March, 2002
The Campaign Finance Reform Bill passed the Senate Wednesday, March 20, 2002. Click here to read Senator John McCain's speech on the passing of this bill that he co-sponsored with Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.).

January, 2002: The President said those two magic words in his State of the Union speech last night: cut spending. Amen! Make the tax cuts law and cut spending. Such a simple concept and, yet, Congress (the Democrats more so than the Republicans) has a very difficult time grasping it. As the President said in Winton-Salem on January 30, " . . . those who want to abolish tax relief -- don't know what they're talking about!" You gotta love it! The word recession has been batted about quite frequently in the last five months or so. Economic signs actually show that the economy is stable and slightly growing at two tenths of a percent. So, what's this about a recession?

October, 2001: Campaigns for 2002 are revving up. Interesting campaigns to watch are:
1. former U. S. Representative Mark Sanford for South Carolina
governor.
2. U. S. Congressman Lindsey Graham for U. S. Senate, replacing retiring Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina.

September, 2001: The latest news is that the projected so-called surplus is dwindling. Even if we had a surplus, which we don't, the tax cut was still the right move. We are over-taxed. The tax burden is disproportionate. And Congress is full of greedy bastards who are overcome with "surplusitis," to borrow from George Will. Not one of Sunday's talking heads suggested cutting spending. Reduced spending should immediately follow reduced taxation. All those career politicians have conveniently forgotten the debt that was incurred when then-Pres. Reagan cut taxes with the understanding that House Speaker Tip O'Neil and the Democrats would proportionately cut spending, but then failed to follow through with their end of the bargain. Hypocrits. Message to Daschle and Gephardt: Eliminate the waste, reduce spending, and reduce our taxes.

August, 2001: Congress has been busy. We finally have a tax cut coming to us. Pres. Bush changed the discussion from "cut or no cut" to "how much." I say it is about time. After Congress and then-Pres. Clinton raised our taxes again, the federal government owes us. It is ridiculous that an individual pays more than a third of her/his income to the government in Washington City and then is forced to watch the legislative branch blow it on "pork" spending. With the increase in tax rates in addition to the increase in revenues due to the booming economy for the past decade, the ledger book reads a surplus and all the greedy spendthirfts have been drooling over it. What they fail to remember is that they have robbed the Social Security funds for over thirty years. We don't have a surplus. I repeat, we do not have a surplus. The apparent surplus is an accounting trick. We have debt and we have Social Security and Medicare programs that are in great need of reform. It is now, in these good times, that we make those reforms. As more people retire and live longer and rely on the government for their welfare, the greater the burden on those paying taxes. It is a complicated situation with no easy answers, but we can no longer ignore the situation. We must reform the systems and reduce the waste. Congress needs to be restrained. Therefore, a Congress in gridlock is exactly what we need as long as the spendthrifts are in charge. By spendthrift I do not necessarily mean Democrats, although we know they are more susceptible. Many Republicans have totally forgotten the economic principles of Republican ideology and fiscal conservatism. Reduce the tax burden. Reduce spending, and I don't mean reduce the rate of the increase of spending. Reduce regulation and intervention. Allow the individual to prosper and seek his fortune without the hindrance of a bloated government. If s/he cannot make it in this economic climate, then what the flip will she do when the economy really turns down? Yes, I know it has slowed, but unemployment remains under 5%. Our economy remains healthy. Don't let those with alterior motives convince you that we are in a recession. We ain't.

April, 2001: South Carolina politics is getting interesting and will only continue to do so. U.S. Representative Lindsey Graham has announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate, Senator Strom Thurmond's seat. The gubernatorial Republican primary is full of bids for 2002. The strongest candidate is former U. S. Representative Mark Sanford. Some cite his lack of state-wide recognition as a drawback, but once the upcountry and midlands learn about him and his conservative ideology, they will realize why the lowcountry elected him to three terms and hated to see him come home. Sanford's constituents allowed him to resign after only three terms because his initial campaign upheld self-determined term limits and Mark Sanford is a man of principle, exactly why we need him in governmental leadership. He was also arguably the cheapest congressman on the Hill. He and his staff spent nothing that was not necessary for fulfilling their obligation to the residents of S.C. Congressional District 1. However, his staff may differ with him on the definition of necessary. In fact, the watch-dog group Citizens Against Government Waste consistantly gave then-Representative Mark Sanford its highest rating. South Carolina urgently needs a man of principle and conservative ideology in her highest office.

February, 2000: I am not pleased with the S.C. Republican party right now. The primary election was not a proud moment for our State. To imply, much less to outright claim, that Sen. John McCain is leftist or a closet Democrat is so ludicrous. Likewise, Sen. McCain's attack of Bob Jones University was unwarranted.

I was well aware that Gov. Bush would most likely win S.C., but his S.C. connections would be wise not to alienate McCain supporters, such as me. I supported Sen. McCain, but I am also proud to have Gov. Bush as the Republican candidate. I think Gov. Bush will make a fine president and he will need Sen. McCain's support in the Senate. Regardless of their differences, both are Republicans, and Americans, as we all are.

Defeating the Democrats and maintaining control of Congress is our goal. We need to stay focused.

With that said, how we get there is equally important. Splitting the party in two is not worth any short-term gain. We need to be steadfast in our principles as well as realize that we are strong enough to allow mild dissension. The Republican Party is the party of freedom. In ideology if not in genealogy, Republicans are the true descendants of Jefferson's Republicans. (I know, I know, it is the party of Lincoln, but if you compare Lincoln's Republicans and Jefferson's Republicans, you will see that Lincoln strengthened the central government and Jefferson distrusted it. Who do you think instigated the first national income tax? Lincoln!) If the Republicans allow inner conflict to disrupt party unity, then we might as well just concede to the Democrats now and save the billions of dollars that it takes nowadays to run a national election.

1998: Judge Kenneth Starr must be getting too close for comfort judging by the stonewalling tactics by President Clinton's counsel and White House staff, who, by the way, are paid with our money. Fortunately for V.P. Gore, the media are off his back as long as President Clinton's girlfriends keep popping up. Whatever happened with the buddhist monks? I thought we had reached new depths when then-Governor Clinton discussed on MTV his choice of underwear. Unfortunately, the discussion has been taken "undercover." We're not talking bank accounts anymore.  This is way too personal!  The Constitution should have an ammendment prohibiting a general lack of good taste in elected officials. Trailer-trash behavior should be grounds for impeachment!  Classy, ole' Billy Jeff ain't. You get what you pay for and we bought a double-wide.

The next time I'm pulled over for speeding, I'll simply explain to the officer, "But, everybody does it!"  That should prevent him from citing me a fine, right? However, with recent developments, namely President Clinton's confession, a precedent has been set. Now, the next time I'm pulled over for speeding, I'll simply explain, "I did have a relationship with this car that was not appropriate, in fact it was wrong. I apologize for that. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible. Even a speeding driver has a private life. I need to get back to business and this witch-hunt needs to stop. Officer, you have wasted the taxpayers' money and your investigation should be investigated itself. This has gone on too long and cost too much and hurt too many people. It's past time to move on."

Seriously, though, what does it say about us as a nation when our most trusted leader is not trustworthy? President Clinton's actions are offensive on many levels. He apologized because he was caught and was politically, not legally, forced to do so. However, his apology lacked sincerity and remorse. Furthermore, he projected blame onto the independent counsel, who is investigating on behalf of the American people, as provided by law.

We have had enough word games and quibbling over legal terms and definitions. We have a president with the emotional maturity of a fourteen-year old. What an embarrassment and disappointment our President is. We deserve better. In 2000, we must demand integrity and honor. Senator Dole's bridge to the past is looking very attractive right now.