Since the Duncan campaign made the Republican Primary Runoff, a lot of mischaracterizations, innuendos, and outright lies have been spread about Jeff Duncan. I confess to some surprise about this, since it’s the last thing I expected from the supporters of Richard Cash.
Duncan has been called a lawyer and a career politician, and detractors have hinted that he’s part of the “good ole boy” network. Now where the lawyer part came from, I have no idea. But I think I know why they call him a career politician and a “good ole boy”.
It’s because he’s served in the South Carolina General Assembly since 2003. That’s it.
That has to be it, because if they had checked out his record, they would know that:
- he’s been in lock-step with Nikki Haley the whole time (and I shouldn’t have to tell you how the Republican powers-that-be feel about her)
- he’s been one of the strongest fiscal conservatives in the house
- he’s so strong on school choice that the Democrats recruited a primary challenger (who was a Democrat incognito) to run against him in 2008 – on that issue alone
- he was one of the original cosponsors of the school choice bill that conservatives have pushed in the House for years
- he foresaw the passage of Obamacare, and filed nullification legislation ahead of time so we’d be ready when the time came
- he’s served as an effective chairman of the Agriculture Committee without becoming one of Speaker Harrell’s “boys”
And the list could go on and on.
Legitimate disagreement on the issues is fair game. However, there’s an anti-incumbent spirit among conservative voters right now, and the detractors are trying to play to that for the benefit of their candidate. A lot of incumbents are rotten, no question about that, but not every incumbent needs to go, and to say so is a knee-jerk reaction only befitting a hothead.
There are some of us who have gotten heavily involved only in the last couple of years, and then there are some principled conservatives who have been involved for a number of years.
Why?
Because they saw what we saw years before we saw it. We are the johnny-come-latelys in the political fight, and men like Jeff Duncan are the seasoned warriors in the trenches of liberty who are hailing the reinforcements with joy.
And some folks want to kick those warriors out of the ditch, ignore their wounds and decorations, and treat them like the enemies of freedom just because they were there first. Is this honor? Is this patriotism? Is this gratitude?
I hate to think what these people would have said about the founding fathers, who served for years and years, at the expense of their personal lives, their families, and their businesses as they built this country for us.
I encourage everyone to check out how Jeff Duncan and Richard Cash stand on the issues. If you do, I’m sure you will see why I, a homeschool graduate, am supporting Duncan over Cash. And perhaps, you’ll see why his supporters have resorted to these dishonorable attacks as well. It’s because there’s nothing else to attack.
I have attended 4 of the debates so I feel fairly well informed about the candidates. I voted for Cash in the primary but don’t consider myself a “Cash supporter” per se. I had a hard time choosing between Cash, Collins, and Vasovski- since all seemed to be conservative outsiders who were not taking special interest money.
I checked Cash’s website and he states “We must also encourage school choice and support the rights of parents who choose private schooling or who educate their children at home.” This leaves me unclear about why you are endorsing Duncan over him- as Cash seems more solid to me.
I was very troubled by Duncan’s comment at the last debate (in Clemson) when he boasted about working with Democrats. With the Democrats we currently have in Washington, I think the last thing we want is someone who is going to work with Pelosi, Reid and Obama. It basically sounded like something Lindsey Graham would say.
Rob
There may be some mischaracterizations of Mr. Duncan going on, but I have not seen anything unfair or personal coming from the Richard Cash campaign. At Mr. Cash’s press conference in Anderson today, he made it very clear that his disagreement with Mr. Duncan was not a personal attack, and was not over Mr. Duncan’s service in the state house, but rather over two issues:
-Term Limits
-Special Interest Money
I believe that these are legitimate political issues to discuss; this isn’t a personal attack or a smear.
I sincerely hope that no “dishonorable attacks” have been made by Cash supporters, obviously that would be hurtful to both candidates. However, I can assure you hat no “dishonorable attacks” have been made by the Cash for congress campaign.
Been watching the race from Texas and my opinion is that you are supporting a really great candidate. 😀
To clarify a little, Richard has said the reason he considers Jeff a career politician is that Jeff is not willing to pledge to limit his time in the House. Of course Richard has pledged no longer than 10 years. The logical conclusion is that, while Jeff supports term limits for everyone, if that doesn’t happen, he is prepared to stay beyond 10 years in the House. Add his current 8 years in the state house, and it looks like he’s planning on a career of 20+ years in politics. That isn’t necessarily bad, but it’s the reality.
I have no issue with Jeff’s voting record. It is sterling. He and Richard agree on nearly every issue, aside from how the government should operate.
Please document who called Duncan a lawyer. I’ve never heard him called that, and I’m pretty close to the Cash campaign. I believe Neal Collins was the only lawyer in the race.
I don’t doubt that some supporters have heard and repeated some rumors. Richard can’t stop that. But Duncan sent out a mailer with question marks beside three of Richard’s well-documented positions, implying that his position was ambiguous. I thought Duncan was more honest than that. And that was a mailer officially from his campaign, not some random supporter.
Duncan has a great record, but I’ll go with Cash on his legislative emphasis (pro-life more than economic, although both candidates agree on those issues) and his views on PAC money and term limits. Duncan’s misleading mailer in the runoff also disappoints me.