𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐎𝐫 𝐄𝐥𝐬𝐞 By @SarahGAllenSC There is a peculiar strategy taking hold within the Republican establishment these days: nominate candidates Republican voters struggle to support, dismiss the convictions that make those voters Republicans in the first place, and then demand “unity” when Election Day rolls around. When that doesn’t work, apparently the next step is yelling at them. If you want Republicans to rally behind the nominee, perhaps you should care whether the nominee is someone Republicans can support without abandoning the convictions that made them Republicans in the first place. That seems obvious. And yet here we are. 𝐍𝐄𝐖𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐀𝐊 You cannot demand unity from voters while treating the principles that unite them as negotiable. For years, the Republican establishment has seemed to take special pleasure in sticking freedom-loving conservatives with candidates who compromise our values and then presenting us with the same tired ultimatum: fall in line, or else. And perhaps nowhere is the problem more obvious than with the nominee we are now being ordered to support. Darline Graham Boggs Nordone did not arrive on the political scene after years of knocking doors, organizing precincts, fighting for the Republican platform or building a conservative record South Carolina Republicans could examine. Following the death of her brother, Sen. Lindsey Graham, she was appointed by establishment puppet Gov. Henry McMaster to temporarily fill Graham’s Senate seat after President Trump publicly backed her for the vacancy. As previously reported by SC Confidential, Nordone has no previous political experience and little public record on major political issues. And yet, almost immediately, came the expectation that Republican voters should rally around her candidacy for the seat permanently. For many conservatives, that has been a difficult sell. Conservatives have expressed concerns about her positions on abortion and DEI, her ignorance and dismissal of national security issues, as well as the considerable money from Democrat PACs spent in support of her campaign. These are not trivial issues to voters, for good reason. However, the response from much of the establishment has seemed less like, “Here is why she deserves your vote,” and more like, “She has an R beside her name. What more do you people want?” Well, principles, for starters. If the party wants voters to overlook a candidate’s political history (or lack thereof) along with positions they believe conflict with the Republican platform, it has every right to make that sales pitch. But conservatives also have every right not to buy it. 𝐃𝐎𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐄𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐊 And that is really the heart of this entire mess: you cannot sell voters a candidate they do not believe represents their values and then accuse the customers of disloyalty when they leave the store empty-handed. Many Republican activists have rightfully had enough. As we gear up for November 3rd, some conservatives are now considering writing in Ralph Norman instead of nominee Nordone. Others are considering voting third party. Some may simply sit this one out. And what has been the establishment’s response to these voters? Persuasion? An honest examination of how we got here? Perhaps a little soul-searching about why longtime Republican activists no longer feel represented by the Republican party? Of course not. Instead, they’ve chosen the bludgeon. We are now being treated to endless warnings that failing to support the nominee amounts to electing a Democrat. A write-in vote for a conservative Republican, we are told, is somehow actually a vote for a Democrat. That is an interesting bit of electoral alchemy. It is made even more fascinating by the fact that many of the same establishment voices sounding the alarm about the catastrophic possibility of a Democrat winning a Senate seat routinely defend Republican legislators who vote WITH Democrats to kill Republican legislation. Apparently voting for a conservative can make you a Democrat, but voting with Democrats does not. Got it. 𝐁𝐄𝐋𝐋𝐘𝐅𝐄𝐄𝐋 The fearmongering over a Democrat potentially winning this Senate seat, while simultaneously excusing Republicans who routinely help Democrats defeat Republican priorities, is a masterclass in hypocritical gaslighting. At some point, someone has to say it: The emperor wears no clothes. This is the bed the establishment made. Threatening those who refuse to lie in it will not manufacture the loyalty that years of compromise destroyed. Because beneath all the noise is a very simple principle: a vote belongs to the voter. No candidate is entitled to it. No political party owns it. And no voter should be shamed into surrendering it. South Carolina gives voters a write-in option for a reason. If someone chooses to write in Ralph Norman, that voter has not “voted for the Democrat.” They have voted for Ralph Norman. You may believe that decision helps another candidate mathematically. You may think it is strategically unwise. You may make that argument until you are red the face. But the vote still belongs to the person casting it. And persuasion is still preferable to coercion. 𝐔𝐍𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐒𝐎𝐍𝐒 Unfortunately, the response to the write-in Ralph movement has now moved beyond scolding voters. On its heels, we are witnessing what increasingly resembles a rabid witch hunt against Republican Party officers and delegates, led (rather deliciously) by some of the very people who never tire of preaching “unity.” The particular offense in question is a party rule prohibiting officers from endorsing candidates other than the Republican nominee. Fine. Rules are rules. But if we are suddenly entering our strict constitutionalist era when it comes to party bylaws, perhaps someone should alert the rest of the SCGOP. The selective outrage over which broken rules demand investigation, punishment and retribution, and which warrant a strategically averted gaze, is fascinating. Standards are useful things. They become considerably less impressive when they are pulled out of storage only to discipline the people who have become inconvenient. There’s a special kind of hypocrisy in watching members of what’s supposed to be the “Liberty Party” resort to brown-shirt bully tactics against anyone who refuses to swallow one more bite of whatever slop the establishment puts on their plate - claiming the mantle of conservatism while simping for the very Uniparty machine they pretend to oppose. 𝐓𝐇𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐇𝐓𝐂𝐑𝐈𝐌𝐄 For the record, I have not made an endorsement in next month’s election. What I have endorsed, and will continue to defend, is the right of Republican voters to think for themselves, vote their conscience, and expect the people seeking their votes to earn them. The establishment network would be wise to spend considerably less time hunting dissenters and considerably more time listening to them. These voters are not necessarily abandoning the Republican Party. Many of them are furious because they believe the Republican Party has abandoned the Republican Creed, the Republican Platform and the principles they were asked to fight for in the first place. That distinction is important. You do not rebuild their trust by calling them traitors. You do not inspire loyalty by threatening them. And you certainly do not create unity by demanding that one side continually compromise while the other side gets to define what “unity” means. If Republican leadership wants conservative voters back in the fold, there is a remarkably simple solution: Give them something worth uniting behind. Because eventually, “vote for us or else” stops sounding like a political argument. It starts sounding like an admission that you no longer have one. sc-confidential.com/scgop/un…

Was this Darline Graham's Nancy Pelosi moment? Graham now says we'll have to elect her to find out what her plans are on "affordablity." Graham was saying no one cares about her lack of knowledge of China because South Carolina voters only care about affordability. So Ed O'Keefe asks her what her plans are on affordability. Graham says we'll have to elect her to find out. Fox News' Lawrence Jones is right. She's an "empty vessel." South Carolina deserves better than this. Vote tomorrow, Aug. 25 in the US Senate primary.

𝐃𝐀𝐑𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐇𝐀𝐌… 𝐁𝐎𝐆𝐆𝐒? By @SarahGAllenSC The more voters attempt to learn about Darline Graham, the more questions seem to emerge. Darline has remained remarkably tight-lipped, not only about her personal history, but also about the policies she would be responsible for shaping during a six-year term in the United States Senate. Let’s begin. 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐁𝐈𝐎𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐏𝐇𝐘 Before Larry Nordone, Darline was apparently married to Freddie Boggs. She was publicly identified as “Darline Graham Boggs,” and the couple reportedly had a daughter before divorcing. Her current English-language Wikipedia page still lists “Darline Graham Boggs” under “Other names.” An earlier version went further, explicitly stating that she used that name while married to her first husband. Here’s where it gets sticky: On July 20, that sourced sentence was DELETED by a Wikipedia editor who dismissed the prior media reference as “irrelevant.” Meanwhile, the Spanish-language biography still names Freddie Boggs, identifies him as her first husband and acknowledges their divorce. Being divorced is neither scandalous (these days) nor disqualifying. However, when a largely unknown candidate asks voters to entrust her with one of the most powerful offices in the country, why has such a basic part of her biography been omitted from nearly every recent profile? 𝐅𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐅𝐑𝐄𝐍𝐄𝐌𝐈𝐄𝐒 The lack of clarity extends beyond her first marriage. As previously reported, a published profile quoted former state Sen. Katrina Shealy as saying that Darline would sometimes visit her home, drink wine on the porch and “talk to the donkeys.” But when Darline was asked directly about her ties to Shealy, she minimized the relationship: “I know her. I’ve never been to her house.” Shealy later walked back the original portrayal, suggesting that the wine-on-the-porch story was more of a possible invitation than something that had actually occurred. So which account was accurate? Were they friends who socialized together, mere professional acquaintances, or was the original story embellished? How strange that even the people claiming to know Darline cannot seem to agree on how well they know her. “𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐌𝐘 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐆” Then there are her policy positions. During Tuesday’s debate, Darline was asked whether Taiwan and the South China Sea are national-security concerns for the United States. Her response? “I’m just going to be honest here. I’m not that informed on national security.” She later continued: “National security is not my thing.” Let’s remember these were not obscure policy question for someone seeking a seat in the United States Senate. Foreign affairs, military readiness and national security are central responsibilities of the office. Her brother Lindsey spent DECADES in that seat as one of the Senate’s most active voices on foreign affairs. You would think proximity alone would have given her enough of a grasp to at least bluff her way through a more substantive answer than, “National security is not my thing.” Sadly, the legal pad of policy notes she doesn’t understand seems to go on and on. One thing she does understand, however, is that South Carolinians don’t want boys in girls’ sports… something already prohibited under South Carolina law since 2022. But it hasn’t stopped her campaign from putting that settled issue at the forefront anyway. 𝐏𝐑𝐎-𝐋𝐈𝐅𝐄… 𝐈𝐒𝐇. 𝐌𝐀𝐘𝐁𝐄. Her campaign presents her as an unwavering defender of life - again, without any known history of pro-life activism to prove it. What we DO know is that Darline donated to “Slaughter Sister” Katrina Shealy after Shealy helped filibuster pro-life legislation. National Right to Life and the South Carolina Citizens for Life Federal PAC nevertheless announced their endorsements of Graham Nordone. The decision was so controversial that board member Randy Page immediately resigned from South Carolina Citizens for Life, calling the endorsement “ill-advised” and “inexcusable.” And yet despite her portrayal as a warrior for the unborn, when Darline was asked at a meet-and-greet whether she would support protecting unborn life beginning at conception, she answered: “I don’t know. Let me think about it.” Darline seems to be taking a rather Forrest Gump–ian approach to the office she expects South Carolinians to entrust her with: We’ll simply have to wait and see what we get. But a six-year Senate term is not a box of chocolates, and voters deserve to know what they’re getting BEFORE they cast a ballot. 𝐑𝐄𝐏𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐍 𝐁𝐘 𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐃, 𝐎𝐑 𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐎𝐑𝐒𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓? Despite living in Lexington, Darline appears to have had no visible involvement with the Lexington County Republican Party, or the SCGOP, before being appointed to the Senate. Even more revealing is the extraordinary financial support now flowing to her candidacy from leftist outside groups and Washington power brokers. The clean-energy-backed Invest in Tomorrow Coalition has reportedly committed $1 million to defeating Ralph Norman (effectively boosting Darline in the runoff) while NOTUS reports that her campaign received more than $24,000 in contributions exceeding federal limits in a single week from donors including Charles Schwab, Lisa Murkowski, TikTok’s head of public policy, and a former U.S. ambassador. The Washington Post also reported that election records show she didn’t even vote in South Carolina’s 2024 Republican presidential primary. Yet now she campaigns almost entirely upon President Trump’s endorsement. However, despite Trump’s endorsement, this past Monday the executive committeemen of the Lexington County Republican Party convened a special meeting and voted overwhelmingly to endorse Ralph Norman for the U.S. Senate. Whether it was Norman’s 100% CPAC score, his proven Republican leadership, Darline’s absence from local party life - or all three - one thing was made clear: The Republicans in Darline’s own backyard were not willing to entrust her with a six-year Senate term simply because a man who has never lived here has told them to. 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐈𝐒 𝐃𝐀𝐑𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐇𝐀𝐌? Darline Graham has repeatedly told voters whose sister she is. She has repeatedly told voters who endorsed her. But when will she tell South Carolinians who Darline Graham actually is? Why is her personal history so difficult to piece together? Why are accounts of her relationships contradictory? Why does she appear unprepared to answer fundamental questions about basic policy? Where was her involvement in the Republican Party, or any conservative activism, before a Senate seat suddenly became available? And why should South Carolinians award six years of power to someone they are still struggling to know mere days before an election? The issue is not Darline Graham’s divorce, her family ties, or her ginormous legal pad. The issue is that the more voters learn, the more apparent it becomes how much they still have not been told. sc-confidential.com/washingt…