Campaign Season Concerns

 Here in S. Carolina, we're quickly approaching Election Day for the GOP primary.  The moronic early voting period is underway, but I remain convicted in my position that only one day should be allowed for voting, in person, unless a legitimate reason for an absentee ballot can be provided.  

This is state is considered by many to be the bluest red state in the nation.  All branches of the state government are Republican majorities.  We choosing a new governor, whether or not to replace Lindsey Graham (I hope we succeed) and in my 1st Congressional District, someone to replace Nancy Mace who is seeking to become our new governor (I'll not be voting for her).  I've been shamefully lax in keeping abreast of all that goes on in SC state government...the ins and outs, the who's who...though I am on the mailing lists of Mace, Graham and my other senator, Tim Scott (I like him generally, but overall, "the jury's still out").  

I've tried to find sources for info regarding GOP and/or conservative politicians and issues, and am not satisfied with what I've found thus far, with but one or two exceptions.  One source is one from whom I've received regular emails, but never got around to perusing them until just the other day.  I was impressed with what they do and will be looking more deeply into their info in the next few days (Election Day being fast approaching ---  June 9).  Others seem to be PACS or perhaps organizations supporting one guy against others, as they're basically attacking specific people.  For example, I'm hearing a lot about a candidate for the state AG who has been a Dem most of his life.  But he has a decent record for exposing corruption in the state legislature, getting indictments on five members who I believe are all Republicans.  That's fine, and given that's the party in the majority, it seems reasonable that GOP members might be scrutinized more intently than members of the party which has no real voice.  

Anyway, the organization who is attacking this guy doesn't attack either of the other two opponents.  Nor do they seem to say anything nice about them.  It's just attacking this one guy.  I heard the man speak at a meeting introducing him and a candidate for Comptroller and I like what he said well enough.  But to attack him for being a Dem most of his career with regard to this office doesn't strike me the same as a member of Congress or a presidential candidate flipping parties.  His main explanation was that he couldn't get into the gig without being in the Dem party.  Sounds fishy.  But then he also reminded that Reagan was a Dem and so was Trump.  Tulsi Gabbard was as well, and it seems perhaps RFK Jr no longer is a Dem these days.  

But the real issue and point of this post is the attack ads.  AND the promotional ads.  They're all worthless for one seeking to find the best option for these various offices.  It's not hard to accept that attack ads are less than accurate, they're misleading and are a shameful thing to do for a politician or his supporters who run the ad in lieu of legitimate reasons to support the guy doing the attacking.  Lindsey Graham likes to brag about the money he brought to the state.  But with what strings attached?  There are always strings attached.  

And when we look at promotion campaign ads, what I'm seeing with regards to this primary is that each candidate speaks of themselves in the same way the others do about themselves, with little difference between them.  They're all the conservative we want, need and deserve.  But finding details about their records (if they're already in government) or how they'll attempt to accomplish what they claim they will is next to impossible.  This latter point is especially important as I'm leaning toward those who are newcomers to politics.  But even there, the differences are slight, such as some promoting term limits while not all do.  (Such a position eliminates the candidate from my consideration.)

Then, when one goes to their websites (should they have one), one sees the exact same things as their campaign ads and brochures do.  Now, one exception to that is the guy for whom I'm currently most likely to vote for governor of SC...an outsider named Rom Reddy.  I went to his site and there's an AI option which will supply an answer to most any question based upon a collation of everything he's said about the subject.  That's pretty novel and I'm not sure how many have added such a thing to their own sites.  Overall, he's been far more informative about what he intends to do...and how he'll try to do it...than any other candidate I've ever seen for any office.  "I'll fight for your rights!" just doesn't tell me anything.

I do agree that this coming November election will be the most important, as over the last ten to twenty years, that claim...in my mind...becomes truer with every cycle.  I'm really interested in seeing Trump followed by another Republican (such as Vance, Rubio or DeSantis) who can and will keep the trend going in the right (no pun intended) direction.  This trend has seen Dems leaving that party of perversion and death.  Alan Desrshowitz is the latest example, as has been Tulsi Gabbard.  A very recent report states that support for SSM has been decreasing over the last five years.  Things like this are great to see and I think one can argue that the trend is picking up steam.  On every level of government, I wish to do what I can to support that trend continuing.  I need to see candidates step up and state boldly their intentions...their goals and how they plan to achieve them...and if they've been in office or some other level of government, I want to see their track record in its totality.  

Too much is at stake and I owe my children and grandchildren a safer, more prosperous and most importantly, a more moral nation.