New party ready for State House debut

Jim Rex and Oscar Lovelace

Jim Rex and Oscar Lovelace

Remember that new political party that Jim Rex and Oscar Lovelace have been planning to launch? Well, it’s having its State House debut tomorrow:

American Party Supporters!

Finally, we are ready for our press conference on Friday January 31st at 11:00 A.M. at the State House.

Please disregard an old message that was sent by mistake that may confuse you as to the time.

The press conference is at 11:00 A.M. tomorrow on the 1st floor lobby of the State House.

If you are able to come, try to be there at least 20 minutes before to get through security.

If you are on Gervais looking at the State House, the entrance is on the far left.  There are metered parking spots around the State House on Sumter Street.  There is also a parking garage on Assembly.

We look forward to seeing you if possible.  Your support has meant so much to the success of the new American Party.

Jim and Oscar

I’ll try to drop by if I can get away at that time. But even if I can’t maybe you can…

This is not, mind you, to be confused with the UnParty. This new party has taken the name of George Wallace’s old party (although there the resemblance ends), and has tenets that, by existing, violate the very first fundamental, inviolable tenet of the UnParty — which is “unwavering opposition to fundamental, nonnegotiable tenets.”

14 thoughts on “New party ready for State House debut

  1. Juan Caruso

    The very first fundamental, inviolable tenet of the UnParty is “unwavering opposition to fundamental, nonnegotiable tenets.”

    As in unwavering opposition to the tenets of our United States Constitution? Or, does the “inviolable tenet of the UnParty” require no limitations, as stated? If the latter, Muslims are welcome to implement Sharia here.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Juan, the Constitution is assumed. This is an American party. The Constitution is something that all American parties have in common.

      Yes, I know there are some parties that imagine that THEY are the ones that respect the Constitution, and that none of the others do. But they are delusional. The Constitution is the assumed commonality — so much so that if it were NOT, that should be set out as an important tenet of the party…

  2. Doug Ross

    Of their four principles, the commitment to term limits is enough to get me on board.

    Of their eight platform planks, I’m onboard for the first seven.. and would bend on the eighth (immigration reform) if they could make real progress on a few of the others.(especially tax reform)

    Sadly, they have no chance. Zero. The only way to even start making progress will be if term limits are implemented. Nobody needs to be in one elected office for more than ten years. Nobody.

    Their platform:

    1. Decrease the National debt while ensuring a strong national defense and essential social programs through a deliberate, balanced, and comprehensive approach that will not do damage to our economic recovery. (e.g. Simpson/Bowles Plan)

    2. Create a strong, choice-driven public school system that encourages innovation, rigor, and success for all children with an increased emphasis on early childhood education.

    3. Create an efficient, effective health care system that emphasizes preventative care and encourages healthy lifestyles for all Americans.

    4. Reform Campaign Funding by doing away with the effects of the Supreme Court ruling (e.g. Citizens United) by legislation and/or amendment; requiring immediate and total transparency; and posting all donors and amounts regardless of source within five business days of receipt.

    5. Reform Ethics Legislation by requiring the disclosure of all sources of income as a candidate and as an elected official. Have stand-alone ethics commissions at state and federal levels to investigate, enforce, and discipline.

    6. Provide strong, unequivocal support for the Second Amendment- coupled with responsible, reasonable regulations and programs. (e.g. strong, universal background check system and better mental health diagnosis and treatment.)

    7. Initiate comprehensive tax reform to acquire a simpler, fairer tax system that supports economic growth and encourages work, savings and investment.

    8. Implement a comprehensive immigration policy that provides a responsible pathway to citizenship, encouragement of high skill and high knowledge immigration, employer accountability, and a strengthened national border.

  3. Brad Warthen Post author

    And of their main tenets, the term limits is something of a deal-killer for me. As I just told Jim and Oscar at their thing, yet again.

    It’s not that the limits are so awful in and of themselves. If I ran for office under their parties’ banner, I’d gladly limit myself to whatever number of years they prescribe — it appears that it will be a fairly accommodating 12 years. And I would never want to stay in office that long.

    What gets me is that it’s a vote-getting gimmick. A lot of people think there’s nothing wrong with politics that term limits won’t “fix.” Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s a bogus “magic bullet, and like most bullets, it would have the potential to do more harm than good.

    They also, like a lot of people, attach too much importance to money in politics. I heard the word “corporate” used as a cussword more than I’d like at their presser today. It was like Occupy Wall Street had infiltrated their gathering.

    Anyway, I’m going to do a separate post…

    1. Bryan Caskey

      I’m not a fan of term limits. It’s an arbitrary constraint on people being able to freely elect whomever they choose. Besides, we already have term limits — they’re called elections.

      1. Doug Ross

        Except for Presidents and Governors…

        The power of incumbency is too strong. What’s the harm of taking two years off and then coming back for another 10-12?

        The problems within our government are the result of long tenured politicians using their power and influence to barter for what they want versus what is right.

        What harm would come from seeing all of the current multi-decade lawmakers in the State House take a term off?

  4. Mab

  5. Michael Rodgers

    For federal income taxes, I suggest we add some brackets above the current $400K bracket and lower all the rates in the current brackets, something like this:
    Individual Income: Marginal Rate
    0-12K: 8%
    12K-48K: 14%
    48K-120K: 20%
    120K-480K: 26%
    480K-1.2M: 32%
    1.2M-4.8M: 38%
    4.8M-12M: 44%
    Above 12M: 50%
    This plan cuts taxes on everyone whose income is less than $8.15M.
    I also suggest raise the standard deduction to $12K per individual.
    For reference, (1) the federal poverty line for one person is $11,490 (, and (2) the 40 highest earning hedge fund managers made a combined $16.7B in 2012, with the highest one at $2.2B and the lowest one at $90M (

      1. Michael Rodgers

        I would be in the 3rd bracket; marginal tax rates would go up only on people in the 2 topmost (7th and 8th) brackets. Here’s how the effective rates would look in comparison. The blue path means lower taxes for everyone less than $8.15M and higher taxes for those above.

        1. Doug Ross

          Why does it always come down to raising taxes on the “rich”? RIch people pay the majority of taxes now.

          What we need is a system that eliminates the need to file taxes. The loopholes and “social engineering” that is baked into the tax code is the problem. No deductions for children, blind, disabled, mortgage interest, charities, etc. No education credits, no green energy credits, no health savings accounts, no earned income credits… nothing but “what’s your income (less whatever you put into a retirement fund?” and apply a rate. For people who make capital gains or dividends, tax them at the end of the year on the net.

          Everyone should pay some income taxes.

  6. tired old man

    I think people are missing the point, which is that the current political system is broken, self-serving, and self-perpetuating. It’s just been reported in the Guardian that America’s two political parties raised and spent $500 million last year when only two governorships were open, two special Senate elections, and six unplanned House seats. That’s the official, up-front money and does not include the Koch brothers and all the special interest PACS. Jim Rex notes that most incumbents are routinely returned.

    What does that mean in SC? For starters, just over half the registered voters actually voted in 2010, which means Nikki Haley, with her 59,000 vote margin over Vince Sheheen, in reality received the votes of just over 26% of the registered voters.

    All this is opportunity for the American Party to provide an option that might appeal to the 1.2 million who stayed home — as well as those in SC’s 4.6 million population base who never bothered to register.

    We can all quibble over the new party’s basic tenets, but I sort of like the idea of the political party requiring ethical behavior of its candidates.

    And, you naysayers should remember that the SC Republican party could hold its annual convention in a Waffle House booth just four decades or so.


Leave a Reply

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