Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Washington Post's Chris Cillizza Calls Mark Sanford 'Turd In Political Punch Bowl'
NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

Posted on 04/03/2013 10:35:22 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest

I find that the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza usually plays things pretty much down the middle, and subscribe to his Fix email blast.

So it came as an unpleasant surprise to find in my inbox a little while ago a Cillizza email, linking to his current Fix column, tthat referred to Mark Sanford as "the turd in the political punch bowl."

View the screengrab here.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: chriscillizza; elizabethbusch; marksanford; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; sanford; southcarolina; stephencolbert; turd; washingtonpost
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last
This is the header and the first few lines of the email I received from Cillizza.


1 posted on 04/03/2013 10:35:22 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; Behind Liberal Lines; Miss Marple; an amused spectator; Diogenesis; MEG33; PGalt; ...

Keep it classy, Cillizza. Ping to Today show list.


2 posted on 04/03/2013 10:35:55 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (FReepmail or ping me to be put on my ping list for criticism of liberal media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
... the turd in the political punch bowl ...

Yea, I remember Cillizza saying the same thing about BJ Clinton and his Monica moment .... oh, wait ....


3 posted on 04/03/2013 10:38:41 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

It is pretty embarrassing that conservatives actually nominated this guy. Sanford is pretty much still a national joke, and this makes it pretty clear “values voters” can be complete hypocrites. If Democrats did this we’d be laughing at them and relishing the chance to steal a seat away. This is just pathetic and sad.


4 posted on 04/03/2013 10:38:54 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Ok, but Sanford is a turd.


5 posted on 04/03/2013 10:39:06 AM PDT by brownsfan (Behold, the power of government cheese.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

But horndog Bill Clinton is a statesman?


6 posted on 04/03/2013 10:39:18 AM PDT by abb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

In this case I HOPE that the Dem wins. This STUPID “distict” deserves what they GET!


7 posted on 04/03/2013 10:46:16 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Actually mark Stanford is in reality not “the turd in the political punch bowl” but just one of the multitude of turds floating in the political punch bowl.


8 posted on 04/03/2013 10:50:45 AM PDT by Tupelo (Old, Bald, Ugly, Fat and Broke in Arizona)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
When Clinton was playing with cigars and then lied about it Free Republic was up in arms. FReepers cited ethics and morality. We said a politicians personal life DOES matter. We said if his wife can't trust him, how can we?

Then we have John Edwards married to a dying and abusive woman. We cursed his lack of morality and ate his lunch.

Then along comes Sanford.............

9 posted on 04/03/2013 10:55:29 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
Sanford is pretty much still a national joke, and this makes it pretty clear “values voters” can be complete hypocrites.

Not all Republicans are "values voters". It's a coalition. And values candidates can lose in the general. While some prefer to lose with candidates like Mourdock and Akin, others prefer to win with candidates like Lugar and Sanford. We'll see about Sanford, but I suspect he's got a better than even chance in the general, damaged goods though he is. It's not as if the Democrat is going to be better on values-type issues, however personally unblemished he/she might be - Democrats supported Slick Willy pretty much in lockstep during his impeachment.

10 posted on 04/03/2013 11:00:51 AM PDT by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
So those of us who voted against him are stupid too? In the primary there were 16 candidates running, way too many for all but us most hardened voters. Democrats crossovers were out in force. Voter apathy it at it's highest level ever because after Obama, many don't believe their vote matters anymore. I'm starting to lean that way.

The constant bombardment of political calls for that election was the most I can remember. Almost put me off voting at all.

11 posted on 04/03/2013 11:01:23 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (Liberals make unrealistic demands on reality and reality doesn't oblige them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

Actually, the Democrat might be a horndog - in most cases, we’ll never know, since the media doesn’t generally investigate Democrats. After all, John Edwards got away with conducting an affair while running mate with Kerry under the supposed klieg lights of a presidential campaign.


12 posted on 04/03/2013 11:03:16 AM PDT by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
Thanks, but I'm afraid Chuck Schumer has already claimed that title.

Try again.

13 posted on 04/03/2013 11:14:21 AM PDT by Gritty (Our masters in Washington are afraid of a populace which cannot be subdued by tyrants-Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

I don’t really care what any partisan reporter says.

I’m not a partisan, and Sanford, while he might be a nice man, seriously injured his brand, and he shouldn’t be running. His campaign is an in-your-face to what we believe in.

I couldn’t care less if he’s reformed, recanted, or rejuvenated. His action was one of betrayal, and that makes 2 years and a public appearance hardly the time he needs to put his personal foibles in line.

Sanford’s fiasco says someone should run a viable 3rd party candidate against him.

In South Carolina, a congressional district is limited enough in size to allow a real campaign to be run by a low money candidate.


14 posted on 04/03/2013 11:15:13 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
It is pretty embarrassing that conservatives actually nominated this guy. Sanford is pretty much still a national joke, and this makes it pretty clear “values voters” can be complete hypocrites. If Democrats did this we’d be laughing at them and relishing the chance to steal a seat away. This is just pathetic and sad.

+1

15 posted on 04/03/2013 11:16:02 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xzins

The Argentine puta wouldn’t stay with him if he didn’t stay in politics. The greatest social climber since Cinderella.


16 posted on 04/03/2013 11:17:08 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult; P-Marlowe

16 candidates. That’s criminal abuse of a system to permit a shyster to come to the front.

We really need a run-off system in our primaries between the 2 top vote getters unless the high has over 50%. I think Louisiana has one.

Same with the presidential elections.

see #14


17 posted on 04/03/2013 11:21:05 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

“Then along comes Sanford.”

Yep, and he is indeed a turd in the punch bowl. Totally disgusting human being. So now the dumbass voters in his district have a “choice” between a turd and a Commie. Personally, in such a case, I’d hold my nose and vote for the turd, but would really, really hate myself when I woke up the next morning.


18 posted on 04/03/2013 11:22:12 AM PDT by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“Sanford’s fiasco says someone should run a viable 3rd party candidate against him.

In South Carolina, a congressional district is limited enough in size to allow a real campaign to be run by a low money candidate.”


I’m sure that Stephen Colbert’s sister, who is the liberal Democrat running for the seat, would be happy to send some cash to fund an independent conservative candidate.

Mark Sanford cheated on his wife and lied about it, but he had a 95%-100% conservative record in Congress and the governorship, and his Democrat opponent will cast votes that are diametrically opposed to everything in which we believe. I don’t think the choice in the general election is at all difficult.

The time to defeat Sanford was in the primary, but no first-tier challenger came forward, and he finished first in the first round and easily won the run-off. If you want to get rid of Sanford, get Paul Thurmond or somebody esle who can win to run in the 2014 primary, but don’t give the seat to the Democrats to prove a point.


19 posted on 04/03/2013 11:24:07 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: catnipman

We keep voting for compromise/lesser of two evils candidates and we keep losing. It doesn’t work.


20 posted on 04/03/2013 11:26:00 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
Mark Sanford cheated on his wife and lied about it

He was also AWOL. His staff said they had no idea where he was. That is unacceptable.

Either we believe what we have said about Clinton, Edwards and Weiner or we don't. Are we hypocrites or Conservatives?

21 posted on 04/03/2013 11:28:21 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; P-Marlowe

Disagree wholeheartedly.

Again, we play the stupid game with multitudes of candidates. There should be a runoff before I’m satisfied that this disloyal man is really the conservative choice.

I also disagree that in a limited congressional district that a 3rd party candidate cannot rise to the top.

In fact, the Constitution Party made a major miscalculation this last election with Virgil Goode. He should have run for his old congressional seat.

Besides, no 3rd party candidate will EVER take the presidency, even if he wins a plurality of the vote, because that throws the election to the Electoral College, and they require a 50% vote. It then goes to the House, and without a meaty congressional representation, any 3rd party is toast.

So, the place to start is congressional districts and lower.

BTW, our even discussing this is evidence that Sanford is injuring the conservative brand.


22 posted on 04/03/2013 11:33:15 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
When Clinton was playing with cigars and then lied about it Free Republic was up in arms.

We all got to vote for or against Clinton, we certainly did not have the same option with Sanford. I doubt any Clinton era Freepers would ever vote for Sanford for anything.

23 posted on 04/03/2013 11:54:37 AM PDT by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan

Not feeling sorry. Sanford is a lowdown cheat and whoremonger like BJ Clinton, John Edwards and teddy Kennedy. I don’t expect anything but jeers and taunts because the voters in charleston invited it.


24 posted on 04/03/2013 11:57:08 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“16 candidates. That’s criminal abuse of a system to permit a shyster to come to the front.

We really need a run-off system in our primaries between the 2 top vote getters unless the high has over 50%.”


Yeah, South Carolina really should adopt a run-off if no one gets 50%+1 in the primary.

Oh, wait, SC has had such a system for years, and, in fact, Sanford finished first in the first round, and won the run-off yesterday by like 15%. So you can check that one off your to-do list for the SC legislature.

For the record, I agree with you that every state should have run-offs if no one gets 50%+1 (or maybe 40%+1, which is how NC does it) in the primary. Such a system will ensure that the candidate supported by a majority of the district’s Republicans gets the Republican nomination. In the case of the SC-01 in 2013, that happened to be Mark Sanford, but maybe it will be Paul Thurmond in 2014.


25 posted on 04/03/2013 11:57:22 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: xzins
There should be a runoff before I’m satisfied that this disloyal man is really the conservative choice.

There was a runoff, Sanford won. He's the "conservative choice" for this district. This is South Carolina "values voters" territory, and the people marched off to the polls and nominated this cheating retread. It's an R+11 district smack dab in the middle of the bible belt.

BTW, our even discussing this is evidence that Sanford is injuring the conservative brand.

You're right, he is. But now Sanford is the nominee, and we're going to have to fight to elect him since he will be a million times better than the liberal Democrat alternative - at least when it comes to how he votes on the issues. And no, a 3rd party isn't going to work here. There isn't enough time anyway since the special election is in 5 weeks.

26 posted on 04/03/2013 11:58:55 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
I doubt any Clinton era Freepers would ever vote for Sanford for anything.

We certainly have some FReepers defending voting for him. It would be a fear vote and not a principle vote but, unfortunately, we've been doing that since "President" McCain. It doesn't work. We HAVE to draw a line somewhere.

27 posted on 04/03/2013 11:59:50 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969; xzins
But now McCain Romney Sanford is the nominee, and we're going to have to fight to elect him since he will be a million times better than the liberal Democrat alternative
28 posted on 04/03/2013 12:02:12 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

“He was also AWOL. His staff said they had no idea where he was. That is unacceptable.”


I agree, that is unacceptable. But voting for the Obama agenda is even more unacceptable, and that’s what we’d get if the Democrat wins.

There was a primary, and after Sanford announced his intention to seek the seat, 15 other Republicans ran, albeit none other that were truly first-tier candidates. Enough of the SC-01 Republican voters were willing to forgive Sanford to have him finish first by a mile in the first round and then win the run-off (against the second-place finisher in the first round) by like 15%.

“Either we believe what we have said about Clinton, Edwards and Weiner or we don’t. Are we hypocrites or Conservatives?”


If we did not forgive those who have shown repentance and contrition, we would not be very good Christians. None of the three Democrat scumbags you mentioned expressed much remorse for what they did, and they certainly did not begin acting in a way that showed they were turning over a new leaf.


29 posted on 04/03/2013 12:05:26 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
I don’t think the choice in the general election is at all difficult.

We must vote for Romney no matter what his record, because his opponent is much, much worse.

Ooops, wrong thread;

30 posted on 04/03/2013 12:08:45 PM PDT by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
But voting for the Obama agenda is even more unacceptable, and that’s what we’d get if the Democrat wins.

That's a fear vote. Name the compromise candidates that have won since President McCain, up to and beyond President Romney. They can be state candidates.

If we did not forgive those who have shown repentance and contrition

You mean he reconciled the covenant that he made with his wife instead of following his hormones?

31 posted on 04/03/2013 12:08:56 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Just like Mark Steyn said about the 2012 GOP Potus contest:

there’s no doubt we’ll have a terribly flawed candidate and it’s up to us to drag him across the finish line a winner.

didn’t happen obviously, but the principle applies

The Dems are putting on a huge push for 2014 converting OFA to a congressional campaign organization. We may need every seat we can get, even ones occupied by snakes.


32 posted on 04/03/2013 12:12:48 PM PDT by nascarnation (Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation
didn’t happen obviously, but the principle applies

It's never happened. When is it time to quit trying and do something different? Acting out of fear is not a strong position. Neither is compromise when you lose. Every time.

33 posted on 04/03/2013 12:17:14 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

No more of a turd than Bill Clinton


34 posted on 04/03/2013 12:18:13 PM PDT by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jersey117

Ahh the old “Everybody Does It” defense.


35 posted on 04/03/2013 12:18:42 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; P-Marlowe; DJ MacWoW; Longbow1969
Although you are correct about the runoff, it bears noticing that in the runoff, it appears that far fewer voted than in the special, and that Sanford himself received far fewer votes than he did previously.

This sounds like serious dissatisfaction, and maybe even a huge voter discouragement campaign, if someone were to ask me.

So, in reality, it can be argued that Sanford did NOT get anywhere 60% of the vote, given that in the previous election 19,000 was only 36% of the vote. That suggests that 11,000 is closer to 30% of the vote.

Can you spell trouble in River City...?

I would also say that someone very carefully split that special election vote into a fragmented mess. Intentional? My vote would be "yes".

2013 Republican Primary Runoff - South Carolina's 1st Congressional District Special Election[28]
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Republican Mark Sanford 11,387 60.76 N/A
Republican Curtis Bostic 7,355 39.24 N/A

2013 Republican Primary - South Carolina's 1st Congressional District Special Election[27]
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Republican Mark Sanford 19,854 36.91% N/A
Republican Curtis Bostic 7,168 13.33% N/A
Republican Larry Grooms 6,673 12.40% N/A
Republican Teddy Turner 4,252 7.90% N/A
Republican Andy Patrick 3,783 7.03% N/A
Republican John Kuhn 3,479 6.47% N/A
Republican Chip Limehouse 3,279 6.10% N/A
Republican Ray Nash 2,508 4.66% N/A
Republican Peter McCoy 867 1.61% N/A
Republican Elizabeth Moffly 530 0.99% N/A
Republican Tim Larkin 393 0.73% N/A
Republican Jonathan Hoffman 360 0.67% N/A
Republican Jeff King 211 0.39% N/A
Republican Keith Blandford 195 0.36% N/A
Republican Shawn Pinkston 154 0.29% N/A
Republican Ric Bryant 87 0.16% N/A

36 posted on 04/03/2013 12:19:02 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Mark Sanford will beat the Democrat....this is why Chris is pissed and should keep on being pissed

I could care less if Mark Sanford is a disgrace just so long as he beats the D-Rat


37 posted on 04/03/2013 12:21:03 PM PDT by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

But they loved Clinton.


38 posted on 04/03/2013 12:21:41 PM PDT by AppyPappy (You never see a massacre at a gun show.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

South Carolina: too small to be a republic, too large to be an insane asylum.


39 posted on 04/03/2013 12:22:08 PM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

I’ll vote for the Republican snake like Sanford any day over the Democrat snake. Sanford will pick up the adulterer vote which is large these days.


40 posted on 04/03/2013 12:25:33 PM PDT by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

“If the moral character of a people once degenerate, their political character must soon follow…..These considerations should lead to an attentive solitude…to be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers…. and judge of the tree by its fruits.” Elias Boudinot - Patriot


Click The Pic

Support Conservatism, Donate Monthly If You Can

41 posted on 04/03/2013 12:29:48 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Yeah, the powers of the SC GOP set us up, again. Can we know the names of his handlers and donors? Who is Sanford going to owe going into his seat in congress? Hope breitbart finds that out.


42 posted on 04/03/2013 12:43:43 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

I’m going to give Colbert what help I can think of to give. I hope republican Sanford loses so he and his disgusting Latin chippie will get themselves out of SC and back to her Buenos Aires cathouse.


43 posted on 04/03/2013 12:47:30 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Shoot, I’m waiting for the punch! They are all turds!


44 posted on 04/03/2013 1:26:03 PM PDT by vpintheak (Occupy your Brain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb
But horndog Bill Clinton is a statesman?

Is he really a horndog? Or just a dog?

Most likely a rat terrier.

45 posted on 04/03/2013 1:56:57 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins; P-Marlowe; DJ MacWoW; Longbow1969

xzins, you posted the district-wide results for the first round, but the run-off results you posted are only for the Charleston County portion of the district, which portion Sanford indeed won with over 60% but with “only” 11,387 votes in favor:
http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/Charleston/46117/116028/en/summary.html

In the entire SC-01 (which also includes precincts in four other counties), Sanford won the run-off with 56.6%, with over 26,000 votes cast in his favor. http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/46107/116029/en/summary.html

So while there was a drop-off in the total turnout from the first round to the run-off—as is typical of run-offs, particularly when 14 candidates were eliminated after the first round—it wasn’t anywhere close to what you believed.

As for the fact that 16 candidates ran in the first round, that was only because 15 candidates believed they could finish in the top-two and have a chance of beating Sanford in the run-off. Believe me, they weren’t Sanford patsies; and even had they been Sanford patsies, Sanford faced only one candidate in the run-off, and beat him one-on-one with 56.6%.


46 posted on 04/03/2013 2:00:38 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
If we did not forgive those who have shown repentance and contrition ....

Like Jimmy Swaggart? Like Jim Bakker? Like Slick and Beast in their "Pretty in Pink No. 1" interview in 1992?

Guess we should keep that in mind for John Edwards, too, eh? He'll want to run again soon, I should think.

47 posted on 04/03/2013 2:02:54 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

The Democrats have their scoundrels and we have to elect a few of our own!!! Even up the score!


48 posted on 04/03/2013 2:22:47 PM PDT by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Mamzelle

Immoral men and scoundrels serve no one but themselves.


49 posted on 04/03/2013 2:29:38 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

Some conservatives wanted a scorched earth policy, Obama would take the country down, the nation would learn its lesson and true conservatism would rise from the ashes. I think that is a very dangerous gamble, it is better to vote for someone who is not as bad while working on changing the party from the ground up. At least voting for a *moderate* Republican would buy some time while the grass roots gets its act together.

Dumb voters are not any smarter when they are under dire circumstances. People panic and grab onto anything—remember how Hitler came to power after the Weimar Republic’s economic colapse.


50 posted on 04/03/2013 3:15:24 PM PDT by cradle of freedom (Long live the Republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson