Simple question, simple answer

Another blog is conducting an e-mail survey, in which it poses this question:

Should State Treasurer Thomas Ravenel Challenge Lindsey Graham for U.S. Senate?

Well, that’s easy: The answer is NO. Why? Because Ravenel said he would not do that.

Everyone assumed he had no interest in being treasurer, but was running to position himself for this very move. We asked him and asked him; he was painfully coy about it for a very long time.

But then, in order to set the issue to rest and win the election, he said he had no intention of running against Graham. (And no, you don’t get to say, "I had no intention then, but now I do." That sort of obtuseness is beyond the pale. If he "develops the urge," it will be perfectly clear that he always had that urge.)

So to the extent that he honors his word, as opposed to engaging in Clintonian games with words, he won’t do that.

Next question?

12 thoughts on “Simple question, simple answer”

  2. LexWolf

    Of course, Ravenel should run. For one because we desperately need to get rid of Graham. For another because nobody cares what Ravenel might have said to an ink-stained wretch of an editorial page editor.

  3. ed

    I would vote for Ravenel over Grahamnesty. But then of course, I would vote for Mickey Mouse over Grahamnesty.
    So, I would support Ravenel but I would hold my nose while doing so. I think Ravenel is a not-ready-for-primetime player. Everytime I see him, I remember the mind-numbing and incessant campaign commercials he ran in which he claimed to be a business man and to have created fifty thousand jobs. Or was it five thousand? I don’t know, but it was some ridiculously over-the-top number of jobs he claimed to have created, as if he could just throw this huge and obviously specious number around and no one would question it. Now, I understand that hyperbole is the currency of the realm in politics, but please…can we not have at least a single atom of honesty in campaign commercials? When a candidate is so completely willing to tell obvious whoppers without the least bit of compunction, I question his suitability for office.
    Nevertheless, I’d become Ravenels’ campaign manager and help him make up lies if it’d get Lindsey Grahamnesty out of office. Ed

  4. Doug Ross

    Glad to see The State will only be endorsing candidates who have never changed their minds on any topic. Should save a lot of newsprint.
    I think the slight shrillness you hear in Brad’s whining is due to the fact that he’s afraid T-Rav could beat one of his heroes. Graham’s stand on Iraq and immigration is way out of touch with public sentiment and he’s going to have to search pretty hard to find something he’s done that will resonate with the people of South Carolina, particularly conservatives.

  7. Brad Warthen

    And Sand Hill, that’s a very good point. I am not OK with pledges.
    Of course, this isn’t quite the same as “I swear I will never vote for X or always vote for Y, no matter the circumstances.” What offends me is that people are tying their hands — or rather, tying their brains — on policy issues in advance. I want people to THINK after they are elected, and see what situations they are actually faced with, not prejudging policy decisions for situations that have not yet arisen.
    In this case, the question before Ravenel was, “Are you actually planning to serve as treasurer if elected?” And this is hardly a case of a changed situation. Graham is the same senator he was when Ravenel, after giving cutesy answers like “Tell you one thing, I don’t plan on being treasurer for 20 years” for months finally said OK, yeah, I want to be treasurer; this isn’t JUST a stepping-stone. That hardly seems like an onerous or irresponsible sort of commitment.
    But yes, I get your point about pledges.

  8. Sand Hill

    That’s sort of a fine line, but I can see your distinction. I think Ravenel will be able to finesse it with the public after the latest immigration bill controversy if he chooses to.

  9. Sand Hill

    That’s sort of a fine line, but I can see your distinction. I think Ravenel will be able to finesse it with the public after the latest immigration bill controversy if he chooses to.

  10. Bill C.

    I strongly believe we South Carolinians have had enough of fancy boy Lindsey Graham role as George Bush’s “Yes Boy”. I’d vote for Hillary “It takes a village, because nobody can be individually held responsible” Clinton over Lindsey Graham if she ran against him. “T-Rav”, as he wanted to be called to the hip-hop voters, is the lesser of two evils.

  11. Preston

    T-rav can’t read. He is an embarassment. The only person I would like to have as my Senator less is Jim DeMint.
    Enjoy, South Carolinians.

Comments are closed.