Henry can’t get a break: Templeton, Bryant endorse Warren

From Warren's Facebook page.

From Warren’s Facebook page.

Well, here’s some bad news for Henry:

Greenville businessman John Warren received a major boost Tuesday in his quest to unseat Gov. Henry McMaster in the Republican primary runoff for governor, landing the endorsements of Lt. Gov. Kevin Bryant of Anderson and Mount Pleasant labor attorney Catherine Templeton .

McMaster got only 42 percent of Tuesday’s GOP primary vote, forcing a runoff. Warren, Templeton and Bryant received a combined 56 percent. Warren finished second, and is hoping his former rivals’ backing could push him over the top.

“What you are seeing right now is unification of the conservative party — the conservative part of the Republican Party,” Warren said Thursday at a press conference. “We’ve had tough battles over the past several months in the campaign, but we are unified. And we all agree that Governor McMaster is not the right person to lead our state.”…

This particularly has to be painful to an old-school Republican like Henry, a believer in Reagan’s 11th commandment. Remember how dutifully Henry lined up behind Nikki Haley after the upstart took the nomination from him in 2010?

As for Henry being “not the right person to lead our state,” I wonder whether any of these “conservatives” will remember that in the fall if Henry is their standard-bearer…

Speaking of remembering, I was cleaning out email today and ran across this from one week ago:

CATHERINE TEMPLETON CALLS ON JOHN WARREN
TO COME CLEAN ON LAND DONATIONS

Warren Avoided Paying Over $120K in Taxes

(COLUMBIA, S.C.)  Over a three year period, John Warren avoided paying more than $120,000 in taxes. Warren refuses to explain how he did it. Therefore, conservative buzzsaw and Republican gubernatorial candidate Catherine Templeton is today calling on John Warren to immediately disclose to voters the specifics of his tax avoidance scheme.

Warren said he donated two pieces of property in Horry County and outside of Charlotte. A search of property records yielded no results under Warren’s name, adding mounting evidence to the idea Warren established a complicated tax avoidance syndicate.

According to news media reports, tax returns indicate Warren and his wife claimed more than $715,000 in non-cash charitable donations on their federal tax returns from 2014 to 2016. While those returns included no details, The Charleston Post & Courier reported Warren received $122,500 in tax refunds as a result of the donations. The newspaper also reported that details about the land were redacted.

“This appears to be the kind of tax dodging loophole that lets the rich get out of paying their full share of taxes,” said Templeton campaign manager R.J. May III. “John Warren claims to be an ethical businessman. But the curious nature of these land donations leads to more questions than answers. Voters and reporters should be alarmed the Warren campaign refuses to release the details.”

May also noted that Warren has accepted the maximum $3,500 campaign donation from Frank Schuler, president of Ornstein-Schuler, which facilitates these complicated tax avoidance schemes. Additionally, Schuler is president of Partnership for Conservation organization and treasurer of the Partnership for Conservation PAC. The PAC has a history of donating to liberal senators and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

“While Warren claims to make ethical decisions, his land donations and close ties with Schuler could suggest otherwise. John Warren needs to explain these dealings to the people of South Carolina,” May said.

###
But I guess she’s OK with that stuff now, though…

56 thoughts on “Henry can’t get a break: Templeton, Bryant endorse Warren

  1. bud

    I’m not sure what is relevant about military service for governor. They served their country. Great! But it shouldn’t have any bearing on who to vote for. Yet everyone keeps bringing that up.

    Reply
    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Most people in South Carolina — not you, and maybe not Doug, but most people — would vote for the veteran over the non-veteran, if all other things were equal.

      This is one of those rare things where I am wholeheartedly with “most people.” I don’t like football. I don’t watch “reality” TV. But on this one, I’m comfortable with the majority. So I hope you’ll excuse me for taking some small satisfaction from being a regular, normal person on this one thing…

      Reply
      1. Doug Ross

        I vote for candidates based on what they’ve done and what they say they will do. I don’t hold military service as a negative. It is a positive in most cases because it demonstrates commitment, leadership, and discipline. I’m not sure I have as high esteem for those who serve stateside in bureaucratic jobs (hello, Lindsey) or use political connections to avoid combat (looking at you George W. Bush) and just use the military service as a resume builder for political gain. James Smith doesn’t fall into that category. But at the same time, I’d really like to know what he thought of the mission in Afghanistan. If he supported the mission, I can’t vote for him… sorry, that’s a deal breaker. I am not opposed to the military, I am opposed to the senseless killing of innocent people in areas of the world where we should not be involved.

        Reply
  2. Barry

    Templeton’s letter was typical Templeton.

    She alleged he committed a crime without any evidence to support it. She placed the burden solely on him to prove he didn’t commit a crime. Thankfully, that isn’t the way it works.

    Reply
  3. Philip Mathews “Phil” Cheney

    How do you address the issue of James Smith abandoning his constituents during his tour of duty in Afghanistan? He did not resign his seat while he was gone and this was the same time period that the vote on the nuclear power plant issues was taken in the State Legislature.

    Reply
    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      I don’t. His constituents seemed fine with the way he handled it, because they kept re-electing him. In fact, I’m trying to think of when James ever had serious opposition, another measure of satisfaction with him in his district.

      The only time he had serious opposition was in his first race, and that was his cousin Robert Adams, who was the Republican nominee.

      We liked both of them a lot, but… we actually endorsed Robert, while saying good things about James. That was back in 1996, before I was editorial page editor — back when Tom McLean was still EPE, and Katherine Gray and (I think) Kent Krell were still on the board…

      Reply
      1. bud

        His constituents should have had a problem with it. Brad you deflected on this. What do YOU think about an elected official abandoning his post? What if he’d joined the Peace Corp instead? Would that be ok?

        Reply
  4. bud

    On WIS they just interviewed the 3 remaining gubernatorial candidates about the medicinal marijuana issue. Henry was of course all in with keeping it the way it is. At least he was taking a stand. Warren was ok supporting legalization. Although perhaps not as stridently as I would have liked. Then we had Smith. He was just mush. Why couldn’t he just say, “Hell yes we should legalize medicinal marijuana. It’s a crime against humanity to deny any treatment that could alleviate symptoms of terrible diseases. It’s time we joined the many other states and nations who see the obvious benefits of this. To continue to deny this proven remedy for a wide variety of ailments is tantamount to a crime against humanity” Instead Smith says something like, “well if there is a disease that could benefit from medicinal marijuana then we should make it available to those patients”. Not the worst answer but certainly not a profile in courage. Come on dude give me a reason to vote FOR you rather than voting AGAINST your opponent because he is a Republican. Right now Smith is looking like a snowflake.

    Reply
    1. bud

      And by the way, for those of you who feel the 388, rural hospitals, medicaid money or pig farms are more important issues then I would suggest you get on to Smith if he gives mushy answers to any of those things as well. We need a man with passion. Yes this a style over substance thing but style is what gets you elected, not mush.

      Reply
      1. Harry Harris

        Just when I thought all of the one-issue voters were anti-abortion. I truly hope you don’t have a close friend or relative suffering because of this issue. The present state of the law seems out-dated.

        Reply
      2. Brad Warthen Post author

        I’m not a passion guy. I’m a reason guy. Give me a rational human being who knows how to work with other rational human beings.

        “Passion” gives you Trump.

        Give me cool, dispassionate thought pretty much every time. When someone starts trying to engage my emotions, I get suspicious, and wary…

        Reply
  5. Doug Ross

    Reviewing Warren’s website, I see that these are his top issue bullet points:

    Stop the Corruption
    Reduce Spending
    Unleash the Job Market
    Crackdown on Illegal Immigration
    Protect Life at All Stages
    Invest in Education
    Defend Our 2nd Amendment Rights

    I’m comfortable with all of those at a high level. And the order is pretty consistent with my own views except for guns and abortion. Don’t have a huge interest in either of those. Too much energy is expended on those issues when little will really change.

    Reply
    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      You mean… a candidate put stuff on his website that might be appealing to voters? What will they think of next?…

      You and I have a similar score, only I’d drop the absurdity about “crackdown on illegal immigration” along with the gun thing. Really? We have a “zero tolerance” policy in place that takes children from their parents and crams them into impromptu prisons, and the response to that is we need a CRACKDOWN?

      Oh, and that “zero tolerance” (Which is meant to create a reign of deterrent terror by telling people, “Look what we’ll do to your children if you dare to cross a line in the desert without the proper paperwork”) was instituted after years in which Barack Obama set records for deportations and increased security on the borders to unprecedented levels.

      You have to be divorced from reality to look at the border at this point in time and think, “We need a crackdown.” …

      Reply
      1. Brad Warthen Post author

        Maybe I’d cross off three of them, because I think you and I are in rough agreement that abortion doesn’t really need to be a priority in a candidate for governor.

        So since you only leave off two, I like his list of priorities (taken at face value, which is the way they’re intended to be taken, without anyone thinking too hard) slightly less than you do…

        Reply
          1. Doug Ross

            And if parents decide to enter the country illegally and know that they run the risk of having their children taken from them until they are processed, that’s on the parents. Do we blame DSS for taking kids out of homes of criminal’s. What would you do? Give everyone with a child free entry?

            Reply
            1. Brad Warthen Post author

              “And if parents decide to enter the country illegally and know that they run the risk of having their children taken from them until they are processed, that’s on the parents.”

              No, it isn’t. Not in any moral sense whatsoever.

              And I’ve very disappointed to hear you use that, “Well, if they didn’t want to lose their children, they shouldn’t have crossed the border illegally” formulation. It’s disgusting. I keep hearing that excuse offered, and it’s most offensive thing I’ve heard in the public sphere in a long time.

              The only way to excuse it is to think that the person saying it actually believes that this is the thought process that goes through the minds of illegals:

              Life is good. I sitting here in my lavishly appointed home in Central America/Mexico, in a wonderful, safe, prosperous community — no violence, no gangs, no political oppression. I have a great job, and if I want a better one, I just have to look around me. All that’s needed to prosper is hard work. My children are safe, they go to wonderful schools, and their prospects for the future are just terrific.

              And yet, I have this strange urge, and I just can’t help myself. I’ve decided I’m going to uproot my family, leave all this wonderfulness behind, and, with just the clothes on our backs, place my wife and children and me in the hands of smugglers who would just as soon kill us as take us safely to our destination — and pay them $5,000 apiece (which is nothing to me, life is so good down here!) for the privilege. It promises to be the experience of a lifetime!

              Why am I doing this? Because I can’t resist the urge to f__k with Americans, to tick them off, to watch their ears turn red with fury when they overhear us speaking Spanish to each other in Walmart. I love doing stuff like that! Also, I’m just a born criminal. You know me — murder, rape, pillage, or cross a hypothetical line in the desert without proper documentation, it’s all the same to me. I’m just plain evil that way…

              Reply
              1. Brad Warthen Post author

                How on Earth could you, even for a second, suggest that taking people’s children away from them is a just punishment for the bureaucratic “crime” of having crossed a line without getting the proper paperwork? What process gets you there?

                Reply
                1. Doug Ross

                  Because I don’t view it as a bureaucratic crime. I view it for what it is – a crime. Everyone who crosses illegally is a criminal. Criminals who do so knowingly.

                  I have far too many friends in this country on legal visas who battle for years to do it the right way. They don’t just walk across the border and expect to be treated like citizens. They pay thousands of dollars to lawyers and the government to retain their LEGAL status.

                  I have no sympathy for intentional law breakers. Don’t do the crime if you don’t want to suffer the consequences.

                  If you want to change the laws, do it. Obama had eight years. He did nothing. If they change the laws, I don’t care who comes in. Until then, enforce them and make the decision to break the law a risky proposition.

                  And, no, it’s not because they are “brown”. My Indian friends are “browner” than anyone crossing the border from the South.

            2. Scout

              I would keep the children with the parents as their situation is evaluated and deport or deny entry to them together as a unit, if that is what the evaluation of their application indicates is called for. I would not blanketly tell asylum seekers that they cannot get asylum without evaluating their situation. If for some reason separating parents and children were to become necessary, I would have an ironclad system in place to track and reunite families before attempting it. I would also, if it were absolutely necessary to separate families, have services in place to deal with all the needs of traumatized children, including mental health needs, knowing full well that the best services are probably still not going to prevent the child having potentially lasting damage. Basically I would avoid having to do it at all costs.

              If parents are fleeing situations where they fear their children are going to be raped or murdered or made to join gangs and become sex slaves, then being separated from them but knowing they are physically safe and alive and fed, while not their first choice, may still be preferable to the situation they are fleeing and not a deterrent.

              If we choose to separate parents and children when we have other options to meet the same end (which we clearly do) than that’s on us.

              Separating parents and children is a sin. in my opinion.

              Reply
              1. Brad Warthen Post author

                And all that you said can be summed up in this one sentence: “Basically I would avoid having to do it at all costs.” Absolutely. That is what a moral human being would do.

                The only conceivable excuse would be when officials have reason to doubt that the adults the children are with are their parents, and that they might be human traffickers. That’s about it…

                Reply
                1. Doug Ross

                  All I ask is that if you care for all these children, that you prove it by sending your money to them. Pick one family and send them 10% of your check. How much do you REALLY care?

                2. Brad Warthen Post author

                  You’re joking, right? Please tell me you don’t think that makes sense.

                  Let me tell you what a person who really cares does in this country. He raises hell about an injustice that can be ended IMMEDIATELY by this administration, because THIS ADMINISTRATION IS DOING IT!

                  You send money to victims of natural disasters. “Oh, those poor devils! We can’t do anything to prevent that, but we’ll reach out to help with the consequences!” When people are victims of PUBLIC POLICY, you call for an immediate end to that policy.

                  This is basic. This is fundamental…

                3. Scout

                  “All I ask is that if you care for all these children, that you prove it by sending your money to them. Pick one family and send them 10% of your check. How much do you REALLY care?”

                  How would this help? They are not lacking in material needs that money can buy. Me sending money will not restore their parent to them or make the gangs in their country leave them alone.

                  Seriously, do you just not understand the issues here?

                  We are talking about irreparable psychological harm being done to children because they are removed from their parents.

                  Money will not help that.

                4. Brad Warthen Post author

                  Maybe they could use the money to go out and buy new parents. You know, since their parents are PURE EVIL. How else to describe someone who risks everything to get their children out of a dangerous, untenable situation without getting the proper paperwork? What could be more horrible? Bureaucrats everywhere shudder at the very thought of such beastly creatures…

                5. Bob Amundson

                  Entering the USA illegally the first time is a misdemeanor. It is breaking the law! Everyone charged with a misdemeanor should have their children removed from them.

                  I’m being facetious, of course. I see the damage done to children when removed from their parents. Children should only be removed when parents are unable to provide safety to their children – extreme neglect; physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. Children are almost always traumatized by protective services removing them from their parents. The times I’ve removed (or instructed workers to remove) children and they seemed “relieved,” the abuse was EXTREME!

              2. Mark Stewart

                This is the most morally and ethically repugnant situation this country has seen since the Civil Rights era – or the Japanese Interment during WWII.

                Sin; that is a good word. This is pure evil. America is far better than this; we should be better than this.

                Reply
                1. Doug Ross

                  And the hyperbole train keeps on chugging… as usual, using children as the centerpiece. I just saw on CNN that the kids are taken on field trips to San Diego zoo. Brutal! Probably didn’t even get an extra snow cone.

                  There is a solution: the parents can take the kids back and go through a legal immigration process.

                2. Mark Stewart

                  It is my understanding that most of these kids were taken from their parent(s) at US Border Patrol crossing points when the parent(s) presented themselves to the authorities for asylum. Even if they were caught trying to sneak across the border my opinion that this is vile would not change.

                  I don’t know what to say, Doug. It’s unfathomable.

                3. Brad Warthen Post author

                  This is worse than the Japanese internment. People always judge that from the comfortable standards of the 21st century. Say whatever you want about it, the idea that people of recent Japanese nationality MIGHT have been a national security threat in the wake of Pearl Harbor is not insane, or some sort of pure expression of racism. It was something we should not have done, but it was far from being pure evil.

                  Yep, there was an element of racism in distrusting, and locking up, people because of their genetic heritage. But however wrong it was, at least there was a REASON — Pearl Harbor, and a state of total war with the country these folks (or their parents) had come from.

                  Maybe there’d be a parallel if we had taken Japanese-American children away from their parents just to punish the parents for being of Japanese origin. That would be a closer comparison.

                  The thing that distinguishes this from anything that has gone before is not the sheer cruelty of it, but the irrationality.

                  I’ve tried and tried to understand it, but I truly don’t get why so many people in this country get so worked up by the fact that some people come here without proper authorization.

                  It’s not a good thing. We’d rather have these folks come in in an orderly fashion (unless we are the sort who just doesn’t want them, period), with full documentation and knowledge of where they are and what they are doing while here. But the fact that poor people come here without such authorization, while unfortunate, is not something that should stir the blood so as to make people want to take away these folks’ children as a way of seeking vengeance on them.

                  The whole thing is not just wrong. It makes no sense

                4. bud

                  The Japanese internment’s is a reasonably good comparison but Brad points out a couple of important differences. The most important is the family separation. There are reports that children as young as 4 are being forceably detained in facilities apart from their parents. That did not happen to the Japanese. I never thought I’d live to see the day when we’d have a national policy worse than Japanese internment. But here we are. Elections do have consequences. God help us.

            3. bud

              Doug, that is just disgusting. No person when a scintilla of ethical thinking should ever give this abhorrent, un-American policy anything but condemnation.

              Reply
              1. Doug Ross

                I can sleep soundly. Actions have consequences. Illegal actions can have very strong consequences.

                It’s no different than drug laws. People make decisions to risk breaking those laws all the time and suffer the consequences.

                It’s funny how some people strongly say we are a nation of laws and not men until they don’t like the laws. There’s a remedy to that. Only vote for people who will change the laws to fit your beliefs. That’s what I do.

                Reply
                1. bud

                  Doug, let me remind you that you defended Mark Sanford showing up at his ex-wife’s house to watch the superbowl with his son. That is an act of trespassing. So don’t give me this law and order crap. Besides, in the case of asylum seekers there may not have been any laws broken. Defending the forced removal of breast feeding babies from their mother is not defensible. Double down if you like but you won’t win this argument.

                2. Doug Ross

                  Sorry, bad analogy. That was not a marital/divorce spat that should have been left to divorce lawyers. Anyway, Sanford went to court as the law requires. So what law was actually broken? Not what was claimed, what was he convicted of? Did he go through the legal process or not?

                3. bud

                  Doug if you really want to make a statement about this being a “nation of laws” then why don’t you start with the president. The Trump Foundation shenanigans is clearly, unambiguously a violation of the laws governing charitable foundations. Yet you never get onto him?
                  Is it because he’s rich and somehow that inoculates him from the law? That sure is what it’s starting look like.

                4. bud

                  what law was actually broken?

                  Trespassing. Good analogy actually. Sanford entered property that he clearly had no legal right to enter. Same as the asylum seekers. Jenny may have cut him some slack but believe me he was committing a criminal act. What say you Bryan? Am I overstating this?

                5. Doug Ross

                  Sure, the laws should be enforced against Trump as well. If his foundation did something wrong, he should be punished. How difficult is that to understand?

                  We have a process to enforce laws. Follow it. And if you break the law, you suffer the consequences. It’s not like the U.S. is going across the borders to pull these kids in.

                  I want drug laws changed. I don’t say “oh, just don’t enforce them”. I vote for people who agree with that belief. Because that’s the process you use to change laws. Democrats had their chance for years and didn’t have the ability to get it done. Blame them, too.

                6. Scout

                  “I can sleep soundly. Actions have consequences. Illegal actions can have very strong consequences.”

                  Asking for asylum is not illegal. The US is obligated to recognize valid claims for asylum under the UN 1951 Refugee convention and the Refugee Act of 1980. There is no law that says asylum seekers must be separated from their children.

                  It is reported that border patrol is not permitting these people to even request asylum. If that is true, who is breaking the rule of law there if we as a country have signed treaties agreeing to abide by certain rules in relation to asylum seekers. And we are not doing it.

                  If the administration wants to be insanely evil and inappropriate in how they choose whether or not to grant asylum, which it also sounds like is happening, I suppose that is their prerogative, but it sounds like the process is not even being allowed to get to that point. They are not being given the chance to make their case. They are being treated as criminals instead. Again I say to you, seeking asylum is not a crime.

                  You say that they know their children will be taken from them when they choose to come. You know this, how?

                  Maybe what they think they know is that the US signed the Refugee convention and Congress passed the Rufugee act. So maybe they think they will be given a chance to make their case since gang members are trying to kill them and their government is not protecting them. Maybe that is what they think they know.

                  So the administration could hear their cases while they are with their children, deny them, and send them all back, if they wanted to. That would still be crummy, but better than this.

                7. bud

                  It is reported that border patrol is not permitting these people to even request asylum. If that is true, who is breaking the rule of law there if we as a country have signed treaties agreeing to abide by certain rules in relation to asylum seekers. And we are not doing it.
                  -Scout

                  I haven’t heard that point but apparently it is the administration breaking the law, not the asylum seekers.

          2. Brad Warthen Post author

            Oops! Another strike against him.

            That is, if you’re talking about taking money away from public education to use it to pay parents to abandon public schools — that is, vouchers or tax credits.

            Unfortunately, some people also “school choice” to refer to such GOOD ideas as charter schools.

            But on the GOP’s right wing, they usually mean the other thing — anything to undermine public schools…

            Reply
            1. Doug Ross

              You say undermine, I say give kids who are in terrible schools that cannot be fixed a chance. You can’t save them all no matter how much of other people’s money you spend.

              I’m for limited, trial vouchers for the worst districts. You try to turn that into abandoning public schools. When the dumpster is on fire, you don’t keep throwing paper into it. You want to wave your magic tax wand and change the behaviors of parents, students, and administrators where everyone suddenly becomes responsible. No chance of that happening. We’ve got plenty of evidence that shows it doesn’t work. Millions of dollars spent with no return on investment.

              Reply
              1. Bob Amundson

                The most troubled schools are in rural SC; where do the parents take their children to use the vouchers?

                Reply
              2. Brad Warthen Post author

                Get back to me when the “dumpster,” as you choose to call public schools (perhaps the greatest cause of this nation’s affluence), is on actually on fire.

                I don’t want to wave any fricking wand. I just don’t want to take funding AWAY from public schools, as you want to do. Period. I do not wish to do HARM, based in gross prejudice against the idea of public education.

                Tell you what, Doug — if you care so much about these poor kids trapped in these horrid public schools (and don’t want to do the obvious, which is FIX THE SCHOOLS), then why don’t you send them 10% or your income?

                That doesn’t make sense, does it? Which is why I’d never seriously suggest it…

                Reply
  6. Philip Mathews “Phil” Cheney

    I am definitely in favor of legalization of marijuana for medical applications. The extreme pro-life position is terrible! It would prevent physicians from saving the lives of their female patients experiencing problem pregnancies. This is NOT a conservative stance.

    Reply
    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      I’ve never thought being pro-life was “conservative.” I’ve always seen it as being the ultimate bleeding-heart liberal position — protecting the most helpless among us.

      And I’d be interested to know who holds this “extreme pro-life” position of which you speak. I’m not aware of anyone who wouldn’t allow for an exception to save the mother’s life. That’s not pro-life at all…

      Usually, the folks on the “pro” side call those of us who would ONLY allow that exception to be the “extremists.” So you’re saying we’re not? I guess I should welcome that…

      Reply
  7. Brad Warthen Post author

    As long as I’m showing you an email from Ms. Templeton from last week, I should also share the fact that a week ago, I got one from Phil Noble that started, “This election is ours to win…”

    Old email can be fun…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *