The latest from Cyndi Mosteller’s group, which seems to speak for a lot of Republicans I hear from and about, but who are not as loudly on the record as this bunch:
Columbia, SC—Conservatives for Truth in Politics announces a “Truth Alert” for the people of South Carolina. “TIP is appalled at the recent actions of the Haley campaign to mislead the people of SC on very important issues facing our state,” said co-chairs Cyndi Mosteller and David Woodard. Specifically, TIP is referring to a negative ad paid for by the Haley campaign that criticizes Sheheen on two votes: one raising the tax on cigarettes by 50 cents a pack and the other on Act 388, the property tax relief act, that is very controversial because it did not address commercial property and second homes.
“The hypocrisy of Ms. Haley might be her most transparent characteristic,” said Mosteller. “Haley is critical of Sheheen for supporting a cigarette tax but she herself has said she would support a tax on groceries? Enough is enough. She will not pull the wool over our eyes anymore.” Ms. Haley claims to be an outsider but her actions tell a different story. What we do know is that Ms. Haley is in the back pocket of big tobacco. She was part of a small minority that worked to defeat the cigarette tax—the tax that was the lowest in the country.
“She carried the water for big tobacco but she won’t carry the water for working families of SC,” said Woodard. “As a parent with three teenage daughters, I was one Republican that understood the clear thinking involved when the legislature put an additional tax on cigarettes. Anything we can do to discourage kids from picking up this high-risk habit is a good thing. I applaud Mr. Sheheen for his vote and I think most people of SC feel the same way. My memory is that 80% of people support a tax on cigarettes to the southeastern average,” said Mosteller.
What Ms. Haley won’t tell you is that she wants to place a tax on groceries in a time in which SC families are struggling financially. This tax will cost all SC families hundreds of millions of dollars on the most important necessity—food. And what does she want to do with this tax money that is coming out of families’ pockets? Yes. Give it to big out-of-state corporations by eliminating the corporate income tax. “Let me make this clear to all. Ms. Haley supports taxing your food and giving it to large out-of-state corporations and then has the nerve to criticize Sheheen for supporting a cigarette tax? I can’t believe she calls herself a conservative Republican,” said Liana Orr, Secretary and Director of TIP.
“As the campaigns come to an end with Election Day just around the corner, TIP will increase its efforts to call anyone out that is distorting the truth,” said Woodard.
TIP is a 501 c 4 advocacy organization. To learn more about this issue and other issues that we are questioning the candidates on, go to www.sctruth.com
###
Related Posts
She’s just what my students would call “a hot mess.”
To support the grocery tax while opposing an increase in the cigarette tax is unconscionable. What are working class thinking when they vote for this woman.
Brad, if you would focus more on tangible, real-world issues like this rather than the esoteric nonsense about restructuring maybe you’d convince more people.
As my wife told me this morning
a lot of women will vote for her simply because she is a woman – especially in South Carolina. It’s such a rare thing to vote for a woman for a statewide audience.
My wife won’t be voting for her. She has a very low opinion of Ms. Haley. (I think my opinion is higher of Ms. Haly than my wife’s)
It’s almost hopeless when someone would view restructuring this state’s governmental structure as esoteric nonsense.
But I will still maintain that that is a lot more important issue than even taxes. It’s just a whole lot less apparent – except over the decades that South Carolina has languished. And by that I mean since 1820.
I have seen other states completely remake themselves in only several decades. We need to start thinking of ourselves as starting from scratch like a new immigrant without much in the way of assets and work with what we do have with the idea that our GRANDCHILDREN will have a much better life. If we could think like that, then we as a state could do a better job with taxes, education, economic development and “good government”, among other dilemmas facing our state. The problem is really that we are just too shortsighted about the long-term repercussions of our feel-good, live-for-the-moment societal outlook.
I don’t believe that the sort of women who would vote for a woman because she is a woman (feminists) can stomach Niki Haley (or Sarah Palin).
People are complicated. And therefore people who would NOT decide to vote for a candidate because she is a woman will nevertheless congratulate themselves, and feel justified in their judgement, because she is a woman…
Mark, we’ve been through restructuring once and it was a disaster. Maybe it will work next time but will it actually do what it’s proponents say it will. Of course not.
Brad– I have no idea what your comment means.
I don’t see what’s not to understand.
Have you not noticed that people who scoff at identity politics normally (as do I) will nevertheless hug themselves in self-congratulation when they find themselves supporting a Tim Scott or a Nikki Haley? As in, “See? We ARE broad-minded, too!”
My opinion of Haley is lower precisely because she is a woman. I want a better choice for our first female governor, and I resent the hell out of her for being so, well, horrid. Yes, horrid was the correct word. I’ve taken to calling her “She Who Must Not Be Named” or SWMNBN. I will be dressed in full mourning for the suicide of the great state of South Carolina on Wednesday if the unthinkable occurs on Tuesday.
Fortunately, I have an excellent choice for governor, no matter gender, in Vincent Sheheen. And I would have voted for Sheheen regardless of the Republican running. SWMNBN just made me more passionate about my choice.
Barry, I think I could rival your wife. I think I’m going to vote absentee Monday because I can’t stand seeing the Haley posters that will be scattered around my voting place.
I couldn’t parse it. Now I see.
Bud,
Now that’s even worse. So since something didn’t work out completely we should just give up and not try again? Sorry, I’m just stubborn I guess – or a glass half full guy.
What about trying until we get it “right”? Which by the way is never…so let’s keep moving forward.
Mark, what irritates me the most about the first restructuring law was how utterly incompetent the media was in analyzing it. Much of the reason for that failure was the total immersion by the media, especially The State, in promoting the thing. Until we can actually get to a point where we have honest information about a law AFTER it passes we’ll never get to the heart of any matter. There is absolutely no point in considering a new restructuring bill until we have a frank conversation about the first one. The State talked about a power failure. They need to add a new chapter about the failure of the media.
How about the fact that The State located its facility outside the city limits to avoid paying city taxes? We’ve had this discussion before – the business known as The State has a far different view of taxes than a couple people on the editorial board.
And why not remove the exemption just from newspapers? Wouldn’t that be a start? But the trick is that they know comprehensive reform won’t ever happen so it won’t ever be on the table.
Yeah, that’s it, Doug — we’re all a bunch of lying hypocrites, and don’t mean anything we say.
Thanks.
Why can’t you look at it as the glass being half full? Knowing that the publisher is on the editorial board and everybody on it works for him (or her), and every publisher the paper has had since I started working there has been adamantly opposed to being taken into the city, why can’t you appreciate the fact that the editorial position of the paper is that it should be EASIER for municipalities to take in adjacent areas? That’s the real problem here: The Legislature keeps local governments weak in a number of ways. One is by limiting how they can tax. Another is by making it almost impossible to annex an area that doesn’t want to be annexed.
And don’t give me that cynical answer that “it’s easy to be for something that will never happen.” Sometimes we advocate for things for years and they DO happen. We finally got a cigarette tax increase. Several years back, the Legislature finally passed enabling legislation to allow local governments to consolidate. When we first started advocating for easier annexation, we saw it as hand-in-hand with consolidation. We got one piece, and someday we’ll get the other.