RSS
Home › 2008 Elections › S.C. General Assembly Elections
Democrat Meadors says education, health care are key S.C. Senate District 3 race issues
Dr. Marshal Meadors
Election Central
Check out the latest local election news!
Go to our exclusive Voter Guide »
View precinct results maps and voter turnout for Upstate races »
In print in Wednesday’s Independent-Mail: A profile of Sen. Kevin Bryant, the Republican incumbent in South Carolina Senate District 3
STORY TOOLS
Share and Enjoy
RELATED STORIES
- Meadors tops Bryant in Senate race fundraising
- Conservative Sen. Kevin Bryant supports smaller government, end to pork-barrel spending
More S.C. General Assembly Elections
- Gambrell keeps state House District 7 seat
- O’Dell wins sixth term in Senate District 4
- Bowen defeats Dobbins for House seat
Rate this Article
South Carolina Senate District 3
- Candidate: Marshall Meadors
- Party: Democrat
- Age: 51
- Education: T.L. Hanna High School graduate; Wofford College, Medical University of South Carolina.
- Family: single
- Occupation: Family physician, founding partner Family Care Associates
- District 3: Covers northern half of Anderson County, generally north and west of U.S. 29
- Web site: www.meadorsforsenate.org
Sources: Marshall Meadors, Stuart Sprague
ANDERSON COUNTY — Some would say it is folly to run as a Democrat against an incumbent state senator who is a Republican in what has been considered a Republican district.
Marshall Meadors says it’s necessary and important. And it’s not folly.
The Anderson family physician is challenging one-term Sen. Kevin Bryant, an Anderson pharmacist known for his conservative views. It was Bryant who drew national attention this year when he posted to his Web site a T-shirt that stated the only difference between Osama bin Laden and Barack Obama is a little b.s.
For that Bryant was criticized by some in the national press but supported by local conservatives. He was criticized by Meadors for the message’s divisive tone.
It generated free publicity for the senator, who refused to take down the post and said he was using it to point out Obama’s foreign policy inexperience. Bryant has since changed that of the Web site to a link and said that the post was in part tongue in cheek.
It’s in that kind of setting that Meadors has been quietly pushing his agenda: health care services for more South Carolinians via an increase in the state’s 7-cent cigarette tax; backing public education and opposing school vouchers and tax credits; and supporting more economic development for better jobs.
Meadors said he entered the race after being asked and believes his experience as a family doctor and local leader led him to make the decision to run.
“Every day we see the ill effects of poor education, lack of access to adequate health care, the downtrodden economy … and we see the effects those things have on individuals and families and as a family doctor it gives me a unique perspective … as to how to deal with those problems, come up with real and effective solutions,” Meadors said.
“I truly believe this is an extension of what I do as a family physician,” he said.
Meadors said the state has no shortage of issues to address and cites these statistics:
- There are 800,000 uninsured or underinsured South Carolinians, according to a South Carolina Hospital Association estimate.
- The state’s unemployment rate hit a 15-year high of 7.6 percent for August, but Anderson County’s was event higher, at 8 percent. From April to August, 50,000 South Carolinians lost their jobs.
- According to recent FBI statistics, South Carolina is first in the nation for its violent crime rate over a recent two-year period.
- The state’s graduation rates are among the worst in the country.
- The state’s infrastructure — roads, bridges and more — is decaying. That, and the problems in the education system, hurt the state’s abilities to draw new companies and help existing industries expand, Meadors said.
Good public education, he said, is crucial to improving the economy, as a pool of educated graduates is attractive to companies, but also chips away at dropout rates and even health problems. The uneducated are more likely to smoke, do drugs and be involved in crime, he said.
“It’s imperative to provide the opportunity for high quality-education,” he said. “I truly believe we are only as good as our public education system.”
While the state constitution calls for a “minimally adequate” education program, Meadors said that is an embarrassment.
“I will do what I can to change that in the constitution,” he said.
He supports home schooling and school choice, but not to the extent such efforts would draw public funds through vouchers and tax credits, he said.
The state’s burgeoning uninsured or underinsured population could be reduced by support for the Covering Carolina Collaborative, a safety net insurance program that Meadors supports. The program would provide some form of health insurance, but require patient payment, and give the uninsured and underinsured a “medical home,” where they will have a doctor to track their health, he said.
He would pay for the program via a 50-cent increase in the state’s 7-cent cigarette tax, the lowest in the nation. The Southeast average cigarette tax is 45 cents, Meadors said, and the national average tax is $1.12, making the state the “laughingstock” of the nation on the issue. A 50-cent increase would raise about $160 million per year, which could fund the safety net program and provide Medicaid money, which the federal government will match three-for-one, he said.
“This will provide savings in the long run” rather than the predicted higher medical cost of patients who wait until their disease is severe to get treated, he said.
The major differences, Meadors said, between him and Bryant, are related to education and health care. Bryant backs school vouchers and tax credits and abstained on this year’s vote to raise the cigarette tax, citing conflict of interest because he takes Medicaid payments at his pharmacy.
Meadors said he also is a businessman and understands those issues, too. He is a founding partner of Family Care Associates medical practice, which serves a 42,000-person population base, he said. That business requires contract negotiations, employee relations and more, he said.
“I know what it takes to run a business,” he said.
If there is an area where Meadors moves off the bread-and-butter issues, it’s in sustainable agriculture. He wants to put a processing plant in Anderson County that will create jobs by bringing farmers, Clemson agricultural experts, distributors and buyers together at a regional agriculture hub. By keeping agriculture local, you help farmers, create local jobs, and provide local produce for area communities, he said.
Despite the large GOP voting presence in Anderson County, Stuart Sprague, chairman of the county’s Democratic Party, said Meadors “has one of the best chances in the Upstate” among Democrats because of exposure through debates and forums, Meadors’ election staff and the energy being put into the race.
On a personal level, Sprague said he’s known Meadors for 20 years.
“He’s in politics for the right reason,” Sprague said, citing Meadors’ community leadership, active church life and “solid family values.”
Asked what he’s learned since jumping in the race in March, Meadors said he hasn’t found the predicted resistance to a Democratic candidate. Residents are “eager to get back to mainstream government” and eager to talk about issues, he said.
Meadors, taking a cue from Bryant’s recent statement that state government has grown 40 percent in the last four years, said he wasn’t in the Senate when that happened.
Unsaid was, of course, that Bryant was.
Comments
There are 22 responses to this article.
Comments are meant to offer our readers a forum for thoughtful, robust debate about local issues.
Comments are moderated, but you may find the content of the conversations offensive, objectionable or factually disputable.
IndependentMail.com does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post or respond to every suggestion for a comment to be removed.
Before you post, consider this:
Please read our official user-contributions policy.
I could really go on and on about how naive Meadors is. But I will only hit a few highlights.
first of all, Meadors cannot change the constitution.
The difference between Meadors and the same old failed education policies are: Nothing. He wants to continue the same old failed system that has been in place for years. Under Meadors plan we will continue to be last in every category.
Sustainable agriculture? Isn't that the same as crop rotation? Wow! what a concept.
Stewart Sprague thinks Meadors has one of the best chances in the upstate? What about Captain Caveman Ortiz? Sprague is a political neophyte at best.
Meadors says "he hasn’t found the predicted resistance to a Democratic candidate". Maybe not yet, but he will on November 4th.
Public education is the "silver bullet." To move public funds into private schools is a bad idea (and I am a mom of 2 in private school). I hope that in my lifetime we are able to come up with a better state education motto than, "thank God for Mississippi."
Kevin Bryant has shown time and again that he is a "yes man" for the governor (look at the line item veto override vote - Bryant was one of only 5 who voted to sustain Sanford's vetoes). South Carolina needs a state senator who will stand up for hard working families - not a senator who blindly follows Richie Rich from Sullivan's Island.
Dr. Meadors, you have my support. Thank you for an issue-driven campaign. Thank you for bringing intellect, understanding, common sense and compassion to this very important race.
His answer on how to deal with the failing education system, lack of access to adequate health care, and the failing economy is "to come up with real and effective solutions". If he's the right man for the job shouldn't he already have some real and effective solutions going in. That sounds a lot like his fellow democratic candidate on the presidential level.
There is no plan on fixing the education system. You can't just keep pouring more and more money into it. That hasn't worked in the past and won't work in the future. Last year the state spent $8300 per student on their public education. I've said it before, private school is not nearly that expensive. Why not support private school vouchers. Even if the state gives a tax break for private school they will still at least break even from the $8300 that will still be paid to the state for "education".
in response to 8000milesfromhome
I agree totally, but South Carolina spent almost $11,000 per student last year.
in response to yankeefann
Please tell me why I should have to support public and private schools. I have no children I want a tax break for not using any schools.
The reason we all pay for public school is because an educated citizenry benefits society as a whole. It's our moral obligation; it's our civic duty. I am not saying that the system is perfect, but taking money out of public schools for a voucher system benefits a few and punishes many.
Could you please provide the source for the $11,000 per student figure? I've looked for this, but have been unable to find it. I've heard Senator Bryant quote the figure twice, but I have not seen a source yet. I'll check out his web site and see if he's provided one yet.
in response to robert
That's a no brainer. Everyone needs to support the education of our children. Here's why. Those who are not educated cost the government (ie taxpayers) money. They are more likely to be on food stamps, on welfare, section 8 housing, and in jail.
An educated society contributes to the tax base.
I went to him trusting he was a Doctor, which after 2 visits I found out he does not know what he is doing. As I said yesterday (He's a IDIOT)
Meadors is the worst kind of politician. He wants to take to some to give to others. That's not fair. He thinks raising taxes on smokers is a good solution for free healthcare. But what will happen when his tax increase isn't enough to support his socialized healthcare program? He'll tax another "high risk" group. Maybe over eaters. Maybe hunters. Maybe drinkers. Who's left?
Meadors, Obama, Hillary...they are all extremely left liberals out-of-touch with main stream America. Worst of all, they all think that government needs to take care of us because we're too ignorant to do it ourselves.
What the heck is "mainstream gov't"? Is that the Democrats' new language for more gov't and higher taxes? What residents did he speak with that want to head in that direction???
Talk about being out of touch with Andersonians!!
Meadors, Dobbins & Obama all endorse Democratic values. This includes men marrying men & abortions. Will the “Covering Carolina Collaborative” be used to pay for AIDS treatments & abortion complications?
Wow. This country is in trouble. Men marrying men and abortion are issues that involve moral beliefs. You can't legislate your moral beliefs. You are free to voice those and use them as your voting criteria, but you are not free to make everyone else believe as you do. What happened to taking care of each other for the betterment of society?
Now, back to what a state senator's job is...
I'm sure he is for Education and Medical. First: Education so he could learn to be a Doctor.
Second: He is one of the head of the board at anmed. He is still an IDIOT!!!!!!!!!
in response to Parent
Palin is for abortion when the mothers life is in danger.
So abortion is supported by both Democrats and Republicans.
I for one would rather the mother have a choice instead of the government. Allowing the government to choose is more control and anti-American.
in response to Klay67
I agree that you can't legislate morals. However, the job of a senator is to represent his constiuents, thereby reflecting their beliefs, convictions, and ideas for government. Poll the constituents of district 3. You'll find that Meadors' idealogy of gov't does not reflect the majority. That will be clear enough come election day.
in response to ratm
Killing babies is American?
Isn't taking taxes from one group to pay for healthcare for another more government control? Yes.
in response to andersonnews2008
Quoting andersonnews2008:
"Killing babies is American?"
If the year is 1968, and the place is Mi Lai, then the answer, sadly, is yes.
While we are on the subject of things that are American ...
Quoting again from andersonnews2008:
"Isn't taking taxes from one group to pay for healthcare for another more government control? Yes."
It's no more government control than existing social programs, say like, SOCIAL SECURITY.
A challenge, please! Hitting softballs is getting boring.
. . . stupid . . .
- SSHM
He needs to stick to being a doctor, not a politician. I don't live in his district, but
if he was my doctor and running for office, i would be finding myself a new doctor. If elected
he wouldn't have full concentration for his patients health.
in response to ratm
This is not about the government making choices for women. It is about the government protecting the rights of unborn (and post aborted) children. If a mother’s life is in danger, then so to is the life of her infant. In this situation, a viable fetus would be treated in NICU. If this same fetus were being taken during elective abortion, it would not be treated. This issue is about the value we place on the lives of children who are defenseless. Palin’s Republican position represents an effort to save life – not to end it for convenience. Would the party beliefs of Meadors, Dobbins, Obama ticket allow a viable abortion fetus to go untreated? YES
in response to andersonnews2008
My point was that not allowing a mother to choose but instead our Government was un-American.
Taxing smokers would generate money from those who smoke and use it when a smoker who can't pay for medical expenses is used. So smokers pay rather than everyone.
McCain mentioned during the last debate that he would help veterans. What about the poor and homeless?
40% to 50% of our homeless in the US are veterans. Just under a half of a million veterans will face homelessness in a given year. I seriously doubt homeless veterans were included in McCain'ss plan.
With most conservatives, help is always negotiable. Also, I hear so much about the well being of the unborn but once you're born, you are on your own as far as the Republican party is concerned.
in response to Parent
In my opinion, Republican politicians have carried the anti-abotion banner but have done very little to change it.
Abortions nation wide have dropped only slightly since 1980 and that could arguably be from increased and correctly used contraception.
Democrats could too take up the anti-abortion banner party-wide but I don't feel it would make much of an impact of fewer abortions.
What will help reduce abortions: better use and availablility of contraceptives for young people (most women under 20 have abortions and did not use contraceptives correctly or regularly).
(Requires free registration.)