THURSDAY WITH THIGPEN: Discussing the health care bill, license plate and terror suspects

COLUMBIA – Every Thursday Dr. Neal Thigpen provides his insights on the week’s top political stories. Today we discuss the vote on the health care bill, a ruling against a Christian-themed license plate, debate over transferring terror suspects to the state and another GOP slight for Lindsey Graham.

QUESTION: The U.S. House of Representatives passed a sweeping health care bill (H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act) last weekend, by a vote of 220-215. The bill passed by only two votes, because 218 votes were needed for approval. In the final tally, 219 Democrats voted for the bill and 39 voted against it. Only one Republican voted for the legislation. In South Carolina the vote was split along party lines with the state’s four Republicans (Gresham Barrett, Henry Brown Jr., Bob Inglis, and Joe Wilson) voting “no” and the two Democrats (Jim Clyburn and John Spratt) voting “yes.” Considering health care reform is such a contentious issue, could this vote hurt any of the state’s representatives in the next election?

ANSWER: No. I don’t see where the vote is detrimental to anybody necessarily. Certainly not on the Democratic side…Congressman Clyburn…he’s almost insulated from defeat and even significant challenge in the 6th District. Now (Mick) Mulvaney…or whoever is the Republican nominee against Congressman Spratt, might try to use it…under the guise…that ‘this was a liberal vote cast for big government’…but I don’t necessarily think that either of the Democrats are at major risk (of defeat) because of the votes they cast. And certainly on the other side, for the Republicans, it was a safe vote.

QUESTION: A federal judge has ruled that a Christian-themed license plate, authorized by the S. C. General Assembly, is unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie said that the tag amounted to a state endorsement of a specific religion and struck down the law that created a license plate with the image of a cross and the phrase, “I Believe.” Lt. Gov., and Republican gubernatorial candidate, Andre Bauer worked to introduce the “I Believe” Act to the legislature and has been critical of the decision. Fellow GOP gubernatorial hopeful, Attorney General Henry McMaster, has also played a role in the issue by defending the state before the court. Critics of the tag and Judge Currie, in her decision, have called this issue a waste of state resources. How might this issue help or hurt the candidates for governor? Did the court make the proper decision?

ANSWER: I think Bauer is a big winner…he has a greater win, than if the (decision) had gone the other way…because he’s…in the paper…as the ‘great defender of Christianity’…that’s going to serve him well in his race for governor…he’s the one that…got it introduced in the General Assembly…got it through the General Assembly, by almost a unanimous vote in both chambers…and my feeling has always been…that was an effort…to be a champion for Christian-right voters in the state…and this decision by Judge Currie…is absolutely correct…it’s about as much of a violation of the First Amendment…the Establishment Clause…as I’ve ever seen…now one of the things to watch, is to see if Henry McMaster…decides if it’s worthwhile…to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals…he might feel ‘I want to get my chunk of the pie too’ (by scoring points with Christian voters)…and he might feel that (he can’t let) Bauer…get the best of this situation.

QUESTION: Earlier this year, President Barack Obama signed an order that would close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, where more than 200 terror suspects are being held. The U.S. naval brig in North Charleston has been mentioned as one possible site where some of those detainees could be transferred. Last week, S.C. Republican gubernatorial candidate Gresham Barrett called on his fellow candidates to sign a letter to the president, opposing the transfer of terror suspects into the state. There has been some mixed reaction among the candidates, with a number of them criticizing Barrett for not taking a more active role in opposing the transfer as a member of Congress. What is the likelihood that this becomes a big campaign issue in the race for governor?

ANSWER: I don’t think that it is…and it’s really reflective of the fact that Barrett’s (experience) is federal…for the most part…he doesn’t have a whole lot of background in state politics…although he was a member of the state House before he went to Congress…but I don’t know whether (this issue) would have legs in the campaign because it would be viewed differently by different groups of voters in the state… so I don’t think (Barrett) scores a lot with (this issue)…and we’re no where close…to finding out where these people are going to be housed…so I don’t see…where (this is an issue) that might advantage him.

QUESTION: Two S.C. “Tea Party” activists have endorsed Republican state Sen. Larry Grooms in the governor’s race. Tea Party organizers Jonathon Hill, of Anderson, and Ron Parks, of Charleston, both credit Grooms for being a true conservative candidate. Are these valuable endorsements?

ANSWER: Well they’re endorsements…I don’t know of how much value they would be…it’s better to have them if you’re a candidate like Grooms, who has to be considered one of the back-runners…in the race for the Republican nomination…my guess is that these folks (Hill and Parks) probably have got ties to the Christian-right and not just the Tea Party people…and Grooms seems to have some strength with the religious-right in the state…but it’s better to have (the endorsements), than not have them…the Tea Party people…they represent a voice in the (Republican) party, but they don’t represent the leadership of the party.

QUESTION: This week the Charleston County Republican Party’s executive committee voted to censure U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham. County chairwoman Lin Bennett said the move was an effort to get Graham’s attention and let him know they’re “fed up.” The resolution cited the senator’s support for the “cap and trade” bill and the $700 billion bailout (or TARP bill). We’ve often discussed how these political moves aren’t likely to affect Graham’s opinions, but can this type of action garner the attention of others, such as voters or other Republican leaders?

ANSWER: It can draw attention. This isn’t the first time that a local county executive committee has condemned or censured Sen. Graham, on any number of things. Back before he was reelected, by a fairly handsome margin in 2008, the Greenville County executive committee had censured him. So this isn’t anything new, but it’s (a demonstration of) the continuing displeasure (with Graham)…of a lot of rank-and-file Republican operatives in the state…but these aren’t the top Republicans…that help bank role the party…these are your trench level, state delegate level Republicans…so all this represents, is that the beat-goes-on…but they’ve got a long, long time before they can get at (Graham)…and to have any serious chance (to defeat him) they’re going to have to get a decent candidate…somebody who is well-financed, well-known, and is well-situated with the more conservative Republicans in the state.

Dr. Neal Thigpen is a longtime political analyst and former political science professor at Francis Marion University, where he served as chairman of the department for 25 years. Active in state and local politics, Thigpen has served numerous times as a delegate to both the state and National Republican Conventions. We talk with Thigpen every week to discuss the latest in South Carolina politics.