Elizabeth Colbert Busch: hating on South Carolinan manufacturing jobs?

That’s the conclusion that you have to draw from this report on South Carolinan candidate Elizabeth Colbert Busch (D CAND, SC-01). I’m afraid to say:

As of March 2013, Colbert Busch has taken $26,000 from unions:


She took $5,000 from the Machinists Non Partisan Political League of The International Association of Machinists on March 15, 2013.

As Jim notes, the IAM was the group that tried to take away Boeing’s North Charleston manufacturing line; while the factory itself is not in the first Congressional District, that’s not going to be necessarily true of its workers. I certainly hope that Elizabeth Colbert Busch explains at some point why she thinks that it’s OK to take money from a group who wanted to help wreck the economy of the very district and state that she putatively* wishes to represent…

Moe Lane

*The truth is, of course, that the only people that Colbert Busch really wishes to represent are Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic liberals – a group that probably by now half-wishes that Sherman had had access to nukes.

2 thoughts on “Elizabeth Colbert Busch: hating on South Carolinan manufacturing jobs?”

  1. While not in the 1st district, it is a stone’s throw away. ECB must be a racist to parlay with the IAM, since it IS in Jim Clyburn’s district (SC-06) and he is … not a caucasian-american like her.

  2. Hey!
    a) Pelosi et al. are fundamentally contrary to the principles of Lincolnism-Shermanism.
    b) One of the reasons that Southerners are more skeptical of Leftist Democrats, than say, New Yorkers, is that oral history informs Southerners of some of what Democrats have used policies like gun control for in the past. Any southerner whose family has been in the area long enough, and who pays attention to oral history likely knows of at least one such atrocity. The cultural memory and revulsion at Jim Crow is part of what is behind concerns about unlimited government power.
    c) Had Sherman been able to wipe out said populations, and chosen to do so*, disregarding the other consequences, the Democratic Party would not have had a base with which to accumulate political capital at the cost of political murders and terrorism. Thus, Pelosi and the rest would not have been able to inherit near as much of the ill-gotten political capital that the Democratic Party has built over the years.
    *I know, I know, he has a reputation. What he did was different in intent from turning the South into a howling wilderness. Mass extermination would probably have defeated the entire purpose of avoiding having the United States turn into, IIRC, Mexico. (I think he mentioned Mexico as an example, but Europe may be a better one, supposing that the current peace there, perhaps a Pax America, is temporary.)

Comments are closed.