Tim Scott, Beacon of Hope

Except when he's talking about those racist Liberals

South Carolina Senator Tim Scott launched his campaign for President, buoyed by a war chest equal to a month or two of Trump legal fees and the support of 1% of all Republican voters, per a recent poll. 

Let’s talk about Scott’s chances for winning the nomination.

They’re non-existent. What else should we talk about?

How about this: When a reporter interviews a candidate, even on the day the candidate kicks off the campaign, it’s vital to ask skeptical questions. These interviews are one of the few times the voter gets to compare the candidate’s rhetoric with the candidate’s past actions and words. Without these interviews, campaigns are little more than ad wars. 

NBC’s Tom Llamas got several minutes with Scott after Scott’s launch speech. See if you can pick out the questions Llamas actually asked with the questions I wanted to hear, with absolutely no hints.

What will you offer voters that former President Trump will not?

Is there time to date someone on the campaign trail (Scott would be only the third bachelor to take the oath of office)?

Do Republican voters want someone carrying a Bible, or do they want someone driving a bulldozer into the Democrats?

In your speech, you said, “We live in the land where it is absolutely possible for a kid raised in poverty in a single parent household in a small apartment to one day serve in the People’s House - and maybe the White House.” Your party’s current position is you won’t raise the debt ceiling without gutting aid to low-income families. How will this help the next generation of poor kids rise to become leaders?

It doesn’t sound like President Trump is worried about you. 

You’re saying you think you’re a better deal maker than President Trump?

In your speech, you said, “The radical left is pushing us into a culture of grievance instead of a culture of greatness.” Since the most popular anchor on the most popular right wing media outlet spent about five hours a week expressing grievance until he was fired a few weeks ago, couldn’t that accusation be directed at your party, too? 

Would you ever try to overturn an election you lost?

What do you think of President Trump’s behavior after the 2020 election into January 6?

In your speech, you said, “We have to have a compassion for people who don’t agree with us.” Can you list a couple of examples in which you, your fellow Republican Congressional leaders, or anyone in right wing media expressed compassion for people who don’t agree with you?”

I actually thought Llama’s questions were a solid mix of skeptical questions and giving Scott a chance to elaborate on his favorite points. Not blaming Llama, but it would have been nice if Scott answered even one of the tough questions. On the question of Trump’s post 2020 election behavior, for example, Scott said, “We can do one of two things here. We can have a conversation about President Trump, or we can have a conversation about my vision for the future.” No, Tim. You can do both. To Llama’s credit, he pushed back on Scott’s non-answer, suggesting that voters might want to know what any candidate thinks of a President trying to overturn election results. Scott deflected again. 

Scott wouldn’t even answer the tamer but reasonable question about why voters should choose him over the man currently dominating the polls: “The question is (pause) I’m running for president. Period. I plan to win. So the question is, what do the voters want in their president? They want someone who can persuade on the issues that matter most to them.” Llama did not follow up with, “Persuade who?”   

Any politician that reaches Washington, Republican or Democrat, is adept at dodging tough questions. But when you ask a candidate to resolve deep conflicts between his rhetoric and his track record, as my questions above do, you at least make it awkward and obvious when he tap dances. 

Tim Scott has been packaged as a different Republican candidate, a candidate of hope in contrast to MAGA’s American Carnage. Maybe he is. But this, too, deserves to be held up to scrutiny. A passage from his launch speech suggests underneath the hope veneer is the same ugliness of any partisan politician. It would be nice if someone, anyone, asks him about it.

“[1] When I cut your taxes, they called me a prop,” Scott told the Charleston crowd. “[2] When I refunded the police, they called me a token. [3] When I pushed back on President Biden, they even called me the N word.”

Really? 1) was a single political blogger accusing the GOP on Twitter of using Scott as a prop by placing him prominently in photo celebrating the big 2017 tax cut law. Fair critique by Scott (he was a leader in the tax cut negotiations within the Congressional GOP). But it was one tweet, and the blogger took it down in response to widespread criticism. 2) was a failed negotiation over enacting reform over police departments. Democrats wanted police departments to enact certain reforms to remain eligible for two types of grants. Scott didn’t. There was no refunding of police, and there was no calling Scott a “token.” During the negotiations, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin said, “Let’s not do something that is a token, half-hearted approach.” 3) was … who knows? Scott has claimed on many occasions that unidentified Liberals have called him the N word. I don’t doubt him. I’m guessing a few Conservatives have called him the N word, too. Why is the candidate of hope, persuasion and reaching across the aisle calling out only the other side?