Nancy Mace easily wins Jim Merrill’s former seat

Nancy Mace

Drinking game video or no, Nancy Mace did what she was expected to do yesterday, which was easily win a legislative seat drawn for a Republican.

Here’s part of what she had to say about that:

Thank You Is Not Enough
Dear Friends,

I don’t look at this as a win for me. I look at this as a win for Berkeley and Charleston counties, for the Lowcountry and for the taxpayers of South Carolina. More importantly, it’s a win for substantive solutions aimed at fixing our most pressing issues – infrastructure, the nuclear power plant mess, education and the sustainability and safety of our communities.

We got here – together – because we believe our state can do better. Because we know new perspectives are long overdue in Columbia. And because we can see that the old way of doing things in state government keeps coming up short on so many levels….

So far I haven’t seen a statement from the loser, Democrat Cindy Boatwright. In fact, her last Tweet was at 11:15 a.m. yesterday. I see that one of her friends posted this, though:

Cindy, this was only Round 1, and you fought a GREAT 1st Round. Round 2 starts tomorrow. So, take heart, stay strong, keep the faith and know that we believe that you not only can win but, in November when it will count for the full term, you WILL win.

May God bless you! You have much to be proud of. And I, for one, am very proud of you.

Really? The folks in that district have to turn right around and do this again this year? Sheesh…

8 thoughts on “Nancy Mace easily wins Jim Merrill’s former seat

  1. Harry Harris

    Help may be on the way. NC has been ordered to redraw congressional districts. PA may be next. It will take much effort, probably litigation, and some time to get SC’s legislative districts re-done, but there’s hope.

  2. Larry Slaughter

    And corruption in the state house isn’t one of “our most pressing issues?” And from Merrill’s district. Gee.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      In fairness, I only quoted a small bit of her message, to give you a sense of the flavor. It was rather long, and had a lot of gag-a-maggot cliches such as:

      I’m a businesswoman. I don’t care about rhetoric or labels – I care about outcomes. Your prosperity, your community, your roads, your schools, your family, your safety, your security – these are the things I care about.

      And guess what – spending more of your money on steadily worsening outcomes is not going to cut it any more….

      She is, of course, of the Will Folks (her former business partner) school of extreme libertarianism, so the main thing she seems to be concerned with is making sure the government never spends any money on anything, especially public education.

      Doug might have enjoyed it, but not many others would. I tried to find a link to the full message on her website, but had no luck…

        1. Doug Ross

          “And guess what – spending more of your money on steadily worsening outcomes is not going to cut it any more….”

          Which part of that do you deny is happening? Tax revenues are up across the board, spending is up at the worst school districts, and the outcomes and results are the same or worse.

          I don’t mind spending more if there is some actual visible benefit in doing so. You don’t mind burning through other people’s money as much as I do. And, despite your statements, I am far from alone in that opinion.

          1. Brad Warthen Post author

            Hey, I mentioned Mark Sanford and Tom Davis, didn’t I? I didn’t say it was just you…

            Here’s the thing, Doug — spending LESS money isn’t going to fix anything

            1. Brad Warthen Post author

              My point being — we can talk all day about ways to improve the schools, and I’m all up for that. But you shut the whole conversation down when you say “Let’s not spend any more money on it.” Because I don’t know of any innovative new things to try that would actually make schools better and would cost less money.

              Which is why the folks who hate seeing our money spent on schools always push alternatives to public schools, such as paying people to abandon them. Or paying people to do what they’re doing already, which is sending their kids to private schools or home-schooling them. None of which does ANYTHING to improve the public schools upon which most kids rely, and in fact by definition hurts them — by a) diverting money that would normally go to the schools, and b) removing the kids with the most motivated parents, leaving behind only the kids without such support at home, which means that results at public schools automatically decline, which people who hate public education point to as evidence that more people should give up on the whole idea of public education, etc.

Comments are closed.