My favorite comment on the results of yesterday’s GOP primary runoff in the 1st Congressional District came from my old friend and colleague Mike Fitts:
Let’s review why Mark Sanford wasn’t impeached as governor: Because we all assumed he would GO AWAY.
Yeah, well… nobody told Mark. Or actually, someone probably did, but as usual, he didn’t listen. But don’t blame him, right (in fact, as he keeps reminding us, we’re obligated to forgive him)? It’s the fault of those primary voters in the 1st. They had 16 candidates to choose from, and they insisted on the one guy who they knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, was damaged goods.
If we thought, when he left the governor’s office, that we wouldn’t have Mark Sanford to kick around anymore, we reckoned without the fact that he is no Richard Nixon. Nixon had an inferiority complex. He hated the elites who disdained him, but acted as though deep down, he suspected they were right. Sanford, by contrast, is a narcissist. Big difference. Nixon always had Pat at his side. Standing next to Sanford in victory last night was María Belén Chapur.
And even Nixon broke his promise and came back. With Sanford, it was inevitable.
I see that Slatest is downplaying this race, saying the nation is bored with Sanford. I doubt that. I checked, and right now the hottest topic among political writers seems to be Hillary Clinton running for president in 2016, a story that lacks a certain… urgency. They need this contest between, as they see it, Mr. Appalachian Trail and the comedian’s sister. They won’t be able to leave it alone.
Down here, we know who Mark Sanford is. The unanswered question is, who is Elizabeth Colbert-Busch? She’s already tired, probably, of being her brother’s sister. At least, I gather that from this Pinterest post:
If the only things you knew about Elizabeth Colbert Busch were from the national media, you would think her home would be filled with pictures of her more famous brother, Stephen. While there is little doubt that her home holds plenty of pictures of the host of The Colbert Report and the rest of her large family, her home in a firmly middle class section of Mount Pleasant is what one would expect of a successful professional, mother and wife…
Now that we’re paying attention, how will she define herself? CNN’s Peter Hamby speculated last night, “how many times will Elizabeth Colbert-Busch say the word “Democrat” between now and May 7?” My guess at the answer to that is, if possible, it would be a negative number. That district’s been Republican since 1980, and after the last reapportionment is redder than ever.
But wisecracks aside, I’m all ears. I want to see if she can make a race of it, and how Sanford responds to that. He hasn’t have really tough opposition since 2002. It will be interesting to see what he does if the usual stuff fails to work for him, and she manages to make this competitive.
If she doesn’t, well… we’ll have Mark Sanford for a lot longer than the next five weeks.
Related Posts
We will find out soon who Mark Sanford wants us to think Colbert-Busch is.
He’ll win by double digits, proving once again that the people of South Carolina want someone who will say “No” a thousand times over to increasing the role of government in our lives.
I know it’s hard to fathom but many people believe that. Smart people.
No, actually, they’re not. Not if that’s all they want. That is nihilism.
It’s one thing to have a vision and work to make it happen. All Sanford does is say “no,” and ineffectually at that. He was ignored for six years in Washington by the rest of Congress, and by the Legislature for eight years as governor.
Just sitting in a corner saying “no” over and over in isolation is useless. And there’s no way that it’s smart to vote for that.
How do you equate “being against the increased role of government” to “nihilism”?
I think Brad’s point was that Sanford said no every time any government role was proposed, possibly in the hope that saying “No!” often enough would make government go away completely.
I’m still trying to figure out why, if government is the problem as Republicans like to say, they all want to be part of the problem.
“I’m still trying to figure out why, if government is the problem as Republicans like to say, they all want to be part of the problem.” -Nick
I don’t know Nick, but I already like him. That’s funny, I don’t care who you are.
I agree. If five people came to my office and said “Bryan, we’d all like to support you for a campaign for public office.” I would say: “I’ll pay you each $100 to all get out of my office and never come back”.
What increasing roll Doug? The number of SC state employees is down from 20 years ago. With the sequestor the Federal Government is also growing smaller as well. How does that translate into a larger roll for government. The only thing that is larger than before is the bloated salaries of the corporate elite. And that certainly has done zilch to make 99.9% of Americans any wealthier. I would suggest you get your facts straight before you throw out all these bogus claims. Just because it’s an article of faith among the libertarian zombies who somehow believe, against all reason, that a larger roll for big business will save the world, that doesn’t make it so. And the facts prove that to be the case.
As for Sanford how folks like Doug can still support this failure of a human being is beyond me. His tenure in congress was decididly ineffective. His term as governor only made our state poorer and a laughing stock for the rest of the nation. Yet folks still buy his snake oil. Go figure.
What’s our other choice… a Democrat with no political experience. Might as well run Alvin Greene again… at least he was entertaining when asked for an interview.
You keep bringing Alvin Greene up. Do you have some special knowledge about him and why he won the Democratic nomination? Didn’t think so. . . .
“Alvin Greene.” You keep using that name. I do not think it means what you think it means…
So you’re saying that she has as much or more political experience than Alvin Greene.
Steve- I have the knowledge you seek.
Silence, please share it with us. I’m sure there are others who would like to know.
Brad, I have worked on democratic campaigns, and I assure you that it works this way. I have seen it first hand, seen the solicitations and the sample ballots. I’m not saying that the local bosses or ward heelers are 100% effective, and certainly can’t flip a district if it is strongly in the other party’s camp, but in a primary race they can make a big difference. In a general election they can either turn votes out, or not. There’s a few locals who are really good at it, by the way.
Well, I bow to your superior knowledge. But isn’t your comment out of place in the thread? Did you mean to respond to this comment of mine, below?
Yup, I got my reply on the wrong comment…
Here you go Steve, this probably should have it’s own post so that we can properly discuss Alvin Greene:
Nobody expected Alvin Greene to beat Vic Rawl in the Democratic Party Primary, least of all, Vic Rawl. Rawl had a substantial warchest, was well known in SC political circles, and was truly the establishment candidate, having the support of the SCDP’s executive committee. He made a severe political miscalculation though, not hiring the right people and conserving his war chest for the general election.
Now, in local Democratic Party politics, each voting precinct has a ward heeler, “political consultant” or boss who ensures that the vote goes the right way. Typically it’s a respected or well-known member of the local community who greets most of the voters by name, asks how members of their families are doing, and reminds them that candidate XXX appreciates their support. Some of these folks work on a volunteer basis, to enhance their own status within the political power structure, or as guns for hire.
On a broader community level these political bosses might oversee a number of precincts, and ensure that vans or cars pick up reliable voters and get them to the polling places. They also work through the churches or other civic assemblies, distributing sample ballots that are properly marked to show people how to vote, and facilitating meetings between the candidates and influential local leaders. A small contribution to the church will get a candidate a good seat on Sunday, and a slightly larger one might get the local clergy to promote a candidate more vigorously. Come, participate in the service, listen to the sermon, and be introduced to the congregation, shake hands with people as they leave the church, get endorsed by the pastor, that kind of thing.
This is pretty standard practice in local democratic politics, more-so than in republican politics, and particularly within the black community. Plenty of candidates, from school board to city council and all the way up play the game, and this cycle was no different. There were plenty of candidates on down ballot races paying and making deals with local bosses and heelers to get “promoted” in their races. As a result, the consultants were getting sample ballots ready and lining up endorsements. At some point, Rawl’s campaign manager was certainly contacted and solicited for inclusion on these ballots.
Since Rawl (or his staff) thought that he was a shoe-in, he would have turned down these requests, saving his money for the general election where he was assured of a tough race. Knowing that his campaign had money, this would have annoyed the local bosses who would then NOT have included him on their ballots. Specifically, many of them marked Alvin Greene’s name on the ballot instead of Rawls. They’d teach that rich, white Charleston lawyer a lesson. When Rawl showed poorly in a solid democratic district, he’d be more likely to spend money and resources there to turn out the voters in the general election. Remember, he was a lock to win the primary, anyhow.
Except that the local bosses had made a miscalculation. Too many of them made sample ballots with Greene marked. Nobody preached for Rawl on Sunday, no Rawl signs went up in influential people’s yards, no mailers went out.
Greene had a few other things going his way, of course. His name would be first on the ballot which didn’t hurt him at all. This was a statewide primary, but outside of his local area and well informed Democrat voters, the general voting public didn’t know who Vic Rawl was, negating his years of experience. Many, if not most Democrat voters are not well informed, and by not availing himself of the party apparatus, Rawl ensured that the uninformed would not vote for him.
The structure that has worked so well to “get out the vote” and to ensure that the democratic base votes a certain way worked exactly as it was supposed to. It punished Vic Rawl for not “spreading the wealth around” and utilizing the local party resources. In the end it punished the Democratic Party by selecting Alvin Greene in the primary. A 33 year old, unemployed black man, drummed out of the Air Force, living in his dad’s basement, facing criminal charges of a sexual nature had beaten a wealthy and respected attorney, former state legislator, jurist and city councilman.
You can be sure that Dick Harpootlian, Jim Clyburn and the other Democratic Party bigwigs know exactly how this went down, but will never admit that this is how it happened. It’s an embarrassment to the Democratic Party and to the political machine, so it won’t see the light of day.
Silence, you spin quite a yarn. But how much of that is based on actual knowledge, and how much on conjecture?
I always hear these tales about how super-organized Democrats are on that grass-roots level, particularly in black precincts. But I seldom see all that much proof of it, in terms of results, in South Carolina.
But people perpetuate the image. And sometimes it’s pushed by the practitioners.
Here’s something where I can speak from experience. One night in 1978, when I was traveling Tennessee with Democrat Jake Butcher, who was running for governor (reporters used to actually cover campaigns, up close and personal, in those days) the campaign stopped for dinner at Pete and Sam’s in Memphis. Not the great Pete and Sam’s on Park, the Italian place I love so much, but another one they had opened (and since closed) out by the airport. It had a really different feel from the super-authentic original. It even had a liquor license (at the old P&S, everybody brownbags).
There were maybe eight of us at the table — Butcher, a couple of aides, U.S. Sen. Jim Sasser, U.S. Rep. Harold Ford, Ford’s wife, and me. Anybody who has followed Memphis politics for a lot of years knows about the prowess, perceived and sometimes real, of the Ford family machine.
Anyway, Ford had been to the dentist earlier that day, and had taken some pain killers. The mixed drink he was having on top of that was making him unusually animated and talkative. He started bragging to Butcher about how his people were going to get the vote out for him. He said they would stop cars at intersections, tell the people to pull over and park and go vote. They would knock on doors. If the person who answered was busy doing the laundry, they’d say, “We’ll do your laundry. You go vote.” If their kids were home, the campaign workers would say, “We’ll take care of the kids; you go vote.”
He went on and on about how aggressively thorough his people would be in getting Butcher elected. People at the table seemed uncomfortable at the way Ford was bragging. Sasser, as I recall, was fairly quiet. Butcher finally indicated me and said uneasily, “Harold, there’s a reporter here.”
Ford didn’t even break his stride. He just turned quickly to me and said, “This is off the record, right?” I neither said yes nor no, as I wanted to keep my options open. So I just raised my hands up so they hovered over the table, like a gambler in an Old West saloon showing that he was unarmed (or in my case, that I wasn’t taking notes), and said “I’m just eating here.”
I had not heard anything that would make a headline. “Ford to help Butcher” would have been less interesting than “Dog bites man.” A real “duh” story. But I personally found the details fascinating, and I knew I’d remember them. (I didn’t always take notes in front of sources, because of the way it tended to inhibit them.)
If Butcher had won that election, maybe I would have used some of that stuff in a “how he won” story. But he didn’t. As it happened, Lamar Alexander did, and I wrote such a story about him. (I like the way I got that story. One night on the campaign plane, after a long, tiring day, a reporter from Nashville got to talking to Alexander over a drink. The reporter was relaxed and not taking notes, and Alexander was unusually relaxed, and he started telling the whole story of how he’d decided to run again after his previous loss, and how he came up with the strategy that would mean success this time, and how he carried it out. And I was furiously taking notes, writing down every bit of it. It made a pretty good narrative, which I wrote and the Nashville reporter did not. I got a compliment on that story from John “the Bear” Parish, the dean of Tennessee political writers, which was rare and which I treasured.)
I was brand-new to state politics that year, and I figured what Ford was doing was giving me a glimpse into the way politics worked. I didn’t know how rare it would be in my career to witness quite a frank discussion of the details, though.
There’s a postscript to this story that I’ll try to come back to you with. I’ve got to run to a meeting now…
Silence, not Steven!
Yeah, that’s what I mean. Silence…
She has business experience, much of it with an international flavor. If she was successful (and it appears she was), then she had at least a minimum of political capability to start.
@bud
Mark Sanford had little to no impact on the state of South Carolina. No governor has. They are figureheads for the most part.
The federal government is assuredly NOT growing smaller under sequestration. All that has happened was the rate of GROWTH was slowed. That’s it.
So much hyperbole…
I don’t care if Sanford wins or loses. I think he has the right to run for the office and if the voters put him in, that’s what they want. I don’t have a vote. Would I vote for him over Haley for governor again? In a second.
Former Governor and Congressman Sanford has won the primary, and has to be favored to win. Though he appears to have not lost any of his arrogance, his willingness and ability to frame issues in deceptive and often false language will likely hold sway with many who want to hear his libertarian perspective. Many in the Republican leadership and rank and file will swallow their better judgment and support him, though they don’t trust him or respect his shallow doctrinaire positions. Let’s hope there is backlash we don’t yet see – or simply weariness and wariness.
From a libertarian perspective government’s roll is indeed growing smaller. On a wide variety of issues the government has become less intrustive over the last decade or so. Take the gay marriage issue. Until very recently it was universally accepted that marriage was between 1 man and 1 woman, period. Now in a growing number of places the government role in the marriage decision is smaller.
A similar smaller roll is evident in such things as pot smoking, death with dignity laws and even blue laws here in SC. In the military the government is broadening it’s acceptance of females in more areas. In two very contentious issues government intrusion seems to be held at bay (at least for now) – gun control and abortion. So while it is fair to argue that government’s role is still too large is it really accurate to say that the government’s roll is growing?
Bud, you seem to be confused about something, and judging by the comments I’ve seen elsewhere recently, you’re far from alone.
Legalizing same-sex marriage is most assuredly NOT a case of the role of government decreasing. It’s precisely the opposite. It’s extending legal status — and therefore government regulation — into a realm where it did not exist before. That’s government expansion.
Up until now, same-sex couples did what they chose, and had whatever relationship they chose to have. With legal marriage, government becomes a party to the relationship.
Nuh unh
The government takes a cut of the estate of gay people who died and who were in long term committed relationships and too, the maximum steps to commit permitted by law, but not a cut of the estate of people like you and me who are in long term committed relationships and have taken the maximum steps to commit permitted by law, simply because of the sex of the parties.
Took
That doesn’t follow. Everyone is treated the same under the estate tax law, unless they’ve entered into this government-regulated relationship.
Whether you get a tax break or a tax increase as a result of being married, the fact that you ARE legally married means that government has intruded into the relationship, and made certain decisions regarding it, decisions that affect the parties involved.
It’s an expansion of the role of government. If you have have X number of people (the heterosexual married couples extant) who have a particular status under law, and you add Y number of people to it (the same sex couples having that same recognition extended to them), you have expanded the role of government, because it affects more people.
It doesn’t matter HOW it affects them, for good or ill. It just affects them. It’s an expansion.
Or, as abusers of the language would have it, it “impacts” them…
No, Brad, the estate tax treats spouses differently from unmarried inheritors. A surviving spouse can deduct the value of certain inherited property. Plus, in a jointly held estate, half the value is held by the surviving spouse, thus reducing the amount possibly subject to estate tax.
To be honest, I really don’t see the big flap over estate or inheritance taxes. Only two estates in 1,000 actually pay estate tax. I can’t think of anybody I personally know whose estate might actually have to pay it, and don’t doubt that the vast majority of Americans can say the same.
They couldn’t choose to collect Social Security benefits or file taxes as married couples. They couldn’t choose to be involved in end-of-life decisions.
Government shouldn’t define what marriage is.
Whether it should or shouldn’t, it always has. And expanding that definition to cover more people may be many things, but it is not a contraction of the role of government.
Yes
Role
And if they don’t choose to be married, no one will force them to. But for a change, if the want to be married, maybe they will no longer be denied that legal/social status.
Denying something is intrusion. Allowing it is the opposite of intrusion. Seems clear to me that allowing more folks to marry, currently same sex but in the past inter-racial, is making government less intrusive. Don’t see how it can be interpreted any other way.
There would be a certain logic to that — sort of — if there had been a long-standing institution of same-sex marriage in the society, and one day the government would ban it. That would be an intrusion.
But that’s not the case. What’s being decided is whether the government, which previously only concerned itself with relationships between men and women, will apply all those thousands of laws about marriage to an additional set of people.
This isn’t about whether it’s a good idea or not. But there’s no question that in expanding the institution of marriage, government is getting involved in something in which it was not involved before.
If I were a libertarian, that would sound like an argument against the idea. But as y’all well know, I am not. I’m just trying to be clear that whatever else same-sex marriage is — good, bad, and indifferent — it is not a contraction of the role of government.
It’s not an expansion, either. You are really reaching with this.
Actually, I’m not. I’m just reacting to something Bud said that didn’t make sense to me. There might be some areas out there that are examples of the contraction of government, but this is not one of them. It doesn’t add up. Or subtract down. Or whatever…
“Up until now, same-sex couples did what they chose, and had whatever relationship they chose to have.”
Uh, you mean up until now, they did what they chose, except get married, and had whatever relationship they chose to have except that of married spouses? And now they have that too.
How about allowing same sex common law marriage? We allowed it for different sex in this state up until very recently….
OK, I need you to help me out here on definitions, as a lawyer.
Doesn’t “common law” have something to do with things that have existed traditionally, as in “English common law” that has sort of carried over into something we recognize in this country?
I think you’d have to set up something, wouldn’t you — marriage, or civil unions, or whatever. I would think that a claim that a common-law situation existed between two people of the same sex would be a tough one to prove in court.
But you would know better than I. My understanding of the concept of common law is sketchy.
I mean, you need a body of precedent, right?
Here’s an interesting bit that I found looking up “common law” in Wikipedia:
I’ll bet a lot of folks didn’t know that. And a lot of others would dispute it…
What do you mean “until very recently”? Unless there’s been a change in the law that I’m not aware of, South Carolina still very much recognizes common law marriage.
I thought they abolished it. My bad….they talked about doing it, anyway.
Creates a lawyer bonanza in wrongful death actions, for one thing….
Common law is just the law that naturally derives from the judicial process. It usually makes much more sense than statutory law since it has been refined over a much longer time.
Regarding common-law marriage, you can’t have it in South Carolina between two members of the same sex. One of the elements required to establish a common law marriage in South Carolina is that there be no “impediments” to the marriage. When, there is an impediment to marriage, such as one party’s existing marriage to a third person, no common-law marriage may be formed, regardless whether mutual assent is present.
Basically, if you can’t get legally married due to any impediment, you cannot be common law married. Being the same sex would very like be found to be an “impediment”.
Interesting angle, though.
Typo. The last sentence should read: “Being the same sex would be very likely to be found to be an “impediment”.
My point was that appropriate persons can marry themselves, legally and as good as if they had a license, without any government role. Common law married couples still need to get a judicial divorce.
Expand the class of appropriate persons, and same sex couples could marry without any government involvement.
I don’t think letting same-sex couples common law marry solves the problem any more than letting marry by statute. Both are recognized as legitimate marriages. The only difference between common law marriage and statutory marriage is how they are created. Once formed, a common law marriage carries the same rights and obligations – the same governmental sanction, if you will.
I don’t think there’s any less government involvement, especially if you get into dissolution of the marriage. In a divorce action, both would equally require the services of the government (ie. Family Court). Really, the only difference is filing a little “piece of paper” that says you are married. That’s so de minimus, I can’t say that’s “government involvement”.
Family Court is a service to people dissolving their marriage? That’s rich stuff.
It’s not that divorce should be as easy as getting married; but at some level it should.
I think that the reality of same sex marriage is really the sad fact that even more people will be forced through the family court system.
Mark raises an interesting point: I wonder what the divorce rate is among same-sex couples in the states where they can legally marry?
I’m guessing it would be low, but I really have no idea. I’ve looked it up, but it seems to me the numbers are too low for anyone to make any generalizations. What I did find indicated that maybe the incidence is lower, which is what I would have guessed. I see, though, that some people out there just couldn’t resist using the phrase “gay divorcee.”
We could certainly do as so many states do, and allow couples who agree, to divorce without having to go before a judge. The farce of the required witness testimony that the couple hasn’t got it on during the mandatory one year separation for no-fault grounds, for one thing, could be dispensed with, freeing up Family Court judges to attend to more serious matters!