Compromised Curtis B.

There is no doubt that the Democrats could win SC-01 if Curtis Bostic is the GOP nominee. While part of me respects the Sanford people for not wanting to bring this up (The governor wants to emphasize his strong fiscal record and nothing else apparently), the other part is upset because, by not letting the public know what it getting with Bostic, we Republicans are setting ourselves up to lose.
1. Mr. Bostic, the lawyer, has found a way to circumvent the Federal campaign finance disclosure laws so we don’t know the sources of his income, even though we know them for every other candidate for Federal office. Frankly, I’ve never heard of anyone asking for an extension on their Federal campaign filing (which would mean disclosure AFTER the general election in May!).  A full-time lawyer with full-time paralegals asserting that the form is too difficult for him to get filled out on time is beyond reason.
Here’s what the Island Packet wrote about this.

http://www.islandpacket.com/2013/03/26/2438149/mark-sanford-earns-130k-from-fox.html

What’s on his tax returns he doesn’t want us to know about?

2. Mr. Bostic has no-showed at THIRTY campaign forums at which the public could have asked him questions in the primary and runoff. Most candidates cherish these opportunities to share their views. Mr. Bostic’s campaign strategy is obviously, however, to avoid the sunlight. Is it because he is concerned voters will disapprove of his deep ties to the troubled and now-bankrupt Christian World Adoption enterprise?

http://www.fitsnews.com/2013/02/25/sc-1-curtis-bostics-human-trafficking-problem/

     From which he collected $600,000+ in fees and for whom he schilled, but which ultimately left the adoptive parents without their court-awarded settlement monies because of the group’s bankruptcy:http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/latest-news/curtis-bostic-tied-to-ethiopian-adoption-scam/

3. Or does Mr. Bostic avoid the sunlight because of the now-public inconsistencies relating to his new “fiscal conservatism”? Some Democrats and virtually all the Republicans in the SC01 primary, for example, signed a pledge to return to the taxpayers the savings they achieved from responsible budget-cutting in DC (it goes without saying Governor Sanford signed).  But not Mr. Bostic. He said he’d like to be able to spend the saved monies on other, better projects. If the Federal Government’s mountain of debt concerns you, check out this story:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/344299/mark-sanford-taxpayers-choice-congress-deroy-murdock

Does Mr. Bostic, the public official, actually live by his campaign motto, “Stop Spending?”

4. Then there’s the related issue of Mr. Bostic’s Charleston County Council service where he served 8 years and then was beaten by Democrat Vic Rawls. Why related? Because Mr. Bostic’s responsibilities as a full-time personal injury lawyer ( http://www.bosticlaw.com/ ) made him an unreliable attendee of Charleston County Council meetings.

http://northcharleston.patch.com/articles/bostic-says-public-service-absences-due-to-sick-wife

Mr. Bostic’s inconsistent attendance stems apparently from a series of scheduling problems he has blamed on his attending to his late wife’s health, but which the record shows was due to lawyering. By the way, there’s been no indication from him that he’ll curtail his lawyering if, or when, he is supposed to be in Washington. If he couldn’t get to Charleston for legislative meetings, what makes us think he’ll be able to get to Washington?

5. But, back to his fudging on his big-spending as a County Councilman, I favor the Charleston Greenbelt too, but it’s shockingly misleading to say taxes weren’t raised to acquire it and that instead it’s been funded entirely by private dollars:

http://www.fitsnews.com/2013/03/29/curtis-bostics-green-belt-problem/

There’s more.  But what’s here is plenty.

Why is it when someone tells us loudly that they are Christian, they sometimes feel and some people sometimes believe that the normal vetting process of an unknown candidate can be suspended? Are the voters served by this?

After what you’ve just read, which of the candidates do you now believe is ‘compromised?’ And which do you believe stands the best chance of withstanding Elizabeth Colbert-Busch’s assaults?

Sincerely yours,
Boykin
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s