More to the SCGOP fight than is being let on

There have been some interesting things going on recently with the S.C. Republican Party, not the least of which is former party treasurer John Cattano ripping on the party from the child’s blog. But, if you believe all of what he wrote, you aren’t getting the full story. It’s a little more interesting than that.

Sources within the SCGOP told us over the weekend that Cattano was ousted for “bringing drama to the
job,” and that the move wasn’t as amicable as party staffers first indicated. Those sources tell us that Cattano bumped heads with party chairwoman Karen Floyd after he indicated that he and friend Curtis Loftis would run against incumbents Converse Chellis and Richard Eckstrom. While one part of the duo’s plan worked, sources say that Cattano could not acquire a personal loan to finance his campaign due to the failure of his past businesses.

“Cattano didn’t agree with the direction of the party. He believes the party should work in primaries. He was going to run against Eckstrom, but he’s flat broke and unable to secure a loan after he ran his company into the ground,” a source close to the situation told us.

We’re told that Cattano and Floyd had a heated exchange after Cattano demanded that she support him for comptroller. The exchange came just days after Cattano tried strong-arming Kershaw County Republican Party chairman Chris Oviatt into clearing the field for HD-79 candidate Sheri Few. Cattano reportedly used Floyd’s name without her permission, saying that he was speaking on her behalf. Floyd is said to have become very upset with the situation.

“Cattano and Floyd just have different beliefs when it comes to playing in primaries. The drama became so intense that she had to let him go,” a source said. We were also told that Cattano is “making it his mission” to go after Floyd.

The whole situation seems crazy. After all, if you’re the guy drafting the budget, wouldn’t you do something about it then? And if the money being spent for work isn’t going out to firms in the state, it would have to be spent to hire people to do it in-house, which would also mean shelling out cash for benefits and the like, in addition to a salary.