Well, if he’s related to Barack America…
Posted on 09/01/2023 7:16:19 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Who cares about Sen. Tim Scott’s marital status? Apparently, major GOP donors do, and it might be an issue for the presidential candidate’s campaign going forward.
Wealthy contributors to the Republican Party are reportedly pressuring Scott to provide more details about his love life, or lack thereof:
Top GOP donors and their allies privately are pushing Sen. Tim Scott's team for more detail about his bachelor status before deciding how much to support him in the presidential campaign, according to two people familiar with the conversations.
Why it matters: Many of the donors are in the market for a viable alternative to former President Trump — but still aren't sure about Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who's running second to Trump in GOP polls. Scott, 57, is among those trying to woo such fundraisers.
The U.S. hasn't elected an unmarried person as president in 139 years. It's typical for candidates to trot out their families to try to enhance their appeal to voters.
Scott's reluctance to say much about his private life has raised concerns among some conservative Republican donors, according to the sources, who requested anonymity given the sensitivity of the issue.
Driving the news: Responding to this reporting, a senior official for Scott's campaign told Axios the South Carolina senator will be discussing the issue in the coming weeks.
Is Sen. Scott’s bachelor status important when it comes to his candidacy or are concerns over the matter based on a dated, largely irrelevant view of what makes a contender viable for occupying the White House?
The question might be more complicated than it might seem at first glance. The United States electorate has not elected an unmarried president for 139 years. The most recent was Grover Cleveland in 1884. He married his bride while serving in office. Before Cleveland, James Buchanan also served as president while not being married.
On one hand, those suggesting that Scott should explain his lack of a spouse might argue that having a family is a sign of stability. Donors might be concerned about the candidate’s status turning off conservative voters who have more traditional values, which could jeopardize his chances of winning the GOP nomination. Given the amount of money they are likely considering investing in his campaign, it might be understandable that they might want to make sure there are no issues that could jeopardize their chosen candidate’s campaign.
On the flip side, however, others might argue that these views are antiquated and that it might not matter as much to conservatives as some might think. Author Kara Alaimo made this argument in a new Bloomberg op-ed:
These concerns are irrational and unreasonable. It’s time for American voters — who are increasingly single — to stop judging politicians by their marital status.
Today, Americans are more likely to be single than at almost any other time in history. In 2018, the marriage rate fell to its lowest since the federal government began keeping records of it in 1867. In 2022, the percentage of people who had never been married rose to 34%, up from 23% in 1950, according to Census Bureau data. So, it would be statistically unusual if one of our major presidential candidates weren’t single.
It is also worth noting that Scott has been making inroads with evangelical Christians for years. In July, he heavily targeted this demographic in Iowa with a new ad campaign. The senator has argued in the past that his bachelor status could be more of a benefit than a hindrance because it allows him “more time, more energy, and more latitude to do the job.”
Another point worth mentioning is that former President Donald Trump managed to win over evangelical voters despite being a twice-married man who wasn’t exactly faithful to his former spouses. This seems to suggest that right-leaning voters might be open to supporting someone who is not a traditional type.
In the end, Scott’s romantic life should not be a factor as it would not affect his ability to govern. What is most important are his policy stances, vision for the country, and whether he can do the job for which he is running.
That's my biggest concern right now, too.
But, presidents tend to be wealthy, and they probably don't have the same worries that we do. A married president with children might not understand our concerns, either.
Reminds me of a very sad man sitting in the crowded waiting room at divorce court one day. He was a black man in his mid-50s. He looked like he was in shock. He kept shaking his head. When I sat down, he looked at me and said, "Never again. I waited all those years, and I finally got married, and it didn't even last a year."
I tried to lighten his mood by saying, "At least you didn't waste too much time. I just spent 20 years with the wrong person."
But, he still kept shaking his head sadly and saying, "Never again."
I know many nice people who never married, including some family members. They just never met the right person. People shouldn't read too much into it.
Exactly. It used to be that “confirmed bachelors” and spinster aunts were regular and accepted members of society. Nowadays it’s assumed they’re all homos and pedos.
Doesn’t matter— he’s not going to be the nominee.
He could be Trump’s running mate. We will see.
I do not care that he is single, I think he is a weak squish, not a fighter…and for that reason I am not a fan.
Yup..and then there is this!
If he’s weak, that’s a valid reason.
The sermon on the day Reagan died was Reagan wasn’t catholic and as a divorced and remarried man he wasn’t an example of a family man but as president he protected and defended our right to be catholic
Tim Scott won’t beat trump.
Linda Graham.
We have had a Kenyan faggot and a brain addled pedophile as presidents. Are there any standards at all anymore?
And what's worse: They're right only about 98% of the time!
I, myself, am quite sparing in my use of obscenity.
Regards,
Today, one might simply be a "playah" - someone who satisfies his normal sexual needs without benefit of marriage. That sort of thing wouldn't have been as easy or common or as accepted, back in the day.
Regards,
Nope and yes, in that order.
Since there is no requirement in the Constitution for the president to be married, it's irrelevant.
I agree. Even though I don’t like bachelors being picked on, it is out of the ordinary for a prominent politician not to have a family. A private, deviant sex life is a blackmail issue.
I’m single, been married 3 times, I date. But I will not get married again. My ex’s all remarried. Marriage and divorce is a racket. The laws need to change.
“it is out of the ordinary for a prominent politician not to have a family.”
Because trophy families are so legitimate..
Scott probably hires housekeepers and whatever... it’s cheaper that way in the long run. I’m pretty sure he’s real busy.
People who do not have children or even a wife should not be making decisions on the future of our nation / society. It’s a recipe for disaster.
Tim probably does show up at local events. However, when he was a Congressman, he would hold town halls where a constituent could talk with him. Now, there is just no access. I have tried through his office, but nil. I talked with Mark Sanford on the phone, two times, for a contrast of styles.
I like Tim personally, but I am tired of his rags to riches story, although I admire him personally. He sits back with his finger in the air to see which direction the wind is blowing. Very little leadership. Never Trump, establishment RINO, IMHO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.