RSS
Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor
Meadors a better choice
STORY TOOLS
Share and Enjoy
More Letters to the Editor
Rate this Article
In reference to re-electing Kevin Bryant, because only Republicans can save our state: We are not just a red state. All Republicans are not good Christians with the only map to proper living under God. All Democrats are not heathens bent on aborting babies, supporting gay marriages or eliminating guns.
Many Democrats I know are good Christians. Liberals are not all bad and conservatives not all good. Many liberals are the people who really care and volunteer and want to help save children and improve all of society. Didn’t Jesus say, “feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and whatever you do to the least of these you do to me?”
Many conservatives I know say, “I made mine, let me keep all of it, you get yours,” and rely on a little trickle-down to save society, which seldom gets to the bottom.
We have many other major state issues that are important, too. How about education? The voucher, choice system is a ruse that would destroy public school education, not make it better for all students. Minimum education is not enough. Vouchers, allowing parents to select schools, are not the solution in areas like the Corridor of Shame in South Carolina where all the public schools need help.
Neither Bryant or Meadors is perfect. None of us are.
I feel in this case with the many issues to be considered, and the goals of each man to be considered, Marshall Meadors is our better choice.
Richard Asmussen, Anderson
Comments
There are 20 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.
Mr. Asmussen:
You are correct, all republicans are not saints and all demcrats are not heathens. But you are, too many, like the company you keep.
The democratic platform states that democrats support Gay marriage, abortion on demand, and many other socially unacceptable items. 82% of the voters agreed with Senator Kevin Bryant when he supported the marriage amendment and Dr. Meadors did not. 82% is a super majority regardless of where you live or which side you were on.
About education, Dr. Meadors supports the same failed system that has been in place for many, many years. Jim Rex and his staff are status quo democrats who want to make sure that nothing changes. They talk change but when change can happen they cower behind the NEA and other liberal teacher unions.
Voucher's or tax credits need to have a serious look, and maybe a pilot program in an area that is a high poverty area. These ideas are outside the box. Jim Rex and his democrat friends are inside the ivory tower type of educrats. These ideas enhance the educational experience for many kids trapped in failing schools. We live in a bubble in the upstate, the lower part of the state and some of the coastal areas have terrible schools. So thinking of not doing trying is neither progressive or liberal.
Bryant is the best choice.
I must say that I believe that Dr. Meadors is a far better choice in this election than Mr Bryant. Mr. Bryant's children do not even attend public school but he thinks he knows how to fix the schools. Mr. Bryant is persuaded by the CC and just about anyone else that does have a backbone. When was the last time you saw Mr. Bryant actually doing something? On the other hand, Dr. Meadors knows that for democracy to work properly, education for al people is a necessity. Dr Meadors thinks for himself and will do the will of his constituents. He will not bow down to peer pressure and he will not act as if he is a snob when out and about in Anderson or any where else in the state. Dr. Meadors will serve us well!
Bubba would be a more fitting name for Bryant.
in response to zeldaz
So, what you are telling me that in order to qualify for being a SC Senator you have to have children in public schools? Interesting. Parents are allowed to choose what type of education their child receives, whether it be public, private or home schooling. Whatever fits the children's needs and parents budget.
Now, I would like to know where do Dr. Meadors children attend school? This is the measure which you say is relevant to being a State Senator, right? Guess what, Dr. Meadors is not married, he has no children. So, does that eliminate him from being a State Senator? By your standards it does.
Being in the State Senate requires a Senator that does what he says, and has the values of the people he or she represents.
Dr. Meadors supports Barack Obama, higher taxes, gay marriage, and abortion. His party supports the same issues. Tell me is that the value system that the voters of SC Senate 3 embrace? I think not.
cwilson4 you are very entitled to your opinion. So keep company with your bubbas and I will chose as I like also. As far as platform issues, anyone interested can go onine and see Dr. Meadors web site
www.meadorsforstatesenate.org.
in response to yankeefann
yankeefann, I did not mean to imply that a qualification for being a State Senator is parenthood. I apologize for the misunderstanding. What I was trying to say was that, in my view, a person holding an elected office should represent his constituents' best interest AND act in accordance with those same ideas. It is appalling to me that Mr. Bryant doesn't support school system by having his children attend them. I propse this question - If the public school system here in Anderson is not good enough for his own children why does he think it is good enough for our children AND how dare he think he can have anything to say about the districts' administrations, the teachers or the students? However, I am very aware that this is my view and not everyone's. I also think that the voters in the SC Senate 3 election are going to have to vote with their minds after learning as much as they can. My point here is that I have made my decision, I shared my reasons and I hope someone takes something frm this conversation and it helps them form their opinion. As for your list of 4 things that you say Dr. Meadors supports, I have an issue with the higher taxes - 3 out of four isn't bad!
How can a medical doctor in good faith be a member of the Democratic party? Isn't this the party of socialized medicine and abortion, including late term abortion? CHOOSE LIFE, not democrats!
I am about to become a grandparent this November for the first time. I have seen pictures of my grandchild almost from conception to the present. All this time abortion would be legal, even into the 3rd trimester, known as late term abortion. This breaks my heart to even think of this happening. If the democrats are elected, I'm afraid they will promote abortion as a means of birth control. We will witness the greatest extermination of human life the world has ever seen. Remember, when human life begins is above Obama's pay grade. CHOOSE LIFE, not democrats!
in response to zeldaz
It's a silly assertion to think that since Senator Bryant's children do not attend public schools that he does not support public schools. Senator Bryant attended and graduated from TL Hanna and attended public schools his whole life.
If he chooses to send his children to private schools it's his choice. If he prefers to homeschool his children that is his choice. School choice is an American right.
Staying with the status quo, and allowing SC schools to be the laughing stock of the southeast and nation is not what we need in a State Senator. We need someone who is willing to think outside the box. Senator Bryant thinks outside the box.
Liberals like Jim Rex, Barack Obama, and Marshall Meadors want to continue the same old failed education system that has failed our children. Our education system is broke. Giving parents (especially the poorer parents) choice in education makes sense.
Marshall Meadors supports ideas that does not reflect the values of the citizens of SC District 3. He did not support the Marriage Amendment. 82% of Anderson county voters supported the Marriage Amendment. How can we support a candidate that was so wrong on that issue?
I'm intrigued that people assume everyone follows party lines when it comes to politics. What does the marriage amendment or abortion have to do with our current needs as a society anyway? At this point, Meadors will be a better choice due to Kevin Bryant's inability to act on the one piece of legislation that was actually a part of his campaign of health & medicine, his own livelihood. By failing to vote for a cigarette tax increase, because of party affiliations, Bryant failed to live up to his promise of improving the health quality of his constituents. This was an easy call that he failed to make. By laying low, he showed that he does not know how to represent the citizens of this area as a senator. It would be better if he goes back to selling oxygen and pharmaceuticals to his customer base in Anderson...but, then again, maybe that's what he wants...more people that smoke, then gets cancer or emphysema, and at least for a while, be able to buy his products.
in response to petergibbons
Voting for the cigarette tax would have been the easy route for Bryant.
It is imperative that our elected officials do the right thing when it comes to ethics. Bryant (and Meadors) stand to gain a lot financially from higher cigarette taxes. Bryant choose the right thing to do and not vote on the tax increase.
What is this saying about Meadors ethics if he pushes and supports a tax increase that would benefit him financially?
I am not following yankeefann's train of thought. I do not understand how a rise in cigarette taxes would benefit Dr. Meadors, or Mr. Bryant, for that matter. I am under the impression that the goal behind raising the taxes is to reduce the number of smokers. The concept being to price the habit into people not being able to afford it? Now, don't jump on me for that. I did not say I was for raising the taxes.
Ultimately, the more people quit, the LESS it would financially benefit both Dr. Meadors AND Mr. Bryant by their occupations. Am I missing something?
Also, yankeefann, I am well aware the Mr. Bryant AND Dr. Meadors both attended T.L. Hanna. I did also. I have known both of these men for over 25 years. I still maintain my view that Dr. Meadors is a better choice for Anderson.
Republicans, you speak of less government but when it comes to a mother deciding to have an abortion (rape, incest or mother's life is in danger) you'd rather have the government make that decision instead of the mother.
The republican party cares deeply about the unborn, but once you're born you're own your own.
I for one am against late-term abortion but if the mother's life is in danger, shouldn't the mother be able to make the choice rather than the government?
How about some consistency for once?
in response to cwilson4
The way some people rant on this site, I doubt whether fighting abortion is going to return civility to the nation. Reasonable people clearly disagree with you on abortion. Why must you scream "murderer" at them? Do you think the loudest person wins the argument? While probably most people would agree that late term - third trimester abortion should probably be restricted, you're not going to win the argument when you refuse to acknowledge the reasonableness of your opponent.
Oh, and just as we should keep "God" out of government, try to keep "God" out of your argument.
in response to cwilson4
My family is having to pay for the war in Iraq that has killed hundreds if not thousands of children. If abortion is made illegal and we allow our government to make the choice for us then wars should be made illegal as well.
War is not civilized.
I'm still looking for some consistency from the conservatives.
in response to yankeefann
My goodness, do I have to do all of your thinking.
Bryant and Meadors both take medicaid money. Therefore, when the cig tax increases and the increase goes to fund medicaid they will benefit.
If a public official votes for something that will benefit them financially, then they can face ethics charges. Meadors is no stranger to ethics violations. He has already received a letter from the Senate ethics committee.
Ask him. He has.
in response to yankeefann
Even if the cigarette tax were to go to medicaid, and not to the general fund (which is more likely), the increased funding for medicaid would only inure to the State's benefit - there would not be a direct concomitant increase in reimbursement rates for the providers. So, do your own thinking, and realize that the opportunity to increase the cigarette tax was a good thing that was lost because of ideologues like Bryant thinking any tax is necessarily a bad tax. This animosity towards all taxes is what is bankrupting our country while Bush keeps trying to lower taxes for the top 1%, when a trillion dollar wrong-headed war is still being waged in a county that has nothing to do with the "War on Terror" (and did not have weapons of mass destruction) is still going wrong.
in response to nybob
Read my lips, "you don't know what you are talking about".
The increase in the tax was for medicaid funding because smoker related illnesses are the bulk of medicaid claims. So, it would benefit both of them if medicaid paid more to the docs and pharmacists.
Meadors ethics are being questioned!
"Read my lips?" That means we can ignore anything you say after that, right?
And to cwilson4, watch out! Preston's probably against abortion too! You wouldn't want to be on his side for any reason would you?!
(Requires free registration.)