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.
Try again.
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.
+1
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.
see #14
“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.
“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.”
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.
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.