Category Archives: Elections

That first question was a toughie, if you’re Mark Sanford

91 Replies

Did y’all watch the debate? I did not, in real time, and when I started trying to a little after 8, I could not find any video to connect to. I mean, what century is this anyway?

This morning, I’ve started watching the CSPAN video. Before typing this, all I had watched was the opening question, which immediately put Mark Sanford in a bad spot. He and Elizabeth Colbert Busch were asked, “What do you consider your greatest professional accomplishment, and why?”

Ms. Busch went first, and talked about some accomplishments she was proud of from her business career. But the whole time she was talking, I was wondering, what on Earth will Mark Sanford have to boast of?

“Professional accomplishment” implies “something you’ve done outside of politics,” unless you choose to present yourself as a professional politician. I’m vaguely aware that Sanford did something in the private sector, quite briefly, before running for office for the first time two decades ago. He’s certainly not known for anything he did in that distant past. What obscure accomplishment would he extract from his youth to impress us with?

Well, he didn’t even try. He talked politics instead — basically acknowledging that that is his profession. Of course, he’s on extremely shaky ground there, since he’s never accomplished any major goals that he has set out in politics. So he proceeded to cite trying to hold back government spending, year after year, as an accomplishment. He even threw in his most embarrassing policy moment, when he was the only governor in the nation trying to prevent his state from getting stimulus money that South Carolinians would be on the hook for every bit as much as other Americans. The responsible Republican leaders of our state saw to it that he failed in that effort, as in so many of his extreme positions. Yet he cited his having tried as part of his body of professional “accomplishment.”

The closest he came to an accomplishment was claiming credit for having been a member of Congress when the leadership (of which formed no part) and the White House worked together to balance the budget. So basically, he was in town when something good happened.

I can’t really critique Ms. Busch’s answer to that question, because it was all from her experience in the private sector.

If I were with the Sanford campaign, I’d be griping that that lead-off question was grossly unfair to my guy, as there was just no good way for him, being Mark Sanford, to answer it.

That’s as far as I’ve gotten, and I don’t know how much more of it I’ll have time to watch today, although I’m going to listen to some of it at least. I’ll jump back in here with thoughts as they occur to me.

But in the meantime, among those of you who saw it, what did you think?

Is Mark Sanford entitled to equal time on Comedy Central?

13 Replies

I thought this question, posed on Slatest, was intriguing:

As the faux-conservative Colbert Report host, Stephen Colbert has lampooned campaign finance laws and the U.S. electoral system by starting his own super PAC and announcing bids for the presidency and “the president of the United States of South Carolina.” But another Colbert—this one with a hard t at the end—is also vying for the political spotlight: Elizabeth Colbert Busch, Stephen’s older sister, who’s facing off against avid Appalachian Trail hiker and former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford in a May 7 special election for South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District. Colbert has twice devoted show segments to his sister’s campaign, including one endorsing her candidacy, and has mocked Sanford on countless occasions. With the show’s nightly viewership of 1.5 million and the documented “Colbert bump” in a politician’s support after an appearance, is Colbert violating election laws by blending his hosting role with his sister’s campaign?

Probably not. The central law in play is the Federal Communications Commission’s equal-time rule. Beginning with the Radio Act of 1927, which Congress enacted in response to fears of broadcasters’ ability to sway elections by limiting a candidate’s access to the airwaves, radio and television networks have been required to offer equal airtime (or opportunities to purchase advertising at a reduced price) to all candidates if they request it. Exemptions were later added for documentaries, newscasts, news interviews, and on-the-spot news events.

Since it covers news stories and political issues, The Colbert Report would likely fall under the newscast or news interviews exceptions…

Really? I would have thought it was entertainment.

In any case, I’ve always found the equal-time rule sort of hard to follow. And now that we have “news shows” that are entirely satire, how would you go about giving equal time, anyway? And if you gave it, how could you be assured it would be to the advantage of the one demanding it? When everything is dealt with ironically, how do you make sure your equal time is quality time? Make it an infomercial, so you have total control? Maybe. I don’t know. But even that could backfire, as Comedy Central viewers go there for smart-aleck, not for earnest.

What do y’all think?

cropped-cropped-cropped-colbert

Sanford’s continuing with the Nancy Pelosi shtick

53 Replies

Sanford cash

You would think that, after standing on a public street pretending to “debate” a life-sized photograph of Nancy Pelosi, Mark Sanford would realize that he had embarrassed himself in three ways:

  1. By making Rep. Pelosi his target, he’s doing exactly the same thing that he’s accusing Elizabeth Colbert Busch of doing — failing to confront his actual opponent. This “run against the national boogeyman (or woman)” shtick is the last resort of the desperate. It cries out that he has nothing relevant to say to the 1st District. It’s like the political equivalent of how the Tsarnaevs learned to be terrorists — they just got it from the Internet. It’s garden-variety, off-the-shelf, inside-the-Beltway partisan nonsense.
  2. By choosing MUSC as his background, he unnecessarily calls attention to the fact that he has always been hostile to the very idea of public research universities in South Carolina. If Mark Sanford had his way, institutions such as MUSC would not exist. It’s just not a good idea, for him, to remind voters of that.
  3. By standing specifically in front of a building named for Dr. James Colbert — the father of his opponent — he not only demonstrates a shocking cluelessness of landmarks in the main city in his district, but underlines the contributions that his opponent’s family have made to the community in which they are so strongly rooted.

After so thoroughly striking out with this shtick yesterday, you’d think Sanford would abandon it. But above you see a picture of him Tweeted by Stacy Jacobson with the ABC affiliate in Charleston. Her explanation of the picture:

Sanford holds up $1,000. Says Pelosi spent $600k to campaign against him

Sheesh. Never mind that, as an image, it evokes the photo that so embarrassed Mitt Romney.

That’s our former governor. When he finds a way to make himself look silly, he shticks with it…

Kathleen Parker writes as though Sanford were toast

17 Replies

The State today ran this column by Kathleen Parker, which doesn’t come right out and say “Mark Sanford’s gonna lose,” but seems to assume that to be the case throughout. Here’s how the piece ends:

Sanford didn’t even have the decency to resign from office but rather finished his term and vanished for a couple of years only to re-emerge in pursuit of a fresh legacy. He recently won the Republican primary for an open congressional seat and faces Elizabeth Colbert Busch (sister of TV’s Stephen Colbert) in a special election May 7.

To many South Carolinians, especially women, Sanford’s candidacy is an embarrassment of Weiner­esque proportions. But if history is any guide, his candidacy is on life support. Not only did his former wife, Jenny Sanford, not stand by her man, she also wrote a book, went on TV and recently took him to court for trespassing. This in the wake of his fiancee showing up at his primary victory party and appearing onstage with him and two of his sons, one of whom had not previously met his future stepmother.

Sanford’s lack of empathy for his family, not to mention his impeachable judgment, should disqualify him from further public service, an opinion apparently shared by the National Republican Congressional Committee, which recently withdrew support for his candidacy.

Where the wife goes, so go the people…

An interesting detail to note is that this piece is several days old. It’s dated for April 19, which was three days before the PPP poll showed Elizabeth Colbert Busch leading by 9 points. So Kathleen was just sort of going on gut on this — assuming that her theory, that if the wife doesn’t forgive the voters won’t, would apply.

I think it’s premature to count Mark Sanford out. That district is so Republican, and he won the crowded GOP primary. The same people who voted for him all those times before seem poised to do it again. Relying on those voters not to show up on election day seems like a thin premise.

I now think he may lose. I’d very much like to see him lose, because it would go a long way toward bolstering my faith in democracy in South Carolina, which frankly has been repeatedly bruised over the last few years. It would show that voters in that district have some sense.

But I’m not counting on it, not on the basis of information currently available to me.

And I don’t think you can predict it based on any generalizations about sex scandals elsewhere in the country. National media (and I know Kathleen isn’t like other national media, since she lives in SC, but the audience she’s writing for is national) keep making the mistake of lumping Sanford in with Weiner and others, as though there were a connection. When there isn’t.

This is related to another fallacy that national media treat as gospel — that you can make generalizations about individual congressional elections based on party. As though a Democratic or Republican victory at one end of the country indicates a trend that will bear out at the other end of the country. Which utterly ignores the fact that every candidate is different, and is running under different conditions, in a different venue with different voters.

And just as with Tolstoy’s observation that “every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,” every sex scandal is different. And one involving Mark Sanford is necessarily more different than others, because Mark Sanford is utterly unlike any politician I’ve ever encountered in my long career. The odd ways that he relates, or doesn’t relate, to other human beings (including, and perhaps especially, member of his own party) is just unique. I’ve never seen anything like it.

Therefore the psychology of what motivates people to vote for him is also unique. His political appeal is a strange animal, hard to understand and harder to predict.

So I would not dismiss him yet, as much as I may want to. But to do so, I’d have to be more certain that I am that voters who show up on May 7 in that district will act sensibly, rather than embarrass our state. And there are just too many quirky variables to predict with confidence.

Sheheen decries decriminalization of ethics violations

18 Replies

Got this release a few minutes ago from Vincent Sheheen:

Sheheen on Ethics Reform: GOP efforts & Governor’s back-seat approach the “good-old-boys-and-girls network at its worst”

Columbia – Today, state Representatives Beth Bernstein and James Smith stood up to call for real ethics reform and urged Governor Haley for leadership instead of hiding behind yet another bureaucratic commission while her followers do the dirty work of decriminalizing some of the most common ethics violations – many of which she was accused of herself. State Senator Vincent Sheheen released this statement:

“I thank Representatives Bernstein and Smith for joining me in the revolt against the status quo and the efforts to move South Carolina forward by returning common sense and ethics to our leadership. The Republican effort at ‘ethics reform’ is the good-old-boys–and-girls network in politics at its worst. We need real leadership to clean up the government, not just a study or report while members of the Governor’s own party decrease the punishment on ethics violations that she has been charged with.

“For too long, South Carolina has struggled to meet its potential under the guidance of leaders who get detoured by putting their self-interest before the interests of the people.  We need to change the way we do business and leave the politics of ideology and personal ambition behind to get the state back on track.”

###

I just wish he wouldn’t use that overworked “good ol’ boys” construction. That got tired back when Carroll Campbell was using it. I don’t think anybody really knows what it means, aside from having a rough impression that it’s bad.

Here’s a column I wrote musing about the phrase years ago…

And here’s a column Cindi Scoppe wrote on this “ethics” legislation. An excerpt:

After failing for more than half the session even to introduce their proposal on legislators’ top to-do item, House leaders rolled out a place-holder bill on April 11 that contained nothing but the bill title. They scheduled a subcommittee meeting for the next legislative day, last Tuesday, where House Republican Leader Bruce Bannister, who chairs the Constitutional Law Subcommittee, handed members of his panel a summary and a 100-page amendment that would become the bill.

Panel members discussed the items on the summary — decriminalization was not on the list — made some changes and approved the bill before they had a chance to read it. (It took me nearly three hours to do what I consider a cursory reading.) The process repeated the next day in the full Judiciary Committee, whose members also made changes without having time to read the bill. The text of the bill wasn’t posted online until Thursday evening, seven hours after the committee formally reported it to the House.

Although it’s common for the amended version of a bill not to be available until the next step in the process, I can’t recall a bill ever making it to full committee, much less the full House, before some version was available.

The process was so confusing that Rep. James Smith, a Democrat who serves on the subcommittee, told me Thursday morning that the bill increased penalties for the worst ethics violations. The next day, he called to say he was outraged to discover he was wrong — and to promise to lead a fight to restore them. GOP Rep. Rick Quinn, who also serves on the subcommittee, emailed me an amendment he planned to offer that would do what both men had thought the bill did — increase the current criminal penalties…

Yeah, I had spoken with James, last Tuesday night I think it was, when he was fresh from the meeting alluded to above, and he thought it was a good bill. It’s a good thing that he recognized his mistake…

Laurin Manning on Mark ‘Poor Me’ Sanford

20 Replies

The Washington Post‘s “Post Partisan” blog brought my attention to something I had missed — that our own Laurin Manning was back in the SC blogosphere. Jonathan Capehart of the Post quoted what Laurin had to say about Mark Sanford’s ridiculously narcissistic full-page advert in the Charleston paper over the weekend. As Laurin wrote:

On Sunday, just days after the horrific Boston Marathon bombings and subsequent events that left three people dead, hundreds wounded, and a nation in shock — and just days after the explosion of a Texas fertilizer plant that killed thirteen people and injured hundreds more — Mark Sanford bought a full-page newspaper ad in the print version of Charleston’sPost & Courier to tell us just what a bad week *he* had.soapbox

In his 1,265-word, quintessentially Sanfordian screed, the former governor and Republican nominee for South Carolina’s First Congressional District begins, “It’s been a rough week….”

Yep, that sounds like Mark Sanford, all right. The poor guy. It’s a wonder he wasn’t invited to speak at one of the funerals of the Boston bombing victims. He could have really cheered up the mourners by saying, “You think this is bad? Let me tell you about my week…”

Anyway, it’s great to see that Laurin — one of my very first blogging friends — is back on the job after a nearly two-year hiatus. Here’s how she announced her return last month:

It’s been a while, y’all. Almost two years! I stopped writing when I moved to Washington, DC to work at a software company called Salsa Labs and then at a Democratic organization called American Bridge through the 2012 election. Back in South Carolina figuring out what’s next — hopefully something around these parts. Don’t know how much writing I’ll have time to do on here, so I’m not making any promises, but we’ll see…

Well, I hope we will see. Here’s hoping she sticks around longer than she did after her last return. Welcome back, Laurin!

PPP shows Colbert Busch leading Sanford by 9 points

7 Replies

Some fascinating number have just been put out by Public Policy Polling:

PPP’s newest poll on the special election in South Carolina finds Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch expanding her lead to 9 points over Mark Sanford at 50/41. Green Party candidate Eugene Platt polls at 3%.

Colbert Busch’s lead is on the rise for several reasons. She has a 51/35 advantage with independents. She’s winning over 19% of Republicans, while losing just 7% of Democrats. And it also seems that after last week’s revelations about Sanford that a lot of GOP voters are planning to just stay at home- while the district supported Mitt Romney by 18 points last fall, those planning to turn out for the special election voted for him by only a 5 point spread.

Sanford continues to be unpopular in the district with 38% of voters rating him favorably to 56% with a negative opinion. 51% say the revelations about his trespassing last week give them doubts about his fitness for public office. Interestingly the events of the last week haven’t hurt Sanford too much with Republicans though- 65% say the trespassing charges don’t give them any doubts about him, and his favorability with GOP voters has actually improved from 55/39 a month ago to now 61/32…

Before, the difference was within the margin of error. Now, if this poll is indicative, Elizabeth Colbert Busch has a real and perhaps expanding lead.

Earlier, Gina Smith (whom you will recall as the reporter who caught Sanford getting off the flight from Argentina, back when she was with The State), had raised the question, “Will Republican women stay home on Election Day after Sanford trespass charge?” Perhaps this new poll helps answer that question…

Except… wait a minute… in this poll, there is no gender gap. The Democrat is favored by 51 percent of women, and 49 percent of men (the margin of error for the full sample is 3.5 percent). And the exact same percentage of both men and women — 41 percent — support Sanford.

So much for this being about what women think of him…

DCCC’s Appalachian Trail advert

7 Replies

The national Republican Party has washed its hands of Mark Sanford — but the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is firmly in the corner of his opponent, Elizabeth Colbert-Busch,

As evidenced by the ad above.

Meanwhile, some Republicans seem to be worrying about their association with Sanford even if he wins. The concern seems to be that he would further damage their reputation with women, either way.

In that vein I share the below interview with Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board.

NRCC won’t support Sanford candidacy

12 Replies

If you were wondering whether the allegation that Mark Sanford trespassed at his wife’s house would have an effect on the special election in the 1st Congressional District, the answer is “yes:”

National Republicans are pulling the plug on Mark Sanford’s suddenly besieged congressional campaign, POLITICO has learned — a potentially fatal blow to the former South Carolina governor’s dramatic comeback bid.

Blindsided by news that Sanford’s ex-wife has accused him of trespassing and concluding he has no plausible path to victory, the National Republican Congressional Committee has decided not to spend more money on Sanford’s behalf ahead of the May 7 special election.

National Republicans are pulling the plug on Mark Sanford’s suddenly besieged congressional campaign, POLITICO has learned — a potentially fatal blow to the former South Carolina governor’s dramatic comeback bid.

Blindsided by news that Sanford’s ex-wife has accused him of trespassing and concluding he has no plausible path to victory, the National Republican Congressional Committee has decided not to spend more money on Sanford’s behalf ahead of the May 7 special election.

Ow. That’s gotta hurt.

I’m starting to think that in spite of that being a GOP seat since 1980, and despite the district being even more Republican after the last reapportionment, Elizabeth Colbert Busch now has a very real chance of winning.

Haley poll results: Up or down? No, statistically the same…

4 Replies

First, I saw this release from the state Democratic Party:

Columbia – Today, Winthrop University released its latest public polling data showing that once again, the majority of South Carolinians do not approve of the job Governor Nikki Haley is doing. The Governor made meager gains from within her Republican base but continues to turn off moderates in South Carolina with her politics before people approach that is standing in the way of creating 44,000 jobs by expanding health care, and is costing South Carolina’s taxpayers millions of dollars as a result of the corruption and dysfunction in the state government. The poll also contained bad news for the governor who got elected on a Tea Party wave and consistently chooses to put Tea-Party politics ahead of sound policy – the approval rating for the Tea Party continues to wan with only a quarter of respondents approving of the Governor’s Tea Party movement.

Then, I went back and looked at the news story, which said the opposite:

By ANDREW SHAIN — [email protected]

COLUMBIA — A pair of major 2014 candidates in South Carolina watched opinions about them go in different directions in a new poll released Wednesday.

Gov. Nikki Haley’s job approval is rising among voters — especially those in her Republican party, while U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham saw his support within the GOP falter over the past two months, according to a new Winthrop University poll…

So was she down or up? Well, while both reports were technically true, the reality is that statistically speaking, the level of support for Haley is the same as it’s been. The reported shift is within the margin of error:

Haley’s approval rating among South Carolinians rose to 43.5 percent, up a percentage point from two months ago.

The first-term Republican scores 45 percent among registered voters — also up a percentage point and the fourth straight gain in the past year of Winthrop polls.

More than one in three does not like the governor’s performance in office.

But Haley’s popularity among Republicans rose two percentage points to 69 percent since February — a high in two years of Winthrop polls…

The poll’s margin of error among registered voters was 3.5 percent.

Also… while Haley was “up” and Graham was “down,” Graham is still doing better than the governor is among all voters — although again, the difference between them is less than the margin of error:

His approval among registered voters dropped four percentage points to 44 percent in the past two months and slid among all South Carolinians two percentage points to 45 percent…

The most significant change for Graham was among Republicans, dropping “57.5 percent from 71.6 percent in February.”

Oh, by the way, though — if you think Graham’s numbers are bad, Tim Scott has a 38-percent approval rating among all voters, and 54 percent among Republicans.

So, let’s try to keep everything in perspective.

More to the point, Yours Truly would be disenfranchised

7 Replies

My attention was just now drawn to this website devoted to saving the SC GOP presidential preference primary:

Are you a South Carolina Republican? If so, there’s an effort underway to take away your right to vote.

A small group of fringe activists, backed by special interest groups, are working to end our Republican primaries and replace them with nominations by convention. Thousands of us would be disenfranchised, allowing a select few power brokers to pick our Republican candidates.

We cannot let this happen. The only way to stop them is for you to take part in the South Carolina Republican Party re-organization process.

We are counting on YOU to help us Save Our Primary. There are only four simple steps:

  1. SIGN THE PLEDGE to show your support for our South Carolina Republican Primaries.
  2. WATCH THE VIDEO to see how the Republican Party Reorganization process works [view video].
  3. KNOW THE INFO that will allow you to take part in the process, including the dates and locations for your Precinct Meeting and County Convention.
  4. SPREAD THE WORD by sharing this page with other Republican voters in South Carolina.

Get started below…

Maybe the folks behind this site are worried about Republicans being disenfranchised, but that’s not the real problem. The real problem is that those of us who would rather watch Reality TV, or suffer some other terrible torture, than be identified with either party, would be disenfranchised.

Republicans would at least be free to seek slots as delegates to the convention. The rest of us wouldn’t have that option. And we would lose our chance to have a say in a decision that is our one chance to affect the outcome of presidential elections, since it is always a foregone conclusion which candidate will get out state’s electoral voted in the general.

All of that said, I’m only going to start worrying about this when I hear more from the supposed perpetrators of this outrage. I really have no idea of the extent to which this is an actual threat.

I particularly liked this Sheheen quote about Haley, Sanford

35 Replies

I thought this was good in The State‘s story about Vincent Sheheen running against Nikki Haley again. It quotes him as saying:

“The current administration and previous distraction have presented the same ideas and done the same things. It’s not just (about) Republican control, it’s this ideology of self-promotion and extremism that both Sanford and Haley have brought to the table that has occupied South Carolina’s government for 12 years.”

How very true. What he’s doing there is tapping into what so many Republicans (that is to say, the ones who’ve dealt with them) don’t much like about Nikki or Mark Sanford, either. They didn’t like that everything Mark Sanford did (from “look at me” stunts like bringing the pigs into the State House to his appearing on national FoxNews 46 times while fighting against stimulus funding) was about Mark Sanford, not about South Carolina or its Republican Party. If anything, Nikki Haley has taken that me-me-me approach to new depths.

So that was a highly relevant thing to take note of. I also like the reference to the Sanford administration as the “previous distraction.” It has the same tone of genteel disdain that I hear when South Carolinians speak of the 1860-65 conflict as “the recent unpleasantness.”

I hope to see more such perspicacity from young Mr. Sheheen this time around…

Sheheen makes it official: He’s running for governor again

17 Replies

I’ve been in meetings all day and haven’t been able even to stop and think about this, but I thought I’d put up a post so y’all can start commenting on it if you choose. Here’s a news story, and below is the release in its entirety:

Sheheen Takes Steps to Form Gubernatorial Campaign
State Senator & 2010 gubernatorial nominee says South Carolinians deserve better than status quo of failed and dysfunctional government
Camden – Today, state Sen. Vincent Sheheen announced that he is taking the steps necessary to establish a campaign for governor and asked his fellow South Carolinians for their support.
Sen. Sheheen, an attorney and businessman, pledged to be a governor focused on putting the people of South Carolina ahead of personal and partisan agendas.  He laid out his vision for moving South Carolina forward by promoting existing businesses within the state, focusing on public education, and restoring honesty in leadership to deliver results. He stressed the need for a change given the state’s high unemployment rate, challenged public-education system, sky-high tuition and the continued failures of the current leadership that have allowed corruption and incompetence in the administration and state government.
The full text of Sen. Sheheen’s email is below:
South Carolina is the greatest state in the union, with unlimited potential.  But let’s face it, the status quo is not working.
I want what you want – a South Carolina that our families, and the families of our children and grandchildren, can be successful in.  For South Carolina to succeed, we have to change. And we need change now!
That’s why today I’m taking steps to launch a campaign for governor.
Our state deserves better than the failed and dysfunctional government it has received from our current politicians. Now, we need leaders.
South Carolina has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, and has for the last 10 years. Under Governor Haley, more South Carolinians are having trouble finding work than people in other states, and our small businesses have been ignored.
South Carolina families pay the highest college tuition rates in the southeast and our families have a harder time achieving the American Dream than in almost any other state. Yet our current governor almost never talks about public education.
This administration’s dysfunction allowed hackers to steal the most personal and private information that more than three million of us have and the Governor has refused to apologize or take responsibility for it.
There’s a better way.
In the coming months, we’ll build our organization and officially launch the campaign this summer.  Three years ago, we came so very close to changing South Carolina for the better.  Now we can finish the job together.  I hope you will join us.
Together we can create stronger schools for all of our children, help small businesses grow and create jobs, and restore honesty to our state’s government.  We need a governor whose top priority is the people of South Carolina and not the politics of ideology and ambition. I pledge to you that I will be the kind of governor we so desperately need.
We will get there together. You can help us start today by contributing $500, $250, $100, $50, or whatever you can afford.
Today we start our journey to change South Carolina’s tomorrow.
I couldn’t be more excited, and I hope you are too!
Let’s believe again,
Vincent
Vincent Sheheen was the democratic nominee for governor in 2010 and came within 4 points of winning South Carolina in a Tea Party wave election. He was born and raised in rural Camden, South Carolina, where he still lives with his wife Amy and their sons Austin, Joseph and Anthony.
###

I’ll only add this for now: I appreciate Vincent stepping up to offer the voters of South Carolina a choice. Here’s hope that our people actually make a wise decision this time — something they haven’t done in quite a few years.

Steve Benjamin’s re-election campaign video

26 Replies

I sort of got stuck on the first sentence of this release:

Exactly three years ago today, we launched the ad that coined the phrase that defined the vision I had for our city’s future: One Columbia

That “launched the ad that coined the phrase that defined the vision” bit sounds kind of like it’s stuck in first gear,and reminds me of the line from “Swingers” about “the guy behind the guy behind the guy.”

Anyway, watch the video and see how many local celebs you can spot. In the first run-through, I saw ex-Sen. Kay Patterson, ex-Gov. Jim Hodges and Rep. James Smith. I’m sure I missed some.

Meanwhile…

I’m looking at an invitation to a reception on April 24 in support of challenger Moe Baddourah, hosted by Jack Sloan from my Rotary.

Looks like the race has begun…

Democrats quote Republicans about Sanford

4 Replies

I thought this release I got from SC Democrats sort of interesting. After saying,

As the general election begins in the First Congressional District, let’s all remember some of what Mark Sanford’s fellow Republicans had to say about the former governor:

… the release then quoted what some prominent Republicans said, mostly back in 2009. Here are some samples:

  • From a letter signed by 60 House Republicans: “After much thought, consideration and discussion, the Republican Caucus of the South Carolina House of Representatives feels obligated to send you this letter requesting your resignation as the Governor of South Carolina.”
  • Then-Sen. Jim DeMint: “He’s dropped the flag…”
  • Then- Rep. Nikki Haley, after praising Sanford’s ideology: “However, another component is behaving in a manner that allows people to trust in their public officials and feel good about their government. Obviously, the governor has fallen far short in that regard and that is extremely unfortunate…”
  • Sen. Harvey Peeler: “We cannot let the Governor’s personal life overshadow his public responsibility, or in this case, his negligence of gubernatorial authority.”

There was one thing from 2013 — a piece by Ann Coulter, that really ripped the ex-gov:

The Republican Party owes Sanford nothing. He had a chance and he blew it. National Review wasted five years of cover stories on how awesome he was, but he never accomplished anything of substance.

He showed off about getting his hair done at Super Cuts, sleeping in his office in Congress and not turning on the air conditioning in the governor’s mansion. He wore the same pair of shoes for 30 years — they’ve been re-soled 70 times!

Big deal. He saved taxpayers $300 in petty cash, but he didn’t implement any lasting reforms.

The most memorable thing Sanford did in his entire life was to make himself a laughingstock as governor by running off with his Argentine honey and then going on TV to announce — in front of his wife and children — “I’ve fallen in love!”

Republicans need to be like Luca Brasi and tell Sanford: “You screwed up; we didn’t do anything to you. Have fun, I’m sure Maria’s fantastic, but you can’t run for Congress.”…

Those Dems are getting diabolically clever…

So we have Mark Sanford for at least another five weeks

53 Replies

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.

Who were these ‘amateurs’ who, according to Sanford and Bostic, founded this country?

61 Replies
Declaration_independence

The five-man committee presents its draft of the Declaration to Congress.

Let’s knock down a myth, shall we? I hope you don’t mind if I choose one that is particularly near and dear to the anti-government crowd.

In a debate last night, on the eve of their runoff contest today, Curtis Bostic quoted from a book written by Mark Sanford, as follows: “America was a country founded by political amateurs.” (And no, I don’t know why he said “America was” instead of “America is,” and I’m not going to go back and read the whole book to find out.)

Bostic was attempting to gain moral advantage here, you see. His point was to claim that he is the amateur, and Sanford the “career politician” (a term that in certain political circles is a grave insult).

Quoth Bostic:

I am the ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.’ I’m the amateur, like those people who founded this nation of ours. I am not looking for a career. I am not looking for somewhere to go. I want to serve you.”

Set aside the fact that Ms. Bostic has served on Charleston County Council for eight years, or the more obvious fact that he is looking to go somewhere — Washington. I’m perfectly willing to grant that he has spent fewer years in public office than his opponent. Although I’ll say in Sanford’s behalf that although he’s been in the public sphere since the early 1990s, he has learned almost nothing from the experience. If that elevates him in your estimation. It doesn’t in mine.

I don’t care about which of them is the least knowledgeable and experienced; let them fight it out.

What I want to ask is, Who were those amateurs “who founded this nation of ours”? Although I majored in history with a particular concentration in that period, I’m having trouble coming up with the names.

Of course, there were a lot of founders, and as a blogger with a day job, I don’t have time at the moment to look them all up. But let’s start with the core nation-founders. Let’s consider the three best-known members of the committee that the Continental Congress appointed to write the Declaration of Independence:

  1. Thomas Jefferson — He was the youngest and least-experienced of the group. But he had served in the Virginia legislative body from 1769 to 1775. He had established himself as a sufficiently compelling writer in the realm of political ideas that John Adams particularly wanted him on the committee.
  2. John Adams — His public career was launched in opposition to the Stamp Act in 1765. He became known at that time for drafting the instructions for delegates from Braintree to take to the Massachusetts legislature, which served as a model for other communities. He represented the British soldiers accused in the Boston “Massacre,” and got all of them off except for two convicted on lesser charges (as he should have). Going into the ’70s his reputation as the go-to guy for presenting political arguments only grew. It was quite natural that he would do the heavy lifting when the debate over independence came, as he had extensive experience making related arguments in the public sphere. He served Massachusetts in both the First and Second Continental Congresses.
  3. Benjamin Franklin — Known for many enterprises, he had been involved in politics for about three decades. Starting in the 1740s, he had served on Philadelphia city council, a justice of the peace, as a delegate to the Pennsylvania assembly, as head of the PA delegation to the Albany Congress, and as deputy postmaster-general for North America. He had proposed a Plan of Union for the colonies as early as 1754.

Neither of the other two members of the committee — Roger Sherman or Robert Livingston — was a political novice, either. And they went on, alas, to have extensive public careers.

After the Declaration, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin served their countries, as ambassadors and presidents, for the rest of their productive lives — rather than going home to run a shop or whatever virtuous, private thing “amateurs” do after founding countries.

If one of y’all has the time to research all the other Founders, let us know what you find. I need to get back to work. But if you find that a majority was inexperienced in public life, Ill be surprised.

PPP provides another reason to think Dem could win in 1st

18 Replies

Add this to the list I gave you of reasons as to why Elizabeth Colbert-Busch might (and I continue to stress “might”) have a chance of winning in the 1st Congressional District, which has been Republican since 1980:

Raleigh, N.C. – PPP’s first look at the special election in South Carolina’s 1st
Congressional District finds a toss up race. Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch leads
Republican Mark Sanford 47-45 and ties Curtis Bostic at 43.download
This is a Republican leaning district and Barack Obama’s approval rating in it is only
41% with 57% of voters disapproving of him. But Democrats are far more unified than
the Republicans are. Busch is winning 87-89% of the Democratic vote while Sanford
(76%) and Busch (72%) are both earning less than 80% of the GOP vote. Busch is also
up by 16-18 points with independent voters.
Sanford remains a strong favorite for the Republican nomination heading into next
week’s runoff. He leads Bostic 53/40. The horse race numbers closely mirror his
favorability with GOP voters- 55% see him positively to 40% with a negative opinion.
Focusing in on the potential race between Busch and Sanford it’s surprisingly close for
one simple reason- voters like Busch and they continue to strongly dislike Sanford. 45%
of voters see Busch favorably to only 31% with a negative opinion. On the other hand
Sanford is still stuck with a 34% favorability rating and 58% of voters seeing him in a
negative light….

There are a lot of Republicans (especially those who had to deal with him in the State House) who already don’t much like Mark Sanford. If his insistence on getting back into the ring costs them this seat, they’ll have another reason not to count him among their faves.

Grooms concedes in 1st District GOP primary

4 Replies

Rather than clinging to the hope of a recount, Larry Grooms is conceding in the 1st Congressional District GOP primary:

LARRY GROOMS ISSUES CAMPAIGN STATEMENT

Charleston, SC – Larry Grooms issued the following statement about the 1st Congressional Primary Election results and the pending recount:

“By a voting margin of less than 1%, my plans to represent South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District have ended.

1 Thessalonians 5 teaches us that we should give thanks in all things. While there is great disappointment for coming so very close in such an incredibly difficult election, there is no doubt cause to give thanks and rejoice.

For instance, in a very crowded field, being massively outspent and with a fraction of the news coverage as others – we can rejoice knowing our campaign brought much-needed attention to the serious issues facing South Carolina and the nation. While many continue to ignore spending problems in Washington, pay lip service to the debt crises and show disdain for morality – our campaign was able to remind the people about the principles and freedoms that made this country great. In fact, what we accomplished despite the odds shows the power of united conservative front. I approached the campaign just as I approach my job as your State Senator – ever striving to unite conservatives and lead others to the conservative cause. That’s a major reason for my success in Columbia, and that’s the very reason way we came so close in this election. When we, as conservatives, fight together on the local, state or national level we succeed.

I am truly thankful to serve in this wonderful Senate district and it’s a job I take very seriously. I pledge to continue fighting for conservatism at the state level by working to protect the taxpayers’ money and their values with every single vote.

I will forever be indebted to my family, friends, supporters and volunteers who sacrificed more for me than I will ever be able to repay. The kindness and generosity of those who believe in my fight for freedom and liberty is overwhelming and I am humbly grateful.

In a special note to my bride of 30 years Carol, I could not and would not have done this without her by my side. Next to the Lord, she is my rock and the constant cause for joy in my life.

To the possibility of a recount, as I understand it, the state Election Commission will begin an automatic recount as outlined by state law – and I will be the ‘official’ third place finisher in the race. I wish Gov. Mark Sanford and Curtis Bostic all the best. Like all the candidates and office holders across America, they too will constantly be in my prayers.”

-30-

That sort of surprised me. He ran so hard, I figured he’d want to hold out a little longer.