 He helped block its renewal last year while in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Tim Scott tried it again on February 4 from his new spot in the U.S. Senate. As a result, not only is the Violence Against Women Act expired, but without funding options, too, and it could take even longer to be reinstated. Although a bipartisan panel of 85 senators openly supported it, Scott and seven other Republican senators blocked the 2013 edition of the bill from coming to the floor for debate, Huffington Post reports. VAWA’s provisions, which include legal aid for abused females and funding of rape crisis centers, are now halted. In May 2012, the House approved a variation to VAWA that was to remove Native Americans, LGBT victims and immigrants from inclusion in the programs, and which had been included in the Senate version of the bill. Scott joined other Republicans in a tight 222-205 vote to impose such restrictions. The Senate re-inserted the excluded groups to the bill, but the House refused to vote on the revised version. On Jan. 3, 2013, VAWA officially expired. The limited version that Scott supported last May was so limiting that even the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women opposed it, declaring it to be “dangerous for victims(.)” The National Task Force strongly supported the Senate version of VAWA, though. Domestic violence is a prominent topic is Scott’s state of South Carolina, unfortunately. Over 36,000 women in the state are victims every year, according to the state Attorney General. South Carolina ranks highest in homicide committed against women by men, and one of out every eight women in the state are victims of physical abuse at least once in their lifetimes. The Republican senators who joined Scott in blocking VAWA from debate prior to vote were Rand Paul (Ky.), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Mike Lee (Utah), James Risch (Idaho), Mike Johanns (Neb.) and Ted Cruz (Texas). Last month, Scott resigned from the House to assume the Senate seat vacated by Jim DeMint. Senators who do support VAWA state that they intend to continue its introduction this week with hopes of it getting re-enacted as quickly as possible.
 Gov. Nikki Haley spent 11 days reviewing candidates before selecting Tim Scott to replace Jim DeMint, the Republican senator who resigned on Dec. 6. The state’s Democratic Party took only two hours after today’s announcement to respond, though. “We would like to congratulate Sen. Tim Scott on his historic appointment to the US Senate,” said Jaime Harrison, 1st Vice Chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party, in a 2:30 p.m. press release. “We look forward to seeing Sen. Scott's decisions on legislation that will affect the people of South Carolina on a daily basis. We need to make sure our leaders help middle class families, educate our young people and continue to make sure that healthcare is affordable and available.” As congressional representative of the state’s 1st District, Scott has consistently voted against labor interests and the Affordable Care Act, even sponsoring bills to restrict unions and to overturn the healthcare act. “Finally,” Harrison’s statement continues, “in the wake of the shooting in Connecticut we hope that Senator Scott will follow the President's lead in realizing the necessity in developing ways to make sure the mentally ill are able to receive the correct healthcare and firearms don't end up in the hands of dangerous individuals.” Scott has been an adamant supporter of gun rights, and co-sponsored many House bills to remove handgun restrictions including one that would prevent law enforcement from tracking individual purchases of multiple weapons. “Sen. Scott has a big decision to make,” Harrison concludes. “Will he choose to be a statesman, fighting for the best interests of all South Carolinians or will he follow the model of Jim DeMint, allowing political ideology to trump constituent needs? “Sen. Scott, the South Carolina Democratic Party and the people of this great state will be watching and awaiting your decision.” On Dec. 6 DeMint announced he was resigning the office to be the new president of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. On Dec. 17, Haley announced Scott’s appointment to replace DeMint at a press conference in Columbia. In 2014, Scott will have to be re-elected for the last two years of the six-year term. Immediately after today’s press conference, he submitted email requests for donations to the upcoming campaign.
 He hasn’t even assumed the office yet, but Tim Scott is already campaigning for his re-election. Shortly after being appointed this afternoon to fill a soon-to-be empty seat of South Carolina U.S. Senator, an email blast calling for donations to the 2014 race was submitted in bulk. “It’s truly an honor to have been appointed by Governor Haley to replace Jim DeMint in the U.S. Senate,” the message begins. “We must work together to stand up to the big spenders in Washington. Will you join with me by donating what you can here? I have set a goal of reaching 10,000 contributors in 48 hours and would appreciate your help.” A postscript to the email concludes “I will have to run for re-election next election. Your support will help ensure we keep this seat in Republican hands.” Although he takes DeMint’s seat on Jan. 3, Scott will have to be formally elected to the senate position in 2014 to continue what will then be the final two years of the term. In his appointment acceptance speech, issued at a 12 p.m. press conference from the State House, Scott appeared to focus more on the upcoming election than his duties for the next two years. “I look forward to taking the opportunity to introduce myself across the state.” Scott has held office in Charleston County and the Lowcountry’s 1st Congressional District, leaving him rather unknown in other parts South Carolina. On Dec. 6 DeMint announced he was resigning the office to be the new president of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. Scott was first elected to the U.S. House in 2010, and was re-elected in 2012.
 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.
With all the ruckus following Sen. Jim DeMint’s resignation and Gov. Nikki Haley’s need to quickly appoint his replacement, a lot of media cite anonymous sources that imply Rep. Tim Scott will get the nod. An online petition was recently created to encourage Haley to do just that, too. But while over 500 have signed the “Appoint Tim Scott to the U.S. Senate” site since its Dec. 6 creation, not all have done so with positive intentions, it seems. For example, note signature 28 below:
 (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) announced his resignation this morning. Effective beginning January, he’ll become the new president of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that promotes small government and free enterprise. "It's been an honor to serve the people of South Carolina in United States Senate for the past eight years, but now it's time for me to pass the torch to someone else and take on a new role in the fight for America's future,” he stated in a press release announcement. “I've decided to join The Heritage Foundation at a time when the conservative movement needs strong leadership in the battle of ideas.” DeMint’s retirement from elected office has been anticipated, but not this soon, however. In Aug. 2011, he said he would not seek re-election in 2016. The sudden announcement opens the doors for rumors about his replacement, who will be selected by Gov. Nikki Haley, according to the state constitution. A public election will take place in 2014 for the remaining two years of the senate term. Multiple sources say Rep. Tim Scott will get the appointment. “Jim DeMint has said he wants Tim Scott — period,” one anonymous source told The Washington Post. “The ball is in Governor Haley’s court. Does she go with the status quo and appoint Scott? I think it would be hard not to.” Scott and Haley are mutual supporters, and campaigned together in 2010 when each first ran for their offices. The two crashed the 2012 Democratic National Convention together, as well. Haley would not be able to appoint any replacement to Scott’s 1st Congressional Dist. seat, though. According to Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, “When vacancies happen in the representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.” No candidates for special election, should Scott get the appointment, have been rumored yet. Scott offered a rather broad statement on the circumstance. “I know (Haley) will make the right choice for both South Carolina and the nation.” Scott supporters shouldn’t get their hopes up just yet, though, says DeMint spokesperson Wesley Denton. “Sen. DeMint has no favorites as our state has a deep bench of conservatives,” Denton told The Hill. “This is Gov. Haley’s decision alone and he trusts her to make a great choice.” Other rumors insinuate that Haley will seek the office herself. With dwindling reputation and public support, Haley is anticipated to face primary challengers in the 2014 gubernatorial election. A move to a new office could help her overcome voter dissent. However, an incumbent governor can’t nominate him- or herself. Haley would have to resign, and then be appointed by her replacement, Lt. Gov. Glenn McConnell (Rep.). While still President Pro Tem of the state senate, however, McConnell sparred frequently with Haley, indicating no allegiance between them. Other rumored nominees include: her deputy Chief of Staff Ted Pitts; former state Attorney Gen. Henry McMaster (Haley’s primary opponent in 2010); state Dept. of Health and Environmental Control director Catherine Templeton; former Ambassador David Williams; state Rep. Nathan Ballentine; state Sen. Tom Davis; former state GOP Chair Katon Dawson; and Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina’s 5th Congressional Dist. DeMint remains vocal in the Senate, though, even after announcing his resignation. This afternoon, he tweeted an angry response to House leader Rep. John Boehner’s budget proposal. He was first elected to U.S. Senate in 2004 after serving six years as U.S. Representative from the state’s 4th Congressional Dist. Who do you think Gov. Haley will pick to replace Sen. DeMint? Take this quick, one-question survey!
 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.
 (Lindsay Street/Summerville Patch) For Tuesday's presidential debate, the Charleston County Republican Party hosted a watch party complete with food, drinks and ... someone dressed in pimp garb who wore an Obama mask. I find that personally disturbing, not just because I’m active with the competing party in the area, and not just because I find CCRP's welcoming of that attendee to be just as discriminatory, negatively-stereotyping and racist as his costume, either. What offends me is the negative implications now placed upon my Republican friends and relatives. The person who pulled this stunt made it clear that the Republican Party no longer represents the values of its voters. While party officials and representatives may talk about faith, families, limited government and other so-called conservative issues, their actions are completely different. And that unfairly paints a negative image upon voters who actually support those ideals.
 We see this in Republican politicians and candidates very often. Take, for example, the rhetoric regularly stated by our Republican congressman Tim Scott. He publicly complains about “big government,” but his record seems to indicate he’s in favor of “Big Brother.” He voted to extend warrantless searches of your computer, for example – that allows government to directly access your computer, even your Internet history, at any time without any authorization or even established need. Scott also voted to allow your employer to force you to give up your passwords to social websites, such as facebook, so that your boss can keep a close eye on your private life. If your employer doesn’t like what he sees, or if you refuse to hand over your passwords? You can be fired. How, then, is Scott supporting the traditional Republican tenets of freedom and smaller government?
 This hypocrisy is especially evident in Carter’s campaign platform. In a “Political Courage” survey he answered earlier this year, for example, Carter gave some classic conservative answers, calling for reductions in Medicaid benefits and absolutely no restrictions on the purchase or possession of weapons. In 2000, though, and in response to a survey from this same Vote Smart organization, Carter said he supported an increase in Medicaid benefits, even for non-US citizens. And we should “maintain and strengthen” gun laws, he said. ( See his 2000 “Political Courage” responses here.) So to which party, then, does Carter actually align: Democrat or Republican?Neither one. Carter apparently wouldn’t represent anyone other than himself.
| I think he made that perfectly clear earlier this year, too. During a primary debate, when asked about his previous run for the same office as a Democrat, Carter openly stated that he intentionally misled voters that year. He was only running as a Democrat because he thought it was a strong Democratic district, he stated.
Carter said that, if he’d won that 2000 contest, he would have switched parties the very next year, right after being elected.
This “say one thing, do the opposite” pattern from the GOP isn’t in any way reflective of the Republicans I know.
| | My brother, for example, who’s a very conservative financial consultant, is quite fed up with the financial irresponsibility that the GOP keeps presenting in its budget proposals.
A neighbor and very good friend, who’s quite firm in his faith, has lost faith in the Republican Party because of the apparent double-standard its elected officials hold for themselves.
And I know that the Republican voters in our community aren’t childish with hints of racism, either, even though that seemed to be the projection at Tuesdays’s local GOP event.
To the actual, true Republican citizens in the Lowcountry, don’t worry – I won’t let that incident affect my perspectives of you and your values, and I’ll make sure local Democrats know that, too.
But you need to reclaim your party very quickly, or else just leave the GOP.
Until then, we all need to vote our values this November. And the only way to do that, apparently, is by voting Democrat, especially in these local races.
 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.
|
RSS Feed
