A Woman Challenger Rises to Primary Lindsey Graham (Not official)


#1

A Woman Challenger Rises to Primary Lindsey Graham

The Challenger? Nancy Mace, daughter of Brigadier General Emory Mace (US Army Retired), and first ever female graduate of The Citadel Military College of South Carolina. Holding a Master’s of Mass Communication and Journalism, and a Bachelor’s of Business, she is also the author of In the Company of Men: A Woman at The Citadel. In addition, Mace owns a successful small business called The Mace Group LLC, which is a public relations and marketing firm out of Charleston where she is married with two children. Mace is a contributor to multiple national media outlets such as The Hill and The Daily Caller. Having these ties makes her dangerous to Graham as many primary candidates struggle to get National media attention.

It is looking like Mrs. Mace may be running. State Senator Tom Davis took himself out of the running. State Senator Lee Bright has been looking like he will gear up for a run, but he is facing foreclosure. Now the momentum is going to Nancy Mace.

Interestingly, the only challengers that have arisen are part of the Liberty movement, but they can’t be pigeonholed as simply Ron Paul clones either. They have connections throughout state politics and the Tea Party.

I believe Graham will be defeated. He has a large war chest but it can only do so much. This will be a national race with Super PACs getting involved.


#2

I’m hoping there is a good challenger to Graham, maybe she’s it, who knows.


#3

Gotta love how libertarians destroy federalism when it suits them


#4

You don’t know what federalism is.


#5

And welcome to the world of politics; money, ads, attacks, primaries, debates, October surprises and more money. Any meaningful politician must learn to play the game or they won’t be a politician for long.


#6

This is new though with the invention of super PACs. People outside a state having a great influence on who that state elects


#7

And that’s now how the political game is played…at least until someone can get Citizens United repealed/overturned.


#8

Were you complaining about this when Prop 8 passed? I don’t recall that. [/sarc]


#9

Which I sincerely hope is NEVER! The Court got it exactly right however inconvenient free speech for ALL is to some causes.


#10

Yeah, if only we could get rid of all that darn free speech America could really excel.[/sarcasm]


#11

[quote=“RET423, post:10, topic:39078”]
Yeah, if only we could get rid of all that darn free speech America could really excel.[/sarcasm]
[/quote]I have been following the conversation and apparently at your advanced age you do not have the political knowledge that experience has taught you versus what a teacher has rendered is the truth. Bummer

Of course having your livelihood destroyed several times by politicians and having to deal with them is all for naught.

I think the attitude problem lies eslewhere


#12

I was far more concerned about the campaign funding aspect than the free speech aspect, I mean the court could have given a narrow decision be played but the unlimited funding thing baffles me.


#13

CAMPAIGN FUNDING IS FREE SPEECH. Period.


#14

Super PACs are not “campaign funding” by law they arent allowed to have any contact with the campaigns.

Also campaign funding is not unlimited free speech as there are donation limits. Super PACSs however are not campaigns and are free speech and which allow unlimited donations

This brings us the the problem. I dont have a problem with Super PACs in the presidential race because it is a national race and the only way for people in firmly red or blue states to have input is through these PACs.

However these massive PACs that generate billions in donations can massively change a small intrastate race. We find in necessary to limit free speech when it is physically malicious like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Should we not protect an integral pillar of our society the states rights to govern themselves from that same type of malicious intent?

actually if you read the majority opinion, they tell you why they couldnt give a more narrow decision

Thus, this case cannot be resolved on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the First Amendment ’s meaning and purpose

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

I dont disagree with the ruling but I think it does leave the door open to less stringent electioneering regulation


#15

Thank you, I’ve only ever read overviews and opinions (which in hindsight were probably biased). Expanding ones knowledge is always a good thing. :slight_smile:


#16

However these massive PACs that generate billions in donations can massively change a small intrastate race. We find in necessary to limit free speech when it is physically malicious like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Should we not protect an integral pillar of our society the states rights to govern themselves from that same type of malicious intent?

And a moments thought would inform you WHY some people might want to intervene in smaller non-national races…and why there must be unfettered free speech no matter how small the race or the issue. The states have a right to GOVERN themselves where the Feds may not…they have no right to limit the exercise of free speech to achieve a specific outcome…or for any reason. Your definition of “malicious intent” is downright scary. Malicious intent seems to be when someone not from “here” decides to spend money to convince people from “here” to vote in a way which coincides with his beliefs and interests.
Kinda like what the Mormons did with PROP8 in California…even though they weren’t from there.
…and as pro gay rights as I am…I fully support their RIGHT to spend their money and likely change the outcome of that vote with their stupid scare tactics.
Anything less would be un-American.

However these massive PACs that generate billions in donations can massively change a small intrastate race.

You can read this sentence in a number of ways…but I DO wish to make the point that the LARGEST Superpac last year RAISED on the order of 100 million bucks, most of which was spent on the PREZ election alone. #2 is around $60 million and the #7 largest PAC spent 10-15 million bucks. So you’re talking less than $250-300 million for the top seven superPacs in 2012. Important sure…but not “billions” as the MSM would have one believe.
Election 2012: top seven super PACs - House Majority PAC - CSMonitor.com

My guess is that Libertarians will from all over the country will be interested in seeing Amish make a good run at the Michigan Senate… or insuring that Pete King doesn’t get the nod in Iowa. They have a right to support those who share their beliefs…regardless of the race…small or large. Hopefully traditional Republicans/Conservatives will have even more people who vote with their $$ from far away to nominate GOOD, Electable candidates.


#17

Kind of sounds like Unions and their influence.


#18

I dont think what happened in California is right either

You can read this sentence in a number of ways…but I DO wish to make the point that the LARGEST Superpac last year RAISED on the order of 100 million bucks, most of which was spent on the PREZ election alone. #2 is around $60 million and the #7 largest PAC spent 10-15 million bucks.** So you’re talking less than $250-300 million** for the top seven superPacs in 2012. Important sure…but not “billions” as the MSM would have one believe.
Election 2012: top seven super PACs - House Majority PAC - CSMonitor.com

My guess is that Libertarians will from all over the country will be interested in seeing Amish make a good run at the Michigan Senate… or insuring that Pete King doesn’t get the nod in Iowa. They have a right to support those who share their beliefs…regardless of the race…small or large. Hopefully traditional Republicans/Conservatives will have even more people who vote with their $$ from far away to nominate GOOD, Electable candidates.

the top 54 conservative donors donated $288 million to the super PACs

2012 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups | OpenSecrets

Free speech is one thing money for electioneering purposes goes beyond the scope of free speech IMO. Senators and house members are supposed to represent the will of the districts.


#19

Yes is does, and neither should be allowed. the moral relativity should not be something to hang our hats on. the few have helped control the control the elections for too long.


#20

The only way dollars can decide an election is if voters choose to be so stupid and uninformed that they choose their candidates based on whoever they see and hear from the most.

Free Speech does not need to be restrained, stupid is supposed to hurt and it does.

Free Speech is the mighty sword that will save us once we finally tire of being crushed by our own stupidity, if Free Speech becomes a casualty in the current war against accountability and responsibility we will never correct our course.