forward to taking the opportunity to introduce myself across the state.” Scott has represented parts of Charleston on county council and in the state legislature, and currently represents the Lowcountry’s 1st Congressional District. He’s never campaigned in other parts of South Carolina, however. In 2014, voters statewide get to choose if Scott or another candidate will complete the remaining two years of DeMint’s term. DeMint, who announced his resignation on Dec. 6, joined Haley and Scott at the press conference, as did Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Trey Gowdy. “I’ve known (Scott) for years and am confident he will serve our state with honor and distinction,” DeMint stated this afternoon in an email. The outgoing senator will become president of the Heritage Foundation in January. A special election will be held in early 2013 to fill Scott’s seat. Many local Republicans stated interest in the office, indicating potential need for a primary election. Should any Democratic Party candidates file to run for the office, its primary winner will face the final Republican nominee in a final election. Bobbie Rose, the Democratic nominee who ran against Scott in last month’s general election, expressed a tentative interest in the special election to Summerville Patch.
 On April 18, Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ) introduced H.R. 4395, the Cosmetic Safety Amendments Act of 2012, which would allow federal oversight on cosmetics and personal care products prior to their public distribution. The bill was even supported the very next day by the Personal Care Products Council, a long-standing association of manufacturers who would be directly affected by the Act. Just four weeks later, however, Rep. Tim Scott quietly introduced 28 bills that could limit the applicability of H.R. 4395 after it passes. The bills filed by Scott on May 15 would suspend the duties on particular imported chemicals that are commonly used in cosmetic products. Being duty-free, the chemicals could be purchased at lower rates. Because most laws restricting ingredients in consumer products aren’t applied to materials already in stock, companies could be allowed to continue use of those chemicals until inventory is depleted. Scott’s bills, then, could allow companies to stock up on these chemicals before any new law goes into effect, and thus substantially delay the intended purposes of Lance’s bill. Worse, these bills – all 28 introduced at the same time – could extend hazards to the public. The chemicals specified in Scott’s bills are known to pose various dangers to humans, and many are restricted or even banned in Europe, Canada and/or parts of Asia. Scott’s H.R. 5760, for example, wants to suspend temporarily the duty on Imidazolidinyl urea, a preservative derived from animal urine that’s used in cosmetics, shampoos and deodorants. Known to be a toxicant to the human immune system and to the skin, the chemical also releases formaldehyde. Its use in personal care products is very restricted in Europe and Japan, but it remains unwatched in the U.S. until the Cosmetic Safety Amendments Act goes into effect. H.R. 5771 is “to suspend temporarily on modified phenolic resin in alkaline solution,” an additive used in sunscreen and hair colorings. This chemical is already classed as a respiratory toxicant, according to Environmental Working Group, and is associated with cancer and damage to the nervous system. Japan restricts its use in cosmetics to small amounts, and phenol is outright banned as a cosmetic ingredient in Canada. While the Personal Care Products Council has publicly supported the Cosmetic Safety Amendments Act, it declined comment on these bills later introduced. John Hurson, the Council’s executive vice president of government affairs, said he was not familiar with Scott’s bills, and could only say that the chemicals specified could also be used in non-cosmetic products. In 2005, the Council reportedly spent $600,000 campaigning against a similar but more restrictive cosmetic safety act in California. If the bills were to pass, not only could they extend the dangers that the cosmetic industry itself now acknowledges, but they could also continue the pattern of trade imbalance. For example, only 10 U.S. companies manufacture or distribute Imidazolidinyl urea, the chemical specified in Scott’s H.R. 5760. Of 150 producers worldwide, 136 are in China. Twenty-one American companies produce the benotriazol specified in Scott’s H.R. 5752, but 677 Chinese companies make this chemical, which is used as a UV-stabilizer in cosmetics despite its known status as toxic to the organ system. To remove the duties on these chemicals imported from other countries, then, could harm sales of the few U.S. companies that make them. It could also further extend the trade deficit with China. Two of the 28 bills Scott filed that same day pertained to chemicals used in agricultural herbicides and fungicides; the 2, 2’-Dithiobisbenzothiazole chemical specified in H.R. 5766 is known to kill water life it may contact by runoff, and H.R. 5768’s Cyanuric chloride is banned from agricultural use throughout Europe due to its poisonous effects. Currently, cosmetics and personal care products do not require any review or regulatory compliance. Lance’s Cosmetic Safety Amendments Act would allow the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to have authority over these products prior to their release, however.
 Today a federal court upheld South Carolina’s contested “ Voter ID” law, but said it can’t be enforced in this year’s elections. “(G)iven the short time left before the 2012 election, and given the numerous steps necessary to properly implement the law…we do not grant pre-clearance for the 2012 elections,” Judge Brett Cavanaugh wrote in the ruling. In November, voters can still use their voter registration cards and other non-state IDs in order to participate in the general election. This allows the 239,000 affected voters in the state to cast ballots this year, but not in future elections unless they acquire an approved photo identification. State legislature passed the law in May 2011, but the U.S. Dept. of Justice ruled against it later that year, stating the “Voter ID” requirement was restrictive and also discriminatory in application. Using claims of votes cast in the names of deceased citizens, state Attorney Gen. Alan Wilson pursued the case, which wound up in D.C.’s U.S. District Court. Response to the court’s ruling has been mixed. Republican officials who helped enter and pass the law in state legislature offer an expected praise for the decision, which Wilson calls “a major victory.” The version approved by the three-judge panel is not the same as the original state law, however, as attorney J. Gerald Hebert, who represented those opposed to Voter ID, points out. “Ultimately the law that the court has approved for 2013 and beyond is a huge departure from the bill enacted by the South Carolina Legislature,” Hebert said. The original bill required voters to provide government-issued photo ID in order to cast ballots. In the variation offered during the case by Wilson, voters without identification will still be allowed to vote after simply signing a form explaining why they do not have any of the five approved IDs at the time. Without this accommodation, the court would not have ruled in favor of Voter ID, Judge Cavanaugh stated. Many others aren’t satisfied with the variation, however, calling today’s court decision only a temporary victory that will expire next year. “We’re glad that thousands of voters who faced being denied access to the polls will get to vote next month, but are concerned about what lies ahead,” said Nancy Abudu, an attorney with the ACLU. Over 239,000 South Carolinians are registered to vote, but lack any of the required formats of photo ID. Bobbie Rose, Democratic candidate for the 1st Congressional Dist., is also dissatisfied with the decision. “While I’m glad the ruling won’t affect voters this year, it’s still deeply disturbing how much of an obstacle this creates for South Carolina voters in the future, especially seniors,” Rose says. “Once you’re 65, you don’t need to renew a license after it expires unless you’re still driving. Banks and even courts still have to accept those IDs, too. Those seniors must now have their IDs renewed, though, and will even face costs of acquiring the documentation needed to prove their identity. That’s the equivalent of a poll tax.” Rose says the law will disproportionately affect minorities, and will also affect young voters, too. “ Less than two-thirds of 18-year-olds have a license,” Rose says, “and their student IDs won’t be acceptable when they want to vote or register to vote.” The state Democratic Party “strongly disagrees with the court’s opinion,” as well, even alluding that today’s decision might not be final. SCDP “is hopeful that the United States Supreme Court will resolve the differences between various Voter ID cases around the country,” party chair Dick Harpootlian said this afternoon.
 The basis of a Republican’s endorsement of a Democratic president mirrors her own argument against Rep. Tim Scott, Bobbie Rose says. The Democratic candidate for South Carolina’s 1st Congressional Dist., Rose faces Scott in the November 6 general election. On Monday, retired Sen. Larry Pressler (R-S.D.) announced his backing of Pres. Barack Obama. A primary reason for his party-switching endorsement was a personal one, he says in his October 8 editorial. A Vietnam War veteran, Pressler notes that Republican candidates “Romney and Ryan are pandering to election-year politics rather than focusing on pending cuts to military spending.” Approximately $11 billion in cuts to veterans’ benefits were included in the original Ryan Budget, which Rose points out was readily supported by Scott when introduced to congress earlier this year. In a recent Post & Courier article, Scott defended his stance on veterans funding, claiming it actually increased in the House budget. However, “he was an advocate supporter (of the Ryan Budget),” Rose says, “even though those $11 billion in cuts included a $6 billion chop from Veterans Administration healthcare alone.” Not only does this cut many thousands of veterans from benefits, but the Veterans Administration is already underfunded to care for our soldiers, too, she says, pointing out how veterans currently face a waiting time of eight months before claims are handled. This delay directly affects thousands of recently-returned soldiers afflicted with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which Pressler also has, and which he acknowledges is part of the basis of his Obama endorsement. Rose says this circumstance of veteran PTSD should have higher prominence to Scott due to the high presence of military veterans in the 1st Congressional Dist. – over 14 percent of the adult population in the area are veterans, as opposed to only 9.1 percent nationwide. “The many local veterans with this prominent disorder will be neglected by Scott,” Rose argues. “He even said so himself.” At a Town Hall meeting in North Charleston earlier this year, Scott told constituents he fully favored the proposed Defense budget even though he had “no doubt about” its inclusion of wasteful spending. He said he didn’t support veterans’ PTSD therapy, however, because he finds its costs to be “astronomical.”
Scott’s voting record has a pattern of disregard for veterans’ interests, as well. In 2011, for example, he voted against a measure that intended to direct an additional $20 million to programs for veterans’ suicide prevention and post-traumatic stress disorder ( H.R. 2055). “Scott openly acknowledges and fully accepts wasteful Defense spending, but has the audacity to question spending on vets’ benefits,” says Rose. | | “Pressler said ‘Romney and Ryan would be disastrous for America's service members, veterans and military families,’” Rose points out, “and so too would Scott’s reelection.”
Pressler represented South Dakota in U.S. Congress from 1975 to 1997, with 18 of those 22 years as senator. He also briefly campaigned for president in 1980.
In 2000, he was a member of the steering committee for George W. Bush’s campaign, and was part of the Bush Transition Team after that election.
Pressler also endorsed Obama in 2008, “the first time I ever voted for a Democrat,” he says.
 The Institute for Policy Studies gave Rep. Tim Scott a failing grade in its Congressional Report Card, which was released on Oct. 3. He was one of 48 U.S. representatives, and the only one from South Carolina, to receive this lowest grade. Scott’s official score of negative 12 results from his votes on particular bills and motions that covered the issues of jobs, taxes, budget and education. Democratic opponent Bobbie Rose isn’t surprised by the score, however. “This is why I entered the race. These same issues are especially pertinent to the people in this region, but Scott’s never addressed them.” The Rose campaigns’ repeated claims that Scott is only representing corporate donors is well-supported by one key finding in the IPS report. Four corporations – ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, Goldman Sachs and Honeywell – made significant contributions to many of the F-grade recipients. Scott is one of only two congresspersons who received campaign donations from all four, IPS notes. “Throughout my campaign, I’ve repeatedly stated that Scott is only representing corporations and wealthy donors instead of his constituents,” Rose says. “I think this proves my point.” She offers Scott’s grading on taxes as a key example. In its report, IPS notes that Scott voted to extend the Bush tax cuts on both high and unearned income ( HR 8) and to reduce corporate ( HR 9). He voted against a measure that would prevent use of offshore accounts as tax havens (the Doggett Amendment), and Scott also co-sponsored a bill to reduce taxes on overseas earnings ( HR 1834). He co-sponsored a bill to eliminate estate taxes ( HR 1259), as well. “Scott voted against bills that would actually benefit citizens, though,” Rose says, offering his vote on HR 5652 as example. This Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act increased defense spending by cutting from programs that help poverty, including food stamps. HR 9 itches Rose in particular, and because of its misleading title. “It included significant tax cuts for companies that have up to 500 employees, but was somehow called the ‘Small Business Tax Cut Act.’ Scott apparently hoped his constituents wouldn’t know that 99.7 percent of the companies in the U.S. have less than 500 employees. “Since when do multi-million dollar companies the size of the New York Times and the Boston Red Sox constitute a ‘small business’? “Scott may be getting lots of money from corporations, but they don’t vote,” Rose says. “Next month, I’ll be elected by the people, and I’ll return representation to them.” Eleven U.S. senators, including South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, also received failing grades. Institute for Policy Studies is a progressive think-tank, formed in 1963 by two former congressional aides.
 On Sept. 4, national public debt broke $16 trillion for the first time. The next day, South Carolina’s Rep. Tim Scott (1st Dist.) was quick to point out the new numbers on his congressional website. “That works out to almost $51,000 for every American,” he wrote upon the site, dropping blame upon the Democratic Party and claiming “it is well past time that we again regain fiscal control.” His opponent, Democratic candidate Bobbie Rose, finds Scott’s assessment to be rather misleading, however. In addition, she says, Scott’s only supported measures that would increase the financial burden on all but the wealthy. “First of all, about 40 percent of that isn’t current debt, but anticipated future payments of assets we already hold,” Rose says. “That’s our Federal Reserve funds preserved for national emergency, our Social Security Trust Fund and other trust funds. “About $4 billion of it isn’t any debt of the federal government, either, but our own public debt,” she adds, offering personal mortgages, student loans and business debts as examples. Very much of the actual government debt results from Pres. George W. Bush’s administration, too, Rose points out. “The fact is, of that $16 trillion debt, $6.1 trillion – by far the largest single increase – came about during Bush’s eight years in office. This massive increase was due to tax cuts for the wealthy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the economic downturn in 2001 and the recession that started in 2007. “In his very long political career, I don’t recall Scott ever before complaining about government debt when it came to Bush’s spending.” $9.5 trillion of current national public debt originates from the last three Republican presidents. “It’s interesting that when tax cuts on our wealthiest citizens were occurring during two wars,” Rose adds, “the Republican Party showed an astounding lack of interest in our national debt.” While debt has continued growing since Bush’s exit, “the current debt is due to stimulus spending – money spent here in the U.S. The continuation of recession through 2009 resulted in lost revenue, too,” she says. Scott’s votes and endorsements indicate that he won’t properly address this debt, either, Rose says. “Scott has supported measures that take away from the middle class, that cost the middle class, and that only favor wealthy citizens,” citing Scott’s support for the Ryan Budget, which cut away from veterans’ benefits, and his endorsement of Mitt Romney as examples. A recent study by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that Romney’s proposed tax plan would raise income taxes on all Americans earning less than $200,000. “That’s 95 percent of the population,” Rose points out. “Why can’t our government do what families all across the country do when they are in debt? We find a way to bring in more money. Why can’t our government use the only solution that will work, raising revenue on our top earners?” she asks. “Scott says stimulus spending doesn’t work, but that’s counter to what every nonpartisan economist has told us,” adds Rose. “What doesn’t work, and will never work, is taking ‘raising revenue’ off the table.” Also read:US Debt 101Tim Scott: Americans aren't supposed to be equalBudget policies, then and nowRose to Rep. Scott: Hit the road, TimScott's vets event an insult to veterans, Rose saysScott's first-year spending high, paid to endorsers
 Democratic congressional candidate Bobbie Rose applauds an Executive Order signed yesterday, and with a sigh of relief. According to the White House, the Order provides military veterans with improvements in suicide prevention programs and mental healthcare access, as well as funding for other related projects. “These provisions to our veterans are long overdue,” Rose says, “based on their plainly-evident need that’s been rapidly growing. “What has contributed to this growth, sadly, is my opponent’s earlier failure to address them – even rejection of them,” she adds. “Rep. Tim Scott has openly voted against these specific interests of our military veterans.” In June 2011, for example, Scott voted against a measure that intended to direct an additional $20 million to programs for veterans’ suicide prevention and post-traumatic stress disorder ( H.R. 2055). An established need to address this circumstance remains, however; every 80 minutes a veteran takes his or her own life, according to the U.S. Dept. of Defense. “For every one soldier killed in combat, about 25 vets take their own lives,” says Rose. This need is growing, too, Rose notes, pointing out that the rate of suicides by active U.S. military recently hit a new high – 38 in July 2012 – and the year-to-date rate of this tragedy is up 22 percent compared to the same period from last year. Her experience working with a suicide prevention program lends her insight to these particular needs. “While working with (suicide prevention hotline service) Samaritans, we were instructed to never let the phone ring more than twice,” Rose recalls. “It is critical to serve people in this type of crisis immediately and without delay.” However, recent news reports tell of veterans being put on hold when calling suicide prevention hotlines, and committing suicide while on waiting lists for therapy. “For these needs to have been ignored – not to mention voted against – by Scott, indicates his lack of representation of our veterans, who make up a sizable portion of constituents in our state, too,” Rose says. South Carolina is home to over 400,000 military veterans, almost 50,000 of whom have recently served in Afghanistan or Iraq. Over a quarter of all veterans in the state have some type of disability. “I’m very relieved that veterans can now have substantial improvement in needed service. “And as the 1st District’s representative, I would never shirk my Congressional duties and put our veterans in the position of having to wait for an executive order to access the help they need and deserve,” Rose promises.
|
RSS Feed
