by Chris Haire
State Rep. Tim Scott wasn't at the 1st District forum last night hosted by the Propeller Club of Charleston, and that's a good thing. As it stands now, there's still a chance he may get my vote on primary day.
(Yes, I'm as proggie as the next member of the liberal media — hell, they wouldn't let me in the club if I wasn't — but you've got to vote in the races that matter, and, well, this one does. The same applies to the GOP gubernatorial race. Right now, I'm leaning toward Haley, although I've been for Barrett.)
The reason Scott's a lucky man: The majority of his fellow candidates in the 1st. U.S. Congressional District race are batshit crazy, at least when it comes to their assessment of the Iraq War.
Here's an excerpt from The Post and Courier report:
[Propeller Club board member Robert New] also asked each candidate to name his or her favorite, at the moment, for the GOP's presidential nomination in 2012, and to employ their best "20/20 hindsight" to say whether the invasion of Iraq was wise.
[Paul] Thurmond said the invasion was justified because Saddam Hussein was a dictator and posed problems "we needed to resolve." Witte said that although weapons of mass destruction did not turn up, "We did the right thing." [Tumpy] Campbell stated that "The best defense is a strong offense."
[Larry] Kobrovsky said yes and [Mark] Lutz said no. [Katherine] Jenerette said that America did not go there for democracy, "We were there for oil." But she said the invasion was a necessity because "If we weren't there, the Russians would be there. The Chinese would be there."
Really guys? You think the worst foreign policy decision the U.S. has made in decades is a good idea? I thought this was pretty much universally agreed upon by now.
Help us, Tim Scott. You're our only hope.