Washington Post's Chris Cillizza Calls Mark Sanford 'Turd In Political Punch Bowl'

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[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.

[DJ MacWoW]

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?

[xzins]

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.

[itsahoot]

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.

[Mamzelle]

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.

[AuH2ORepublican]

“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.

[Longbow1969]

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.

[DJ MacWoW]

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.

[DJ MacWoW]

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

[AuH2ORepublican]

“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.

[itsahoot]

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;

[DJ MacWoW]

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?

[nascarnation]

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.

[DJ MacWoW]

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.

[jersey117]

No more of a turd than Bill Clinton

[dfwgator]

Ahh the old “Everybody Does It” defense.

[xzins]

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

[dennisw]

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

[AppyPappy]

But they loved Clinton.

[tanknetter]

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

[dennisw]

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.