Skip to comments.Washington Post's Chris Cillizza Calls Mark Sanford 'Turd In Political Punch Bowl'
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 ...
Keep it classy, Cillizza. Ping to Today show list.
Yea, I remember Cillizza saying the same thing about BJ Clinton and his Monica moment .... oh, wait ....
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.
Ok, but Sanford is a turd.
But horndog Bill Clinton is a statesman?
In this case I HOPE that the Dem wins. This STUPID “distict” deserves what they GET!
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.
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.............
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.
The constant bombardment of political calls for that election was the most I can remember. Almost put me off voting at all.
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.
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.
The Argentine puta wouldn’t stay with him if he didn’t stay in politics. The greatest social climber since Cinderella.
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.
“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.
“Sanfords 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.”
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.
We keep voting for compromise/lesser of two evils candidates and we keep losing. It doesn’t work.
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?
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.
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.
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.
“16 candidates. Thats 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%.”
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.
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.
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.
“He was also AWOL. His staff said they had no idea where he was. That is unacceptable.”
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?”
We must vote for Romney no matter what his record, because his opponent is much, much worse.
Ooops, wrong thread;
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?
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.
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.
No more of a turd than Bill Clinton
Ahh the old “Everybody Does It” defense.
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|
|2013 Republican Primary - South Carolina's 1st Congressional District Special Election|
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
But they loved Clinton.
South Carolina: too small to be a republic, too large to be an insane asylum.
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.
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.
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.
Shoot, I’m waiting for the punch! They are all turds!
Is he really a horndog? Or just a dog?
Most likely a rat terrier.
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:
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%.
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.
The Democrats have their scoundrels and we have to elect a few of our own!!! Even up the score!
Immoral men and scoundrels serve no one but themselves.
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.